A Guide to the Formation of the Constitution

By Richard Carl Shellhorn

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the United States. All elected officials, both at the National and State level, are required to swear an oath of allegiance to uphold and support our Constitution. All military personnel and many professions, including those who are trained in law, are required to swear loyalty to the Constitution by oath. But do those people actually know what the oath requires them to adhere to? Have they been properly educated on the formation of the Constitution by those Delegates sent by the States in May of 1787 to Philadelphia to write the Constitution? Unless the person has studied how the process transpired from introduction of principles to the finished Constitution, they have a poor understanding and are less knowledgeable than can be imagined. This book is not a rearrangement of the words that changes the meaning and intent of the speaker, but exactly the words spoken and written to give more emphasis to the intent. The Constitution can only be understood by the intent of the Deputies in 1787. Many deceitful men and women want the undereducated to believe that following the War for Independence from an unjust British government, that those Deputies would base our new Constitution on English Common Law. That notion is further from the truth than even they know and the cause of incorrect rulings in Federal courts. When you read this condensed-by-editing book of the Notes of James Madison, the edited version by Max Farrand; the edited pieces from Plutarch's Lives of Solon, Themistocles, and Pericles; and selected laws from Ancient Roman Statutes, you may better understand the educational background the Deputies were exposed to before the formation of our Constitution. Learn why and how the Constitution came together with the intent to provide a government where the people are to be represented at fixed ratio of one Representative per thirty thousand (30, 000) inhabitants.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Christian Faith Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Jun 12, 2018
• ISBN: 9781641917032

Book preview

cover.jpg

A Guide to the Formation of the Constitution

Richard Carl Shellhorn

Copyright © 2018 Richard Carl Shellhorn

All rights reserved

First Edition

Christian Faith Publishing, Inc

New York, NY

First originally published by Christian Faith Publishing, Inc 2018

ISBN 978-1-64191-702-5 (Paperback)

ISBN 978-1-64191-704-9 (Hardcover)

ISBN 978-1-64191-703-2 (Digital)

Printed in the United States of America

DEDICATION

Dedicated

to

the Natural Born Citizens of the United States

and all

Naturalized Citizens, both Native Born and Foreign Born

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The contents of this book following the introduction are entirely from the following source material and include no additional material unless noted:

The Madison Papers. The Papers of James Madison, purchased by order of Congress; being his correspondence and reports of debates during the Congress of the Confederation and his reports of debates in the Federal Convention; now published from the original manuscripts, deposited in the Department of State, by Direction of the Joint Library Committee of Congress, under the superintendence of Henry D. Gilpin. (Washington: Langtree & Sullivan, 1840. In three volumes: Volume I, 580 pages; Volume II, pp. 581-1242; Volume III, pp. 1243-1624 plus additional appendix and index.)

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Edited by Max Farrand, Professor of History in Yale University. (New Haven: Yale University Press; London: Henry Frowde; Oxford University Press MCMXI [1911]). In three volumes: Volume I, 606 pages; Volume II, 667 pages; Volume III, 685 pages.

Plutarch’s Lives, Translated from the original Greek: with notes, critical and historical; and A Life of Plutarch. By John Langhorne, D.D. and William Langhorne, A.M., Cincinnati: H. S. & J. Applegate, Publishers, No. 43 Main Street. 1850. Plutarch’s Lives - Solon pp. 72-84; Plutarch’s Lives - Themistocles pp. 93-105; Plutarch’s Lives – Pericles, pp. 120-133.

Ancient Roman Statutes, A translation; with introduction, commentary, glossary, and index. By Allan Chester Johnson, Paul Robinson Coleman-Norton, and Frank Card Bourne; general editor, Clyde Pharr and assistant editor, Mary Brown Pharr. University of Texas Press, Austin, 1961.

INTRODUCTION

In the writings of Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens translated by Thomas J. Dymes, Aristotle ends Chapter 26 with these words: In the third year after him, in the archonship of Antidotus, owing to the great increase in the number of citizens, they decreed, on the proposal of Perikles [Pericles], that no one should share in political rights unless both his parents were citizens.

That is the meaning the deputies who formed our Constitution were thinking of when the Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters reported on September 4, 1787, that from the report of August 6, Article X, Section 2, should read, No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; nor shall any person be elected to that office, who shall be under the age of thirty-five years, and who has not been, in the whole, at least fourteen years a resident within the United States.

