Concerning Case No. 25-365, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the President’s Article II Responsibilities
Prepared by
Ted Hayes
Citizen Advocate
Independent Constitutional Researcher
Version 1.0
July 2026
“The Constitution is not self-executing. It depends upon citizens and public officials alike to faithfully study, preserve, and execute its commands according to law.”
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Author’s Statement Regarding Method and Assistance
Executive Summary
PART I
Introduction
PART II
The Constitutional and Historical Foundation
PART III
President Andrew Johnson’s Vetoes and the Identity of the Civil Rights Act of 1866
PART IV
The Civil Rights Act of 1866
PART V
The Relationship Between the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment
PART VI
Reconstruction Jurisprudence: The Development of Supreme Court Interpretation
PART VII
Case No. 25-365: The Present Controversy and the Basis for Requesting Further Consideration
PART VIII
The REHEAR Track: Rule 44 and the Request for Further Judicial Consideration
PART IX
The ENFORCE Track: Article II, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the President’s Executive Responsibility
PART X
The Presidential Path Forward: Reconciliation, Constitutional Literacy, and the Completion of Reconstruction
PART XI
Requested Presidential Actions
PART XII
Conclusion
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Civil Rights Act of 1866
Appendix B
President Andrew Johnson’s Veto Messages
Appendix C
Selected Constitutional Provisions
Appendix D
Rule 44
Appendix E
Reconstruction Timeline
Appendix F
Selected Supreme Court Decisions
Appendix G
Author’s Earlier Submission Relating to Case No. 25-365
Appendix H
Author Biography
Appendix I
Bibliography
AUTHOR’S STATEMENT REGARDING METHOD AND ASSISTANCE
The author is not an attorney and does not present this memorandum as legal advice or as a substitute for representation by qualified counsel. The historical theories, constitutional questions, interpretive framework, and principal arguments presented here arose from the author’s decades of independent grassroots research, lived experience, civic advocacy, and study of Reconstruction-era legislation and history.
The author previously prepared and submitted a pro se amicus brief in Case No. 25-365, addressing substantially related constitutional and historical questions. Although that submission was not accepted for filing, it records the earlier development of several arguments now examined and expanded in this memorandum. It is identified here to preserve the specific identity, chronology, and continuity of the matter under review.
Artificial intelligence was used as a research and drafting aid to help organize the author’s ideas, translate them into a form more readily evaluated by legal professionals, identify relevant source materials, test reasoning, distinguish established law from disputed interpretation, and flag propositions requiring correction, qualification, affirmation, disavowal, or further professional review.
The author remains responsible for the substance of the theories advanced. No legal proposition, quotation, citation, or historical claim should be accepted merely because it was generated, organized, or reviewed with artificial-intelligence assistance. All such matters are respectfully submitted to qualified counsel for independent verification, legal analysis, refinement, correction, and determination of their proper use.
The author further submits this memorandum in the spirit of constitutional inquiry rather than constitutional certainty. Where this memorandum advances interpretations not presently reflected in controlling judicial decisions, those interpretations are expressly identified as the author’s constitutional analysis and are respectfully offered for professional examination, testing, refinement, confirmation where supported, correction where necessary, or rejection where the law requires.
The author respectfully requests that this memorandum be evaluated according to its historical evidence, legal reasoning, constitutional methodology, and fidelity to original source materials, rather than according to the author’s professional status.