Re-Visiting An Amendment to the Constitution: Averting the Decline and Fall of America

Amendment to the Constitution: Averting the Decline and Fall of America

Word Count 20,157

[Editor’s Note: The daily call for ‘change’ in the heart of the West, mostly by cultural-marxists, and honest ‘radical leftists’, those that bear the brunt of the common acceptance of revolutionary conduct and philosophy, has markedly become a part of the national dialogue in recent years. While this dialogue never really went away, the change in tactics by the right of center or White Nationalists/Alt-right milieu, has also changed in tenor and delivery.

Some of these changes have produced fruit, and some have withered on the vine.

The momentum of the Right, as opposed to ‘conservatives’ has, once again, run into the cul-de-sac of  ‘public action’ versus that of the mendacious and tedious world of legality, that is, Institutional legality. This is a political machine, mostly. The common-law of the Anglo-Saxon, precedent has, in the past 50 years, taken second-place to those who parse the elements of Law, and substitute those laws, or rather, insert these laws, to coalesce one political party against  the other.

Law and Institution, however, is part of the reality that Nationalists find themselves.

What to Do?

Below is a Proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, presented around 1985, and made a small, yet visceral circuit, for a a decade. It makes interesting reading. The philosophy and intent, however, if taken at face value, is still a wake-up call. However one discerns this presentation, it is the right time, at least in the United States, to re-visit this proposition. We lean, once again, on the Work of Frank L. DeSilva, of which this is a partial excerpt, and thank him for his efforts.

The Staff]

Amendment to the Constitution:

Averting the Decline and

Fall of America


When the fate of a nation is imperiled from within its own ranks, and from aliens who have joined its ranks, and within the space of one or two generations, the society established by its forefathers has been riven from its frame, the guardians of that nation must take action to defend their people from their own destructive elements and repair their defects, or be held responsible before God and man for their inaction. America is such a nation; the 80’s are a part of such a generation and our local elected officials are the guardians of whom I speak.

The purpose of this text is to remind this generation of its obligations to its country, to enlighten it in some measure as to its defects and destructive elements, and to present a plan to correct them. Subjects discussed herein may be considered by some to be sensitive and even outrageous, but the incensed and outraged will be those who by their action or at times by their very presence within the nation were themselves outrageous and controversial twenty years ago.1 The course of action recommended by this text is a constitutional amendment presented to the several states through a convention called by Congress upon petition by the several states through their legislatures, who would have the foremost responsibility for action, that this text is primarily directed.

The time is now. As President Ronald Reagan said, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We can preserve for our children this last best hope of man on earth or we can sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.” [emph. added]


  1. Introduction

America has changed dramatically in the last thirty years. Rapid and extreme change has affected every region of our country and every aspect of our lives. Advancements in such areas of natural science as chemistry, physics, agriculture, electronics and engineering have improved the quality of our lives, have mad us healthier, and have given us more comforts. The opposite side of the advancements made in natural sciences are the changes that have occurred in the social sciences, in such areas as law, politics, religion, ethics, race relations and the structure of our society and activities of its members. Changes that have occurred in these areas are as profound and dramatic as the changes in the natural sciences. However, where changes made in the natural sciences can generally be called advancements, changes in the social sciences cannot be considered such. Indeed, as we will examine below, the order and structure of our society is as marked by decline as world technology is marked by advancement.

In America’s quest for a more progressive and better life, many of the advancements made in the area of technology are offset by regression in our social order and structure. And just as technological inferiority will result in defeat in the battlefield and in the marketplace at the hands of our enemies and competitors, social inferiority will result in our conquest by superior or more artfully structured social orders, or possibly by more primitive but more effective social orders, or demise by internal collapse.

In order to determine the current state of our society, let us briefly examine its various aspects and see what changes have recently occurred therein. We shall examine aspects of change in the context of two primary areas, racial identity and standards of conduct. Our racial identity encompass such issues as racial composition and culture. Only racial composition, however, will be discussed herein. Our standards of conduct are divided into three categories, those concerning the family, those concerning the community and those concerning industry. The standards of conduct concerning the family include such issues as living patterns and sexual ethics. The standards of conduct concerning the community include religion, crime, drug abuse, entertainment and litigation. Concerning industry, the standards of conduct include poverty, education and production, and technology. A summary of recent changes in our society regarding these issues is set forth below.