When the Committee of Style and Arrangement reported on September 12, they had in Article II Section 1 the wording slightly altered to read, No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

When this qualification is broken down into clauses, the first clause qualification requires the man be a natural born citizen. To be a natural born citizen required both parents to be citizens of the United States, neither having been foreign born and naturalized. There would be the taint of foreign born blood and alien influence if he had a foreign born parent.

The second clause provided law for a naturalized citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution to be eligible also. The man could be foreign born of foreign national parents and naturalized as an American citizen or native born of a foreign parent or parents and naturalized by a provision in the Constitution of a State. One State, Pennsylvania, provided equal rights to the foreign born as if a native born child to citizen parents in the State Constitution.

The next clause sets a minimum qualification requirement that the man has attained to the age of thirty-five at least. And the last clause contains the qualification requirement that of that minimum thirty-five years, fourteen of the years must be as a resident within the United States.

The difference between an inhabitant and a resident, in 1787, was that both males and females were considered inhabitants during their minority, under the age of twenty-one. Upon reaching twenty-one, the male gender became eligible to participate in the political right of suffrage and showed eligibility by registering for that right, becoming a resident. By the clause requirement, he has to be a resident for fourteen years within the United States to qualify, indicating that in his minority years he could have been born and an inhabitant in any place in the world, while under his age of majority, twenty-one.

The qualification requirements are completely different from the requirements of the Committee of Detail report of August 22. Mr. Rutledge reported in response to the propositions of Mr. Madison and Mr. Pinckney with the qualifications of the following: he shall be of the age of thirty-five years, and a citizen of the United States, and shall have been an inhabitant thereof for twenty-one years. With the same knowledge it is easy to understand that this is a native born male citizen because he has to be an inhabitant of the United States during his minority, including birth, until he reaches his majority and becomes a resident, at twenty-one.

There will be a considerable number of citizens who will say this is wrong. They consider the meaning of natural born citizen to be the same as the English usage for people born on English soil. Anyone born on soil controlled by the English Monarch is a natural born subject, so they incorrectly assume anyone born on soil controlled by the United States government should be considered a natural born citizen. There are numerous problems with this shortsighted conclusion.

I am positive a number of readers holding the position that a natural born citizen is anyone born in the United States, and only someone born in the United States, regardless of sex, race, or ancestry, will not be swayed by any amount of evidence to the contrary, and maintain that unsupportable position.

It would be a pleasing surprise should some readers investigate further on their own to educate themselves. A beginning would be to start with this appendix that contains a list of relevant law journal articles and Supreme Court decisions. However, my expectation is the vast majority of citizens will be indifferent to information that following the implementation of our government in 1789, due to the haphazard debauchery of Congress, the Constitution our forefathers established, has been reduced to meaninglessness.

The first question to ask is how can a comparison be made that likens a British subject to an American citizen? There is no mention of citizens in the writings of Sir William Blackstone or the Constitution of England or in any part of English common law in 1787. The principle of "jus soli" (of the soil) was in effect in England so that anyone born on English soil was a natural born subject of the king.

There is a difference between that principle, "jus soli, and the principle of jus sanguinis, which are distinct. Jus sanguinis," by right of blood, is the principle which prevailed among the ancient free republics, preceding the feudal doctrine jus soli, which had its existence and recognition in a governmental system based upon feudal tenures and military vassalage. So said Alexander Porter Morse on page 15 in his 1881 book titled Treatise on Citizenship, by Birth and by Naturalization. "Jus soli implies that all persons born in the dominion of the king had a right to be a natural born subject, which is different from jure soli," which is a legislated right to choose if born on the soil of countries that recognize the principle.

The principle of "jure soli is a legislated right by statute principle established by the Fourteenth Amendment to our Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, eighty years after the Constitution was ratified in 1788. The principle of jus sanguinis" (right of blood) was established by the Constitution of 1787.

The "jus sanguinis principle is established by the definition of natural born" citizen and distinct from the legislated right provided to any person born on the soil controlled by the United States to choose citizenship in the United States or to choose the citizenship or subject status of the parents or of the individual parent in those cases when the parents are not of the same country.

