Constitutional Memorandum to the President of the United States
Re: Case No. 25-365, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the President’s Article II Responsibilities
Executive Summary
Mr. President:
This memorandum respectfully presents what the author believes to be an unresolved constitutional question arising from the relationship between the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the continuing executive responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.
Prepared by a citizen researcher after decades of independent study, this memorandum does not ask the President to disregard the Constitution, the Supreme Court, or the authority of Congress. Nor does it ask the Executive Branch to create new law through executive action.
Instead, it respectfully requests that the constitutional history of Reconstruction be reexamined through the combined lenses of statutory text, legislative history, executive records, judicial precedent, and the President’s independent constitutional responsibilities under Article II.
The central historical proposition advanced herein is that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 constituted the foundational Reconstruction statute enacted to secure the civil condition of the population newly emancipated from slavery. President Andrew Johnson’s vetoes, the debates of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, the subsequent adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and later Supreme Court decisions are examined as parts of a single constitutional narrative rather than as isolated historical events.
The memorandum respectfully argues that this integrated history deserves renewed professional examination.
Whether its conclusions are ultimately accepted or rejected is properly a matter for qualified legal counsel, the courts, and the political branches.
Accordingly, the memorandum presents two complementary constitutional paths.
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. The request is not based upon disagreement alone, but upon the author’s belief that significant historical relationships among the Civil Rights Act of 1866, President Johnson’s vetoes, and the Fourteenth Amendment deserve fuller legal examination.
The second is the ENFORCE Track.
Separate from judicial proceedings, the memorandum respectfully requests that the President direct appropriate executive officials—including the Attorney General, White House Counsel, and the Office of Legal Counsel—to determine what continuing duties, if any, arise under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, its statutory descendants, and related Reconstruction legislation.
The memorandum does not presume the answer.
It asks that the question be examined.
Among the recommendations presented are:
- a comprehensive executive legal review of the Reconstruction statutes;
- renewed historical examination of the relationship between the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment;
- consideration of a national initiative devoted to constitutional and historical literacy concerning Reconstruction;
- review of existing executive authority under current law;
- identification of any additional legislative recommendations that may appropriately be submitted to Congress.
The broader purpose of the 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 Nation has preserved the historical identity of the legislation enacted in the immediate aftermath of slavery.
It asks whether constitutional history is best served by examining Reconstruction as an integrated constitutional project rather than as isolated statutes and judicial decisions.
The author recognizes that portions of the memorandum advance interpretations not presently reflected in controlling judicial precedent.
Those interpretations are respectfully offered for professional evaluation, testing, refinement, confirmation where supported, correction where necessary, or rejection where the law requires.
The memorandum therefore seeks dialogue rather than confrontation.
Its objective is constitutional fidelity.
Its method is historical examination.
Its request is lawful executive and judicial consideration.
Its hope is constitutional reconciliation.
As the United States commemorates the two hundred fiftieth anniversary of its founding, the Nation has an unusual opportunity to reflect upon both the achievements and the unfinished responsibilities inherited from earlier generations.
Whether the constitutional questions presented herein ultimately alter legal understanding or merely contribute to historical discussion, the author respectfully submits that they deserve careful examination by those entrusted with preserving the constitutional inheritance of the American people.
Respectfully submitted,
Ted Hayes
Citizen Advocate, Independent Researcher, and Author