Constitutional Memorandum to the President of the United States
Mr. President:
This memorandum respectfully presents what the author believes is an unresolved constitutional question concerning the relationship among the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Reconstruction Amendments, and the continuing responsibilities of the Executive Branch under Article II of the Constitution.
It does not ask the President to disregard the Constitution, the Congress, or the Supreme Court of the United States.
Nor does it ask the Executive Branch to create new law through executive order or executive action beyond its lawful constitutional authority.
Rather, it respectfully requests that the historical and constitutional record surrounding Reconstruction be reexamined through the combined evidence of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, President Andrew Johnson’s veto messages, the debates of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, the Reconstruction Amendments, and the subsequent development of constitutional jurisprudence.
The central proposition presented herein is that these historical materials should be examined as components of a single constitutional framework rather than as isolated legal events.
Whether that proposition ultimately proves correct is a matter for professional legal judgment.
The purpose of this memorandum is to request that those questions receive careful constitutional examination.
Accordingly, this memorandum respectfully presents two complementary constitutional avenues.
The first is the REHEAR Track.
To the extent permitted by law and the Rules of the Supreme Court, the memorandum respectfully submits that the historical and constitutional questions identified herein warrant careful consideration in determining whether further judicial review is appropriate concerning Case No. 25-365.
The second is the ENFORCE Track.
Separate from any judicial proceeding, the memorandum respectfully requests that the Executive Branch determine what continuing duties, if any, arise under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, subsequent Reconstruction legislation, and the President’s Article II responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.
The memorandum does not presume the answers.
It asks that the questions be examined.
Throughout these pages the author distinguishes between established constitutional text, historical evidence, judicial precedent, and his own constitutional interpretations. Where the memorandum advances conclusions not presently reflected in controlling judicial authority, those conclusions are expressly submitted for professional legal evaluation, refinement, confirmation where supported, correction where necessary, or rejection where the law requires.
The broader purpose of this memorandum extends beyond the circumstances of a single case.
It asks whether the constitutional work begun during Reconstruction has been fully understood and faithfully completed.
It asks whether the historical identity of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and its principal beneficiaries has received the constitutional attention it deserves.
It asks whether renewed constitutional literacy concerning Reconstruction may strengthen both the rule of law and national reconciliation.
As the United States commemorates the two hundred fiftieth anniversary of its founding, the author respectfully submits that the Nation has a unique opportunity to revisit one of the most consequential periods in its constitutional history with renewed seriousness, historical honesty, and fidelity to the rule of law.
This memorandum is therefore respectfully submitted for your consideration and for the consideration of all who share responsibility for preserving the constitutional inheritance of the American people.
Respectfully submitted,
Ted Hayes
Citizen Advocate
Independent Constitutional Researcher
July 2026