That is, if Members of Congress and Supreme Court are willing to uphold their oath to support the Constitution. That both Congress and the Supreme Court are not in compliance with the Constitution makes the legality of any Act of Congress or decision by the Supreme Court questionable. Power will win on questions of legality, and the power can be by government military arms or suffrage power by the people who are ultimately responsible for this government.

The Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 states, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2 denies citizenship to American Indians and excludes them from census counts and Representation. The section also gives the right of suffrage to male inhabitants over the age of twenty-one. The rights of a male could be abridged for participation in rebellion, or other crime. All citizens are now counted as whole citizens for representation.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4 gives absolution to all debts incurred for support of an insurrection or rebellion against the United States. All such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. It is Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment that gave authority to Congress to pass the Chinese Exclusion Act of May 6, 1882, and signed by President Chester A. Arthur.

The Treaty Regulating Immigration from China signed in 1880 inspired updating entry restriction on Chinese laborers. It is within the powers of Congress to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization, and by power of the Fourteenth Amendment to regulate that principle of naturalization or choice. The most important feature of the act was Congress refused permission to any State or Federal court the right to grant citizenship to Chinese resident aliens, although these courts could still deport them, primarily because of their Mongolian or Chinese race.

Persons born in territory controlled by the United States of non-citizen parents are required to be naturalized upon reaching their age of majority because the person is required to choose citizenship in the United States. It cannot be denied the territory known as American Samoa is a territory "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and that territory has a non-voting delegate member in the House of Representatives.

The naturalization process established by Congress requires a person born in American Samoa to follow a process to naturalization where by they must move to a State and after three months of residence they can submit an N-400, application for naturalization, with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The process can take from 6 months to 1 year. This is the process described by Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, the delegate from American Samoa to Congress.

Even though Congress is required to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, under Article I, Section 8, by not establishing such uniform rules of naturalization, they do not honor their oath to support the Constitution nor does inaction absolve Congress of the responsibility and requirement.

Persons born in the United States of parents not citizens of the United States are required to make a choice of their citizenship at their age of majority with or without an uniform Rule of Naturalization. The Supreme Court decision in Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) has decided that issue. At the age of majority, native born persons are required to choose citizenship in the United States so as not to remain the citizenship of the foreign born parents. Should the father apply for the family to become naturalized citizens, the wife and children become at that time naturalized citizens.

So this is the situation and dilemma. A subject and citizen cannot be compared except to say a subject, natural born, is not eligible to the office of chief magistrate (monarch, king or queen) in the country that they are a subject because that right is by blood, descending only to those with the right blood; and a citizen, if natural born, can be chief magistrate or president of the United States, born within or without the United States, if born to parents of the same right blood, American citizenship.

Also, there is no way to deny that one principle, "jus sanguinis, was established by the Constitution in 1787, and the second principle of jure soli" was established in 1868; the first is based on blood while the second is based on place. They are not comparable and are not equal.

Under the "jus sanguinis" principle, the male gender child, at his age of majority, (twenty-one until passage of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment lowering the age to vote to eighteen in 1971) having both parents providing citizenship in the United States, has no need to choose citizenship in the United States, which he has had since and by his birth.

The child born to non-citizen parents has by right of birth in territory controlled by the United States under the "jure soli," at their age of majority, the opportunity to choose between the citizenship of the parent or parents, (should the parents also not be of similar citizenships or subject ship), and citizenship in the United States.

When George Washington was working on his Farewell Address he labored over how to best express the difference between the citizens who are eligible to the legislature from the citizens who by blood have the rights of a natural born citizen, eligible to be the chief executive.

Horace Binney brought this struggle to the attention of historians in his book An Inquiry into the Formation of Washington’s Farewell Address published in 1859. Washington said it this way: Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The concentrated affections of citizen parents produce a male natural born citizen by birth. Choice is the distinguishing feature because that is what naturalization is, a choice, to no longer be the same as their parent and obtain a different citizenship.

A most interesting fact surrounding the birthday of George Washington can be learned from The Life of George Washington by Edward Everett published in 1860. Chapter 1 begins, In the family record contained in a Bible which belonged to the mother of Washington, and which is now in the possession of George Washington Bassett, of Hanover county, Virginia, who married a grandniece of Washington, the following entry is found: - George Washington, son to Augustine and Mary his wife, was born ye 11th day of February 173½ about ten in the morning, and was baptized the 3d of April following; Mr. Beverly Whiting and Captain Christopher Brooks, godfathers, and Mrs. Mildred Gregory godmother.