  1. Racial Identity

    1. Racial Composition of the Nation

The statistics and facts relation to racial composition and demographics in America are incomplete in many respects. Two causes of this are (i) the undocumented and undocumentable illegal aliens in this nation, the numbers of which are impossible to calculate accurately, and (ii) the method of classification employed by government agencies, including the U.S. Bureau of the Census, which often obscures racial classification, which often obscures racial classification. No one knows ho many illegal aliens are not in America nor how many enter each year. The issue is sensitive and volatile. Liberal and minority groups cite low estimates while politically conservative groups cite higher figures.2 Possibly the only way to get a real feeling as to the number of illegal aliens is to visit such states as Texas and California where the highest concentration of them reside and observe the situation firsthand.

Incompleteness in facts relating to racial composition and demographics arises further because U.S. government agencies do not always compile statistics in a clear or consistent manner. The government records various statistics concerning Hispanic [mestizo] and Spanish–origin persons, but has snot been as uniform in its classification of them. At times, Hispanic [mestizo] have been classified as nonwhite, and at other times as white, and currently, they are not divided according to race at all. For example, in the various Fetal Death Ratio, Neonatal, Infant, and Maternal Mortality Rates by Race: 1915 to 1970, the Mexicans were at times included in the category “Negro and Other,”3 and at other times were included in the category “White.”4 Mexicans [mestizo] did not change their skin color, but governmental statisticians changed their classification. Currently, the trend in U.S. government statistics is to include a footnote for data concerning Hispanics [mestizo] providing: “Persons of Spanish origin may be of any race.”5 The inconsistency of this is compounded by the rebuttable presumption that exists in the U.S. government to the effect that Hispanic [mestizo] are white, which means, for example, that statistics regarding Mexicans [mestizo] are often combined with those for Anglo-Saxons. Further, in surveys for government purposes concerning matters of race, the current definition of white includes Middle Easterners and persons from Asia Minor as well as Europeans.6 Thus, often for statistical purposes, Arabs and Anglo-Saxons are grouped together. For purposes of this text, Middle Easterners, persons from Asia Minor and Hispanics [mestizo] are generally not classified as white. With this state of affairs in mind, let us examine the racial composition of America and today.

In 1950, the population of the United States was just over 150 million, of which more than 135 million were white and about 15 million were non-white.7 Hispanics [mestizo], because of their small numbers, did not constitute a separate category. The American population was 90 percent white. In 1960, the population of the United States was just over 180 million, of which over 160 million were white, 19 million Negroes, and 1.6 million were of other races. America was about 89 percent white and 11 percent Negro and other races. The 1960 census did not generally contain separated categories for the Hispanics [mestizo], Orientals, Pacific Islanders or other nonwhite groups. There were only three classifications: “white,” “Negro,” and “Other.” Census takers were instructed to classify Hispanics [mestizo] as either “white” if their appearance was white or “Other” if their appearance was nonwhite. Gradually the Hispanic [mestizo] immigration grew until the U.S. Census Bureau felt it was necessary to classify them separately. During the 1970’s the documented Hispanic [mestizo] population increased by 61 percent.8 “Between 1977-78 huge increases of Vietnamese and Mexican [mestizo] immigrants accounted for 95 percent of the total rise in immigration.”9

In 1980, the population of the United States was over 226 million10 of which nonwhites, including Hispanics [mestizo], totaled, over 52 million.11 In other words, by 1980, America had, of record, become 23 percent nonwhite. These figures do not include an accurate estimation of the undocumented illegal aliens (primarily Hispanic [mestizo] and Oriental) who number many millions more. Based upon the number of illegal immigrants actually apprehended at the U.S. border by the Border Patrol, it is estimated that, in all, over 4 million Mexicans [mestizo] illegally immigrated to the United States in 1983 alone.12 It should be noted that illegal white immigration to the United States constitutes a negligible percentage of the total illegal population.

