**III. Companion Legal Memorandum

(1866 directory)

(1866 Act + Emancipation Proclamation Focus)**

Memorandum

To: Interested Constitutional Scholars
From: Ted Hayes
Re: Enforcement Obligations Under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Emancipation Proclamation
Date: [Insert Date]

Issue Presented

Whether federal failure to enforce Section 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the continuing directive of the Emancipation Proclamation permits unconstitutional dilution of the rights of the Amendment’s intended beneficiaries through administrative custom.

Summary Conclusion

Yes. Persistent non-enforcement has allowed custom to supplant law, undermining the remedial purpose of the Reconstruction Amendments and eroding the constitutional standing of federalized citizens descended from American chattel slavery.

Discussion

1. Section 2, Civil Rights Act of 1866
   Section 2 criminalizes any deprivation of rights secured by the Act when carried out under “color of law” or custom. The statute was explicitly designed to counteract local resistance, informal practices, and administrative evasions.
2. Sanctuary Policies and Citizenship Custom
   When state or local policies extend constitutional benefits in a manner that displaces or neutralizes the political efficacy of the Act’s intended beneficiaries, such policies operate as a deprivation under color of custom.
3. Continuing Force of the Emancipation Proclamation
   The Proclamation binds all succeeding Presidents and military authorities to “recognize and maintain” freedom and to refrain from repressing any effort toward actual freedom. This obligation has never been repealed or superseded.

Conclusion

Restoration of the original remedial framework of the 14th Amendment is not an act of exclusion, but of constitutional fidelity.