It is his will that stands out most in my mind as to the character of Washington: To each of my Nephews, William Augustine Washington, George Lewis, George Steptoe Washington, Bushrod Washington and Samuel Washington, I give one of the Swords or Cutteaux of which I may die possessed; and they are to chuse in the order they are named. These Swords are accompanied with an injunction not to unsheathe them for the purpose of shedding blood, except it be for self defence, or in defence of their Country and its rights; and in the latter case, to keep them unsheathed, and prefer falling with them in their hands, to the relinquishment thereof.

Washington was a man who commanded respect as a person and as a speaker. He chose his words carefully to express clearly, in as few words as possible, his insights about the Constitution. His second inaugural address on March 4, 1793, is the shortest on record, yet the most informative regarding the limited immunity the president has while in office. His second inaugural address:

Fellow Citizens: I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of united America. Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witness of the present solemn ceremony.

One president of the United States never elected president of the United States apparently knew more about the Constitution than many elected presidents who have been referred to as experts on the Constitution. Gerald Ford, president of the Thirty-Eighth Administration, pardoned Richard Nixon, following President Nixon’s resignation before being impeached.

Presidents Ford and Washington both knew that impeached or not, a man no longer in the office of president, where he is subject to removal only by impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate, is still subject to law and can be charged with common crimes during or prior to his presidency. The Ford pardon, issued September 8, 1974, gave Richard Nixon a pardon for all offences committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

Take a look at what Bouvier Law Dictionary, 2011 Edition published by Wolters Kluwer, tell us about these principles, both on page 599:

Jus sanguinis Citizenship established by parentage. Jus sanguinis, literally law of the blood, is the lineal basis of citizenship or nationality, established for a child in different states’ legal systems either by birth from one or both parents who are citizens of a state at the time of the child’s birth. In the United States, section one of the Fourteenth Amendment establishes jus soli as one basis for citizenship, throughout the nation, but jus sanguinis is established in U.S. law by statute.

Jus soli Citizenship established by the location of birth. Jus soli is basis of citizenship, established for a child from the location of the child’s birth in the territory of the nation-state in which citizenship is thus established. Jus soli differs from jus sanguinis, and the citizenship of the parents is irrelevant to the citizenship of a child established by jus soli. Note: many sources imagine that jus soli is translated as law of the soil. It might seem more appropriate to consider the translation to have originated from the law of the king’s dominion. In the United States, the right of citizenship to be acquired by jus soli is established in section one of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provides "all persons born…in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Notice that "jus sanguinis is established in United States law by the Constitution. This can be changed, or added to, by amendment to the Constitution; the Fourteenth Amendment is an addition to the Constitution. The individual states are permitted by their State Constitution to call any person born in that state a natural born citizen of the state because the person was native born in that particular state. State declarations of this type do not supersede the national Constitution requiring both parents to be citizens, neither having been foreign born nor naturalized, for the male to acquire the rights of a natural born" citizen.

Let’s refer again to Dymes’s translation of Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens, Chapter 42. The present constitution is as follows: Political rights belong to those whose parents are citizens on both sides. When they are eighteen years old they are enrolled as members of their deme. When a candidate is proposed, the members of the deme decide by vote about him on oath; first, if they consider him to be of the proper legal age; if they decide against it, he returns to the class of children; and secondly, if he is freeborn and his birth according to the laws. After this the Council examines the candidates who have been enrolled, and if any is found to be less than eighteen years old, it fines the members of the deme who enrolled him.

The chapter goes on to describe the selection of men who will be responsible for the education of the young men who have passed as Ephebi (arrived at man’s estate) or age of majority. They are shown the sacred places and instructed in the use of arms, shooting, hurling, and working the catapult. Their second year, they display before the people their drill-practice, and receiving a spear and shield from the state, patrol the country and live in garrisons. They act as guards for their two years, wearing cloaks, and have immunity from all public burdens. They are not allowed either to bring or defend an action, to prevent their being connected in any way with business, except in cases of inheritance and of an only daughter and heiress, or where a question of family priesthood arises. On the expiry of the two years they at once rank with the rest. Such, then, are the regulations regarding the enrolment of citizens and the Ephebi.