From 1951-60, about 1.8 million recorded immigrants came from Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or other white countries, comprising 72 percent of the total immigrants for this period. According to the U.S. Census, from 1971-79, of the 4.6 million recorded immigrants, 22.6 percent came from white countries. 87.4 percent were from nonwhite countries. Taking the year 1979 as an example of recent legal immigration trends, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service recorded 460,300 immigrants, of which 19.5 percent were from white countries, and recorded immigrants. If, for that year, we estimate that illegal and unrecorded Mexican [mestizo] at only 2.5 million and the Asian and Pacific Island illegal and unrecorded immigrants at 0.5 million, that would mean that for the year 1979, America has seen a dramatic increase of nonwhite immigration, with 1985 estimated to have the highest number of nonwhite immigrants enter the United States of any prior year. This trend is not seen to be changing in the near future.

With an estimated 4 million illegal Mexican [mestizo] immigrants in 1983 alone, and a birth rate for Hispanics [mestizo] in America at 102 per 1000, compared with 71 per 1000 for whites13 (85 per 1000 for blacks), the Latinization of the United States is particularly salient. Estimates of Hispanic [mestizo] growth to 50 million by 1990 is quite possible.

As a result of current U.S. immigration policies, illegal immigration trends, high fertility rates of nonwhites, including Hispanic [mestizo], low fertility rates of whites, and the growing occurrences of interracial marriage14, unless measures are taken forthwith, in less than two decades, America will be more than 50 percent nonwhite, and in two more decades, white America will be virtually swept away.

Standards of Conduct Concerning the Family

Living Patterns

[See Text]

(b) Sexual Relations Outside of Marriage

[See Text]

(c) Abortion

[See Text]


[See Text]

Standards of Conduct Concerning the Community

(a) Religion

In 1957, respondents to a Gallup Poll on the influence of religion in America felt overwhelmingly that religion had an increasing influence on American life. Almost 70 percent felt that religious influence was increasing, while only 14 percent felt that it was losing influence. By 1970, only 14 percent felt religious influence was increasing and 75 percent felt that it was decreasing.15 According to a survey of the National Opinion Research Center in 1972, 35 percent of the American public attended church or other religious service at least one a week. In 1977, that percentage dropped to 27.6 percent. Prior to 1962, schools in many states had voluntary daily prayers and Bible readings. In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court declared those acts to be unconstitutional.16

(b) Crime

[See Text]

(c) Drug Abuse

[See Text]

(d) Entertainment

[This section involves the issue of mores, or moral character, and how this is affected by the technic of visual and written mediums. The issue, in my opinion, is not, and never has been one of First Amendment issues; rather, it is to what line one holds oneself too. The human impulse to sexuality is normative, and continues throughout life, however, to allow ones impulse to direct and lead by the nose, as it were, on a course which serves nothing but license, is not in the best interest of those of the West, nor any other people, as the inevitable result is always to the detriment, and social destruction of the group or individual which allows his senses to control his moral pathway.

As well, let us differentiate from the Western experiment in ‘individuality’, which has been commandeered by elements who espouse personal liberty, yet utilize its fundamental outcome, to further an agenda which, if not controlled, would most certainly, continue to exploit those basic human needs and desires for their own economic and theoretical agendas. FLS]

In areas of entertainment in recent years, our tastes have become lewd and less refined. Our movies and books typically contain great amounts of nudity and profanity and portray the lowest standard of morality, and our legal system [Judiciary] condones this. An actor, who refused to take off his clothes for a movie scene in a movie already under production, received a Los Angeles Superior Court summons ordering him “to comply with all orders of the producer.”17 Our television shows, also containing profanity, involve protagonists who not only are bad role models, but who are often homosexuals, adulterers, and even perpetrators of incest. Each of these forms of entertainment is considered mainstream and for the common man [emph. added].

Americans spend approximately 750 hardcore pornography motion picture houses in the United States, not including those showing pornographic homosexual movies. Thirty years ago, prior to Playboy’s and others challenge to our stance on pornography, there were no above-ground magazines that were explicit in their pandering to the sexual interests of the public.

