[Date]
Dear Counsel,
Thank you for taking the time to consider the enclosed memorandum entitled REHEAR AND ENFORCE: Constitutional Memorandum to the President of the United States.
I recognize that your time is valuable and that constitutional litigation demands careful attention to established precedent, statutory text, and historical authority. I therefore write with respect for your profession and with the understanding that I am not an attorney.
I am a citizen advocate who, over many years, has independently studied the constitutional history of Reconstruction, particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1866, President Andrew Johnson’s veto messages, the debates of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, and the relationship of those materials to the Fourteenth Amendment. Those years of study led me to prepare a pro se amicus submission in Case No. 25-365. Although that submission was not accepted for filing, it reflects the earlier development of the constitutional questions that have now been expanded and more carefully organized in the enclosed memorandum.
I do not ask you to accept my conclusions because they are mine.
I ask only that you examine the questions presented on their legal and historical merits.
Throughout the memorandum I have tried to distinguish between established constitutional text, historical evidence, judicial precedent, and my own interpretations. Where I advance an interpretation not reflected in controlling precedent, I have attempted to identify it as such and have invited professional examination rather than assumed correctness.
Artificial intelligence assisted me in organizing decades of research, improving clarity, locating historical materials, and helping distinguish settled law from interpretive argument. The underlying theories, however, remain my own, and I fully expect every proposition to be independently tested, verified, refined, corrected, or rejected where the law so requires.
The memorandum respectfully presents two related constitutional questions.
The first concerns whether the historical relationship among the Civil Rights Act of 1866, President Andrew Johnson’s vetoes, the Reconstruction Congress, and the Fourteenth Amendment deserves renewed legal examination in connection with the issues raised in Case No. 25-365.
The second concerns whether the Executive Branch should undertake a careful review of its continuing responsibilities under existing Reconstruction statutes and their modern statutory descendants.
I do not presume that either question has an obvious answer.
Indeed, one purpose of this submission is to ask those with greater legal training than mine to determine whether the questions themselves warrant further consideration.
If, after reviewing the memorandum, you conclude that its historical premises are mistaken, I would welcome knowing where and why. If you conclude that portions possess legal merit but require refinement, I would be equally grateful. And if you believe the memorandum identifies constitutional questions worthy of further professional attention, I respectfully ask that you consider how those questions might be presented in the most effective and legally responsible manner.
My objective has never been personal vindication.
It has always been constitutional understanding.
As our Nation marks its two hundred fiftieth anniversary, I believe there is value in examining whether the work begun during Reconstruction has been fully understood and faithfully completed. Whether my analysis ultimately proves persuasive is for others to determine. My hope is simply that the questions receive a fair hearing from those best equipped to evaluate them.
Thank you again for your time, your professional judgment, and your willingness to consider this submission. I appreciate the responsibility you bear as an officer of the court, and I offer this work in that same spirit of respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Respectfully,
Ted Hayes
Citizen Advocate
Independent Researcher