An issue well understood by the deputies at the convention and misunderstood by designing women is how the term natural born citizen relates to the female gender. The term natural born citizen refers to the male gender only. A person of any other gender is excluded from the definition as it only applied to the male gender of ancient Greece from where the requirement originated.

Decisions by the Supreme Court, at one time, used the knowledge of the intent of the deputies in the formation of the Constitution, as the best way to interpret and decide issues of a Constitutional nature. Looking at the constitutions of the states in 1787 was part of the research toward intent. The court did this when deciding the case Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, in 1875. The court at that time took the position that their province is to decide what the law is, not to declare what it should be.

By reviewing the State Constitutions, the court reasoned, while persons of the female gender are citizens, they were not eligible to the right of suffrage because the states constitutions did not provide for female gender suffrage. Nor to any elected position in the national government because they were not permitted involvement in state government or to any position that would require the "Advice and Consent of the Senate." The Senate is charged by the Constitution with the responsibility of being the power check to unlawful executive appointments.

A proposed Nineteenth Amendment passed Congress June 4, 1919, was ratified by enough states, and the article became an amendment to the Constitution August 18, 1920. It reads: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Nineteenth Amendment was ratified forty-five years after the court decided female gender citizens, above the age of majority, did not have a right, under the Constitution, to suffrage for men to Congress and the presidency. The question you might ask is what sparked men of Congress to propose female suffrage eligibility?

Some states, as noted by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, had in their state constitutions that women would enjoy the privilege of suffrage in state elections. The State of Montana, in violation of the National Constitution and Supreme Court decision, permitted Jeanette Rankin to enter the field as a candidate to the House of Representatives for the Republican Party. Women were permitted to vote in violation of Supreme Court decision that women were not eligible to vote in national elections under the National Constitution.

Jeannette Rankin received a majority of votes and, with the credentials of election from Montana, presented herself, in April 1917, to the House of Representatives to take a seat as a member. She was not disqualified as ineligible as the Constitution requires, but allowed to take a seat. Had the men of the House of Representatives honored their oath and supported the Constitution, Ms. Rankin should have been rejected as ineligible, whereupon she, and the State of Montana, could have taken their case to the court for adjudication.

Article I, Section 5 provided the House with justification for violating the Constitution. It reads, Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

The House and Senate are not entitled to overlook defects to a person’s eligibility for meeting the qualifications. The person is required to meet the qualification standards set by the Constitution. The first requirement according to notes found in the papers of George Mason, possibly handwritten by Edmund Randolph, and notations by John Rutledge, is manhood, in either of the two distinct bodies of men.

This was not the first time Congress permitted an ineligible person a seat in either or both branches of Congress. On February 25, 1870, a man who lacked the required nine years of citizenship was permitted to take a seat in the Senate to finish the term of the senator from Mississippi. The House, in December of that year also permitted a man lacking the required seven years of citizenship to take a seat in violation of the Constitution.

In both instances the ineligible man should have been deemed ineligible due to not meeting the qualification requirement of either seven or nine years’ citizenship. To not uphold the Constitution is to not uphold their Congressional oath. As you will read further on, some deputies at the convention in 1787 thought the oath requirement was not necessary because the dishonest man will never honor the oath, while the honest man does not need to take one.

Congress has learned through history that the immunity of Article I, Section 6 is a most valuable asset. The section reads: They (the senators and representatives) shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

The threat Congress holds over the elected members of each House is in Article I, Section 5, which reads, Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. The chief problem associated with this authority is Congress believes themselves superior to the Constitution.

Why and how can the simple become so complicated? How has the confusion been capable of overcoming logic and sensibility? The most obvious answer is children are no longer educated in school, as all surveys and testing indicates. The philosopher credited with giving the world the quote, Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, George Santayana, would be better to remember another quote of his, A child educated only at school is an uneducated child.

When I state that A child educated only at school is an uneducated child, it is not limited to any type or level of education. At most, education introduces students to the tools necessary for learning. If you consider yourself educated, ask if the reason for that belief is because of what you learned in school or what you learned on your own after you graduated from school?