(e) Litigation

[See Text]

Standards of Conduct Concerning Industry

(a) Poverty

[See Text]

(b) Education

According to our almanacs, we still claim to have a 99 percent literacy rate as we had in past eras.18 Further, larger percentages of high school and college graduates pass through our institutions of education, and our students attend school for many more years than their counterparts in previous generations. Yet, in spite of this, the educational level of our youth is deteriorating dramatically and they learn much less today even though they live in a more complex world. [A]…report, The Nation at Risk, asserts that if an enemy nation had forced the U.S. to accept today’s low educational standards, “we might have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves.”19

(c) Industry and Technology

In 1960, America’s economy made up 33.7 percent of the world’s economy; in 1980, that margin shrunk to 21.5 percent. [table below is note 127; used for effect.]

Share of World GNP

1960 – 1980


US 33.7% 30.2% 21.5%

EEC 17.5 19.3 22.4

Japan 2.9 6.0 9.0

USSR 15.2 15.9 11.6

PRC 4.4 4.9 4.7

Other 26.3 23.7 30.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: 2000 Nen No Nihon (Japan in the Year 2000), Keizai Kikaku Cho Sogo Keikaku Kyoku Hen, Hihon Keizai Shimbunsha, Tokyo, 1982, p. 31.

Japan more than tripled its share of the world economy during the same period. Its economy rose from 2.9 percent to 9.0 percent. From 1870 to 1970, the United States almost always exported more than it imported. In the 1970’s, this trend began to change.20

In 1950, the world production of motor vehicles was 10,577,813 of which the United States manufactured 8,005,859 or 75.7 percent of the total.21 Japan manufactured 31,597 or 0.3 percent.22 Today, America produces millions fewer motor vehicles than it did in 1950. In 1981, the world production of motor vehicles more than tripled to 37,550,845 while the United States production declined to 7,942,916 or 21.2 percent of the total world production.23 Japans share rose to 11,179,962 or 21.2 percent.24 In 1950, world pig iron production (including ferroalloys) totaled 146,381,747 tons. The United States production was 65,439,769 tons, or 41 percent of the world total. In 1965, world production was 360,544,00 tons and U.S. production was 88,858,672 tons, or 24.6 percent of the world total. In 1982, the preliminary world total of pig iron production was 550,815,000 tons compared with the United States preliminary total production of 43,136,000 tons or 7.8 percent of the world total.

In 1978, America’s merchant fleet with 12 million tons sailing under its flag, is dwarfed by Japan’s 29 million gross tons, Great Britain’s 33 million, Norway’s 28 million, and Greece’s 23 million.25 U.S. shipyards are unable to compete with foreign shipbuilders who offer to build merchant vessels at prices 60 percent lower that it will cost in the United States.26 With rare exceptions, U.S. shipbuilders must rely on military and domestic shipping procurement protected under federal law. During 1983, shipbuilding declined by 14 percent.27 The current orderbook for commercial vessel production is at a pre-World War II level. Only 12 deep-draft commercial vessels, 1,000 gross tons and over, are projected to be under construction or on order as of January 1, 1984.28 In contrast, world orderbook of vessels of 2,000 dead weight tons or more was 1,442.29

Regarding consumer electronics, in 1960, the United States manufactured 17.2 million radio sets.30 Today, the only radios manufactured in the United States are some car stereos.31 In 1960, the United States manufactured 5.7 million televisions32, or almost 30 percent of the world’s total. By 1976, it manufactured 6 million sets, or only about 15 percent of the world’s total. In 1984, the U.S. manufactured even a smaller percentage. During the past 25 years the domestic consumer electronics industry has shifted from being a principal supplier of traditional radio and television receivers and related products to being the minority supplier. Imports account for an estimated 56 percent of sales in the domestic market.33

U.S. manufacturers no longer produce monochrome television receivers; domestic demand is met by imports from the Far East.34 Portable and table radios and audio tape recorders are not produced in the U.S. Production has shifted to the Far East.35 The U.S. does not produce consumer-type video cassette recorders.36 Few U.S. firms manufacture dot-matrix impact printers.37 The U.S. manufactures virtually no 35mm cameras.38 Only one U.S.-owned company manufacturers motorcycles and it has been losing money yearly.39

