Author name: Ted

This part should not read like a list of demands. It should read like an invitation. The Constitution entrusts different responsibilities to each branch of the National Government. Congress legislates. The Judiciary interprets. The Executive faithfully executes. Throughout this memorandum, the author has respectfully argued that the Reconstruction Congress enacted more than a series of …

PART X THE PRESIDENTIAL PATH FORWARD: RECONCILIATION, CONSTITUTIONAL LITERACY, AND THE COMPLETION OF RECONSTRUCTION Read More »

A. The Separate Constitutional Character of the ENFORCE Track The request for rehearing addressed in Part VIII concerns the authority of the Supreme Court to reconsider a judgment under its own rules. The ENFORCE Track concerns a different constitutional question. It asks what responsibilities belong to the President under Article II with respect to Acts …

PART IX THE ENFORCE TRACK: ARTICLE II, THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, AND THE PRESIDENT’S EXECUTIVE RESPONSIBILITY Read More »

A. The Purpose of a Petition for Rehearing The Rules of the Supreme Court recognize that, in extraordinary circumstances, a party may petition the Court for rehearing following the entry of judgment. Such petitions are not intended to provide a second opportunity to reargue matters previously presented merely because one party disagrees with the Court’s …

PART VIII THE REHEAR TRACK: RULE 44 AND THE REQUEST FOR FURTHER JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION Read More »

A. The Immediate Context of This Memorandum This memorandum was prepared in response to the constitutional issues raised by Case No. 25-365 and the questions concerning Reconstruction citizenship that the author believes remain unresolved following those proceedings. The author recognizes that courts decide only the issues properly presented and argued by the parties before them. …

PART VII CASE NO. 25-365: THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY AND THE BASIS FOR REQUESTING FURTHER CONSIDERATION Read More »

A. The Role of Judicial Precedent No constitutional analysis concerning Reconstruction can responsibly proceed without acknowledging the central role played by the Supreme Court in interpreting the Reconstruction Amendments and related legislation. Over the century and a half following Reconstruction, the Court has issued numerous decisions addressing citizenship, privileges and immunities, equal protection, due process, …

PART VI RECONSTRUCTION JURISPRUDENCE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUPREME COURT INTERPRETATION Read More »

A. The Constitutional Question Presented The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment were born of the same historical crisis. Both emerged from the aftermath of the Civil War. Both sought to secure the civil condition of persons newly emancipated from slavery. Both reflected Congress’s determination that the Union victory would be accompanied …

PART V THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 Read More »

A. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 as the Foundational Reconstruction Statute If the constitutional questions presented in this memorandum are to be fairly evaluated, the analysis must begin with the text enacted by the Thirty-Ninth Congress itself. Before examining later constitutional amendments or subsequent judicial decisions, one should first consider what Congress actually enacted …

Memo-Part IV: The Civil Rights Act of 1866: Text, Structure, Primary Subject Beneficiaries and Federal Enforcement Read More »

Constitutional Memorandum to the President of the United States Prepared for Executive and Legal Review Subject: Petition for Rehearing and Constitutional Enforcement Concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the President’s Article II Duties Case: Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365 Submitted by: Ted Hayes Citizen Advocate, Independent Researcher, and Author of …

MEMO – REHEAR and ENFORCE: Authors Statement Regarding Method and Assistance Read More »

A. The Evidentiary Purpose of the Veto Messages President Andrew Johnson’s veto messages do not control the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Congress rejected his objections and enacted the Civil Rights Act over his veto on April 9, 1866. His constitutional position therefore did not prevail. Nevertheless, the veto messages remain important …

Memo-Part III: PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON’S VETO MESSAGES AS CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTITUTIONAL EVIDENCE Read More »