We can all admit to being undereducated, being taught by one of the undereducated as he or she had been taught. Teachers at high school level and below frequently do not know the subject they teach with the exceptions being math and science. History teachers lack historical knowledge and present history as required by school boards. Lacking any connection or understanding for the importance of learning from history, the teacher will have a poor presentation.

In 1787, men debated what was to be included and fixed in the Constitution because of inclusion, as opposed to being left out of the Constitution to be adjusted by Congress. Congress was provided the clause reading, To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

You will read in Madison’s notes that Article I, Section 8, the "necessary and proper" clause, prevented some convention deputies from signing the Constitution because the clause gave too much power to Congress. Congress was not provided with sole power to alter the fixed clauses in the Constitution. The Constitution does provide, by Article V, a process for Congress to propose articles to the states to amend the Constitution.

The process, described in Article V, is as follows: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress. The fixed ratio clause requires an Amendment to the Constitution to be changed.

On the last day of the convention, September 17, 1787, a motion was made to adjust the fixed ratio of representation set at that time at 1:40,000, to a more representative ratio of 1:30,000. The motion to increase the people’s representation inspired George Washington, speaking openly for the first time during the Convention, to recommend this increase as beneficial to the people and easier for the people to accept the Constitution. It passed without debate.

A proposal was introduced to change the 1:30,000 ratio by amendment. Twelve articles were passed on September 25, 1789, by the first Congress, ten of which became the Bill of Rights, ratified December 15, 1791. One became the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, ratified May 7, 1992, reading, No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

The first article to amend the Constitution, still eligible to be ratified reads thus, Article I. After the first enumeration, required by the first article of the constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred; after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall not be less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand persons.

This is the only article of twelve passed September 25, 1789, and proposed to the States, that has not been ratified to become an amendment. In the absence of an amendment changing the fixed ratio established by the Constitution, the Constitution requires representation of the people in the House of Representatives to be at the ratio of 1:30,000.

The census or enumeration required to be taken by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution was provided for by Congress on March 1, 1790: omitting in such enumeration Indians not taxed, and distinguishing free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, from all others; distinguishing also the sexes and colours of free persons, and the free males of sixteen years and upwards from those under that age; The enumeration shall commence on the first Monday in August next, and shall close within nine calendar months thereafter. It was further required, And the marshals respectively shall, on or before the first day of September, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, transmit to the President of the United States, the aggregate amount of each description of persons within their respective districts.

Section 5 of the Act of March 1, 1790, Congress knew, there is a distinguishing feature between an inhabitant and a resident. Congress at present misuses the words to best keep the population ignorant of the distinction between them. That section reads, And the name of every person, who shall be an inhabitant of any district, but without a settled place of residence, shall be inserted in the column of the aforesaid schedule, which is allotted for the heads of families, in that division where he or she shall be on the said first Monday in August next, and every person occasionally absent at the time of the enumeration, as belonging to that place in which he usually resides in the United States.

When the Constitution was established, Article I, Section 2 entitled the states to send the following numbers of representatives to the House: New Hampshire, 3; Massachusetts, 8; Rhode Island, 1; Connecticut, 5; New York, 6; New Jersey, 4; Pennsylvania, 8; Delaware, 1; Maryland, 6; Virginia, 10; North Carolina, 5; South Carolina, 5; and Georgia, 3 for a total of sixty-five representatives.

From volume 4 of Elliot’s Debates, page 283, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, deputy for South Carolina at the convention, gave the ratification convention in that state the figures used to reach those proportions of representatives. The numbers in the different states, according to the most accurate accounts we could obtain, were

In New Hampshire 102,000

Massachusetts 360,000

Rhode Island 58,000

Connecticut 202,000

New York 233,000

New Jersey 138,000

Pennsylvania 360,000

Delaware 37,000

Maryland, (including three fifths of 80,000 negroes,) 218,000

Virginia, (including three fifths of 280,000 negroes,) 420,000

N. Carolina, (including three fifths of 60,000 negroes,) 200,000

S. Carolina, (including three fifths of 80,000 negroes,) 150,000

Georgia, (including three fifths of 20,000 negroes,) 90,000

Mr. Gouverneur Morris had delivered the Report from the Committee of Five members, on July 9, 1787, which determined the proper ratio of representatives for one to every forty thousand inhabitants so that the State of New Hampshire was to have 2; Massachusetts, 7; Rhode Island, 1; Connecticut, 4; New York, 5; New Jersey, 3; Pennsylvania, 8; Delaware, 1; Maryland, 4; Virginia, 9; North Carolina, 5; South Carolina, 5; and Georgia, 2 for a total of fifty-six members.