The rate of savings in the U.S. is the lowest of any developed country. Personal savings rate in Japan is 19 percent; in France, 16 percent; in West Germany, 14 percent; in Britain, 14 percent and in the U.S. less than 5 percent.40 When business needs more capital than ever, we are selling more stock than we are buying. In 1970, there were 31 million individual investors. Today, there are only 24 million.41

(d) Public Works

[See Text]

6. In Conclusion

The above facts unequivocally indicate that America is:

  1. Becoming a nonwhite nation;

  2. Allowing its Family structure to dissolve;

  3. Engaging in rampant sexual promiscuity directly resulting in:

    1. an elimination of chastity;

    2. widespread abortion;

    3. widespread and open homosexuality;

    4. rampant heterosexual and homosexual venereal disease;

  4. Losing its faith in god and its Christian ethics;

  5. Beset with uncontrollable crime;

  6. Beset with widespread drug abuse;

  7. Promoting decadence through its forms of entertainment;

  8. Contentious and litigious;

  9. Allowing the numbers of poor to swell enormously;

  10. Losing its national literacy;

  11. Losing its technological edge; and

  12. Allowing its public works to decay.


[See Text]



[See Text]


There is no clear-cut method to change our attitudes and actions to enable us to overcome our social ills. However, as mentioned earlier, we can return the structure of our laws to a form that will one again be conducive to right conduct. This would be accomplished by reempowering the states with the ability to govern and solve their own domestic problems.

Over time, the reach of our federal government has grown so long and powerful that it now covers almost every action of the people.42 It is bulky and overbearing and often restrains effective measures to solve our problems43, whereas states, reempowered with the right to solve their problems could effect change on a local level and accomplish more efficiently the will of the people. This is the essence of the states’ rights arguments that have existed since the constitution was ratified in 1789. at this point, an explanation of this argument is appropriate.

The question of the relation which the State and General Government bear to each other is not one of recent origin. From the commencement of our system, it has divided public sentiment. Even in the convention, while the constitution was struggling into existence, there were two parties as to what this relation should be, whose different sentiments constituted no small impediment in forming that instrument. After the General Government went into operation, experience soon proved that the question had not terminated with the labors of the Convention.44

These words of John C. Calhoun, uttered on July 26, 1831, are just as relevant today as they were then, and the issue of federal-state relations is as pressing as it ever was. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in 1975 that: “Surely there can be no more fundamental constitutional question than that of the intention of the Framers of the Constitution as to how authority should be allocated between the National and State Governments.”45

Despite this debate that continually rages over the extent of federal jurisdiction arising our of enumerated but undefined and indefinite powers, the Constitution of the United States is a truly remarkable document. Gladstone referred to its as “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”46

The Constitution was fashioned by the representatives of “sovereign states” who had met for about a dozen years in a loose-knit confederation,47 and who saw the need for a more powerful central government. Two cardinal features distinguish the republic created by the Constitution from all other political organizations in existence up to the time of its founding.

First, ‘in creating a new government the founding fathers sought to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power through a system of checks and balances referred to as the ‘separations of powers’ whereby governmental authority is divided between three branches of government to the end that each will serve as a limitation on the others.”48

Second, “the framers resolved to further limit governmental authority by creating a dual or federal system, be delegating to a central government only those powers which conveniently could not be exercised locally while at the same time reserving to the several states the broad residuum of powers traditionally possessed by governments.”49

The U.S. supreme court described this dual or federal system in United States v. Cruikshank50 as follows:

We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each one of these governments is distinct from the other, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other…

The government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the states of the people. No rights can be acquired under the constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be granted or secured are left under the protection of the States.

