Step 5 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THEODORE “TED” HAYES, JR. IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Step 5 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THEODORE “TED” HAYES, JR. IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF [YOUR NAME] IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
I. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
- U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (The “Any person born…” clause).
- U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4 (Naturalization power over willing immigrants).
- The Preamble (“We the People… of the United States”).
II. FEDERAL STATUTES (GOVERNING LAWS)
- The Civil Rights Act of 1866, Section 1 (Establishing federal citizenship for the liberated).
- The Civil Rights Act of 1866, Section 2 (CRIMINAL PENALTY CLAUSE).
- The DOJ Act of 1870 (16 Stat. 162) (Organic act establishing the Department of Justice).
III. EXECUTIVE MANDATES
- The Emancipation Proclamation (Jan. 1, 1863) (Sentence 2, B, commanding the Executive to “do no act or acts to repress” the efforts of the liberated).
IV. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
- Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
- United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
- Trump v. Barbara (Pending, April 1, 2026)
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
Amicus Curiae, [Your Name], is a Federal Citizenship Strategist and a direct descendant of America’s chattel slaves. Representing the “primary interest” upon whose labor this nation was founded, Amicus brings a perspective that has remained latent for 162 years. Mentored by Dr. John Eastman, Amicus possesses the “Constitutional Genius” required to bridge the gap between the Emancipation Proclamation and the laws currently under review.
Amicus Curiae, [Your Name], is a Federal Citizenship Strategist and a direct descendant of America’s chattel slaves. Representing the “primary interest” upon whose labor this nation was founded, Amicus brings a perspective that has remained latent for 162 years. Mentored by Dr. John Eastman, Amicus possesses the “Constitutional Genius” required to bridge the gap between the Emancipation Proclamation and the laws currently under review.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This Court must recognize that the 14th Amendment was the constitutional “locking in” of the 1866 Civil Rights Act. By allowing the “Any person born…” clause to be applied to children of foreign nationals with no political allegiance, the government commits a 162-year act of dilution. This dilution renders the hard-won citizenship of chattel slave descendants “numerically inconsequential,” effectively continuing the philosophy of KKK-ism by administrative omission. The DOJ is performing a mandatory duty under Section 2 of the 1866 Act to rectify this omission.
This Court must recognize that the 14th Amendment was the constitutional “locking in” of the 1866 Civil Rights Act. By allowing the “Any person born…” clause to be applied to children of foreign nationals with no political allegiance, the government commits a 162-year act of dilution. This dilution renders the hard-won citizenship of chattel slave descendants “numerically inconsequential,” effectively continuing the philosophy of KKK-ism by administrative omission. The DOJ is performing a mandatory duty under Section 2 of the 1866 Act to rectify this omission.
ARGUMENT
I. THE 14TH AMENDMENT IS THE “LOCKED AND PROTECTED” VERSION OF THE 1866 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.
The first three words of Section 1—“Any person born”—cannot be read in a vacuum. They were enacted to overrule Dred Scott and to provide a permanent home for the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The primary interest of this Amendment is the liberated chattel slave. By treating this clause as a “universal invitation” to the world, the Executive branch has allowed a 162-year dilution of the specific inheritance of Federal Citizens.
The first three words of Section 1—“Any person born”—cannot be read in a vacuum. They were enacted to overrule Dred Scott and to provide a permanent home for the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The primary interest of this Amendment is the liberated chattel slave. By treating this clause as a “universal invitation” to the world, the Executive branch has allowed a 162-year dilution of the specific inheritance of Federal Citizens.
II. THE DOJ IS MANDATED BY THE 1870 ACT TO PROTECT THIS EXCLUSIVE STATUS.
The Department of Justice was created by the 1870 Act to protect the 14th Amendment. The current DOJ strategy lacks the “Constitutional Genius” to explain that excluding foreign nationals is a legal requirement to protect the liberated. Without this synthesis, the DOJ is vulnerable to “anti-American Ideals agitators” who weaponize the word “Constitution” while remaining illiterate in its foundational purpose.
The Department of Justice was created by the 1870 Act to protect the 14th Amendment. The current DOJ strategy lacks the “Constitutional Genius” to explain that excluding foreign nationals is a legal requirement to protect the liberated. Without this synthesis, the DOJ is vulnerable to “anti-American Ideals agitators” who weaponize the word “Constitution” while remaining illiterate in its foundational purpose.
III. SECTION 2 OF THE 1866 ACT PROVIDES FOR CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR OMISSION.
Section 2 of the 1866 Act is not a suggestion; it is a criminal statute. Any person acting “under color of law” who causes the deprivation of rights secured by the Act—including the right to an undiluted citizenship—is guilty of a misdemeanor. Amicus contends that the failure of the DOJ to include this perspective at the Strategic Table is a repressive act of omission.
Section 2 of the 1866 Act is not a suggestion; it is a criminal statute. Any person acting “under color of law” who causes the deprivation of rights secured by the Act—including the right to an undiluted citizenship—is guilty of a misdemeanor. Amicus contends that the failure of the DOJ to include this perspective at the Strategic Table is a repressive act of omission.
CONCLUSION
The 162-year latency ends here. The DOJ must recognize that protecting the exclusive inheritance of the formerly enslaved is the only way to satisfy the 1870 Mandate. Anything less is a violation of the very law that created the Department of Justice itself.
The 162-year latency ends here. The DOJ must recognize that protecting the exclusive inheritance of the formerly enslaved is the only way to satisfy the 1870 Mandate. Anything less is a violation of the very law that created the Department of Justice itself.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your Name]
Amicus Curiae, Pro Se
Amicus Curiae, Pro Se