This report was referred to a Committee of a Member from each State who reported on July 10, that the first meeting of the House should consist of the sixty-five members. Mr. Gerry stated the larger the number, the less the danger of their being corrupted. This number was based on the ratio of 1:40,000. Wealth of the State was also a factor in deciding representation.

The ratio fixed in the Constitution is 1:30,000 citizen inhabitants. Foreigners and other non-citizens, such as American Indians, would not be represented in the House of Representatives of the United States, yet there is no distinction made on census forms between citizens and non-citizens. Wealth was dropped as a factor in deciding representation. Citizen inhabitant, excluding non-citizen inhabitants such as Indians and other aliens, is the criteria for representation in the House of Representatives.

This is relevant because the first census was reported to the first session of the second Congress October 24, 1791, at Philadelphia. Congress was to reapportion the Members of the House at the ratio of 1:30,000 following the census returns. Congress resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on October 31, 1791 to begin debate. The State of South Carolina had not met the September deadline for enumeration reports and Congress proposed extending more time.

On November 8, Congress presented to George Washington An act granting further time for making return of the enumeration of the inhabitants in the District of South Carolina. The president signed the act that day. It was resolved by the House of Representatives on November 15, That the number of Representatives shall, until the next enumeration, be one for thirty thousand, by thirty-five yeas and only twenty-three nays.

By November 23, 1791, the House had taken the census figures and apportioned the House with 106 Representatives, excluding South Carolina. This act was titled An act apportioning Representatives among the People of the several States, according to the first enumeration, having been passed in the affirmative by forty-three yeas to twelve nays and the House sent the act for Senate concurrence.

The Senate was not going to concur on the reapportioning without proposing amendments and sent them back to the House December 9, 1791, the bill with proposed amendments. The Senate proposed the House contain ninety-nine representatives at a ratio of 1:33,000. A member of the House moved to amend the amendment of the Senate with a House division into 113 representatives, which did not pass. And when the question was put if the Senate proposal should pass, it was negatived.

On December 15, 1791, the Senate responded by insisting the House accept the Senate amendments. This date is also when the Bill of Rights amendments were ratified to become part of the Constitution. By December 21, the Senate was hearing a motion That a committee be appointed to prepare and report a bill for apportioning representatives among the people of the several states, agreeably to the constitution and the late census, and as near as may be according to the first article of the amendments of the constitution, recommended by Congress to the several states for their ratification. Congress expected the First Article would likewise soon be ratified.

Reapportionment was to begin March 3, 1793, under some proposals. Because of problems reaching a settlement with the Senate, the House extended the implementation date to March 3, 1797. Efforts were extended to establish the procedure by which the next enumeration was to be carried out. These proposals contained blanks that needed to be filled. A blank was filled with "thirty thousand" and a vote was taken February 20, 1792, that apportionment would be at that ratio.

The Senate was insisting that the House accept the Senate amendments. The House agreed to the Senate demands March 23, and the vice president, as president of the Senate, on March 26, 1792, signed the bill to be laid before President Washington for his approbation.

On April 5, 1792, President Washington vetoed and returned the bill to the House with these objections: First. The Constitution has prescribed, that representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers; and there is no one proportion or divisor, which, applied to the respective numbers of the states, will yield the number and allotment of representatives proposed by the bill. Second. The constitution has also provided, that the number of representatives shall not exceed one for thirty thousand; which restriction is, by the context, and by fair and obvious construction, to be applied to the separate and respective numbers of the states; and the bill has allotted to eight of the states more than one for thirty thousand.

The House took a vote to override the veto but failed with twenty-eight ayes to thirty-three noes. A committee was appointed to prepare a bill based on the ratio of one representative for every thirty thousand persons in the respective States; and that Mr. Laurance, Mr. Seney, and Mr. Smith, of New Hampshire, be the said committee. The House, with the first article pending ratification by the states, that would change the ratio from 1:30,000, changed without amendment that fixed ratio to 1:33,000.

This change in the act to reapportion the representatives was presented to the Senate April 10 and sent to the president for his concurrence on April 13. It was signed by President Washington on April 14, 1792. Congressmen had violated their oath to support the Constitution by changing the ratio of representation from 1:30,000 to a ratio of 1:33,000. Congress has been contrary to the Constitution since that time, contrary to the intent of the deputies to provide the people with representation at a ratio 1:30,000, unless changed by Amendment.

There are additional articles that have been proposed to the states and not as yet ratified. There is no time limit attached to these articles as witnessed by the ratification of an article proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1992, then becoming the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.

The second article as yet unratified was passed in the second session of the Eleventh Congress. It reads: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of both Houses concurring), That the following section be submitted to the legislatures of the several states, which, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the states, shall be valid and binding, as a part of the constitution of the United States.

If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.

The third article proposed to the states by Congress and still eligible of ratification is an article passed during the second session of the Thirty-Sixth Congress on March 2, 1861. This article was pointlessly signed by President James Buchanan and the only article ever to be signed by a president. A presidential signature is not required by the Constitution. It reads as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz:

"Article Thirteen

No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

These three articles to amend the Constitution are still alive and eligible of ratification to become part of the Constitution. The only worthy article is the first proposed that would provide for a ratio of representation that is consistent with the intent of the deputies at the convention. I urge every citizen to request of their state legislature to ratify that article should your state not already have done so.

The men chosen by the people of the several states to the convention of 1787 were indeed men of superior intellect and studious backgrounds. Some were classically educated, some educated and with military experience, or experience as an office holder in their State government. The concern of these men was to write the best Constitution they could, and the people would accept, as Solon had provided for the people of Athens.

James Madison and others studied the ancient and modern confederacies prior to attending the Convention and Madison made notes regarding the Federal authority and the vices of the constitutions of each confederacy. Footnotes to Madison’s notes show use of a book by John Gillies titled The History of Ancient Greece, published in 1786, and The History of the World by Sir Walter Ralegh or Rawleigh. Temple Stanyan’s The Grecian History, published in 1766 was also a source. Madison’s notes are available at the Library of Congress.

George Washington made copies of Madison’s notes, and it is believed that Mr. Washington did his own reading of the ancients and took notes as yet unrecovered. At the time of his death, December 14, 1799, Washington’s library contained several books on ancient history including, The Grecian History by Temple Stanyan (also noted in the notes made by Madison), Gibbon’s Roman Empire, and Ferguson’s Roman History to name a few.

An investigation of the men who have been elected president comes from the book Ancestors of American Presidents, compiled by Gary Boyd Roberts, published in 1989 in cooperation with the New England Historic Genealogical Society. It contains information on the ancestors of George Washington up to the ancestors of George Herbert Walker Bush. All could learn things that are not taught in school about the ancestry of American presidents.

Thomas Jefferson’s mother, Jane Randolph, was born in the Shadwell section of London, England, February 20, 1720. It made sense for Peter Jefferson to name the family home Shadwell, after the place his wife, the mother of Thomas Jefferson, was born. The Jefferson’s Shadwell was destroyed by fire in February 1770, destroying all records of Jefferson’s mother, who was turning fifty that year. The embarrassment of a foreign born mother was too much for Jefferson.

Prior to his mother’s death March 31, 1776, Jefferson used the word subject to describe inhabitants of the colonies, and after her death he changed the word to citizens in the Declaration of Independence. The exception clause to the requirements for president, in the end was a benefit to Jefferson who was not a natural born citizen, his foreign born mother raising him under her foreign influence.

The fact is that it was because of Jefferson that the requirement was made so only the most American oriented man, one with both parents’ citizens, as the most trustworthy for America’s top executive position. Actions less than patriotic during the war while Jefferson was governor of Virginia caused doubt as to Jefferson’s stability and ability to lead the American military. He fled instead of defending the capital of Virginia while governor. He fled to protect his family, he said. But upon reaching his family, he ran again from the British, leaving his family undefended and subject to abuse.

For those unaware, John Jay, future first chief justice of the Supreme Court, had sent on July 25, 1787,