Further, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Hammer v. Dagenhart51 that:

In interpreting the Constitution, it must never be forgotten that the nation is made up of States to which are entrusted the powers of local government. And to them and to the people powers not expressly delegated to the National Government are reserved…The power of the States to regulate their purely internal affairs by such laws as seem wise to the local authority is inherent and has never been surrendered to the general government…”

The powers of the federal government are vested in the three branches solely by virtue of the Constitution. The central government was one of delegated powers only. Moreover, the Founding Fathers felt that the exercise of these powers delegated by the federal government needed to be limited so that the rights of the citizens of the several states were protected. The Constitution was ratified only after assurances that limitations on actions by the federal government would be submitted by the first Congress in the form of amendments thereto. These limitations, known as the “bill of rights,” were adopted three years after the ratification of the Constitution,52 largely as a result of James Madison’s insistence,53 and are considered to be an integral part of the original federal system.54 Under our dual or federal system, any assertion of power by the federal government must be in accordance with the powers delegated to it by the Constitution. If the Constitution does not delegate the federal government the authority to act, then we need look no further; the federal government cannot act. If the Constitution does delegated power to the federal government in a certain area, then “we must go one step further and ascertain whether the mode in which that power is sought to be exercised transgresses any limitation contained in the bill of rights.55

Under the bill of rights, the federal government could do no act to restrain certain enumerated rights of the people even if it was action under the color of certain delegated powers. Moreover, the tenth amendment provided “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”56 In essence, this language merely set forth in writing an already existing principle and did nothing more than state the facts that the federal government’s powers are delegated ones and are not plenary. If the states, as independent sovereignties, did not delegated powers to the central government by the Constitution, then they retain those powers. By no other means does the federal government attain power but through the delegation of the states. The states’ rights debate centers on just how much authority should be vested in the central government and how much should be vested in the people. Advocates of centralization of governmental power accuse the states’ rights advocates of being confederates and rebels,57 racists,58 and “radical in the extreme.”59 Advocates of a centralized government have traditionally looked to the government as a “mother figure” to solve most national ills, and, until the most recent trend away from big government, had been effective in attaining a centralization of power.

Therein [above] lies the states’ rights debate. Centralization and big government on the one hand and division of power and local control on the other. A return to local control will be the vehicle for the American people to effect the change necessary to alter our current course toward ruin. In recent years, we expanded and extended the scope and authority of the central government to such an extent that the continued existence of our federal republic is in jeopardy. “One well may ask whether the states have not been reduced vis-à-vis the federal government, to well below the status of counties in the ordinary commonwealth. All this has been accomplished without the aid of constitutional amendment. If it stands, have we not replaced our Federal Republic with a unitary policy without even half trying to do so?”60

Long before Justice Rehnquist concluded in Fry v. United States61 that “the Constitution was [not] intended to permit the result reached today; have we not driven another nail in the coffin of the Federal Republic?,” officials representing many states met together in Biloxi, Mississippi, on July 27, 1962, and “speaking through the powerful Council of State Governments,”62 addressed the issue of extension of Federal powers and concluded, as follows:63

The characteristic of our constitutional government, which has contributed most to the development of democratic processes and the preservation of human rights is the division of the powers of government between the nation and the states on the one and between the executive, legislative and judicial departments of both state and federal governments on the other. Over the years, we have escaped the evils of despotism and totalitarianism. It is only when each division of the whole government structure insists upon the right to exercise its powers, unrestrained by any other division, that the proper balance can be maintained and constitutional government, as we understand it, preserved.

It is the responsibility of the central government to protect the people from invasion by the states of those rights which are guaranteed to them by the federal Constitution. It is equally the obligation of the states to initiate and to prosecute to fruition the necessary procedures to protect the states and the people from unwarranted assumption of power by any department of the federal government.

A greater degree of restraint on the part of the United States Supreme Court can do much, but experience shows that it is not likely to be sufficient. The basic difficultly is that the Supreme Court’s decision concerning the balance between federal and state power are final and can be changed in practice only if the states can muster sufficient interest in Congress, backed by a three-fourths majority of states themselves to amend the Constitution. While the founding fathers fully expected and wished the words of the constitution to have this degree of finality, it is impossible to believe that they envisaged such potency for the pronouncements of nine judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court is, after all, an organ of federal government. It is one of the three branches of the national government, and in conflicts over federal and state power; the Court is necessarily an agency of one of the parties in interest. As such, its decisions should not be assigned the same finality as the words of the Constitution itself. There is need for an easier method of setting such decisions straight when they are unsound.

To amend the Federal Constitution to correct specific decisions of the federal courts on specific points is desirable, but it will not necessarily stop the continuing drift toward more complete federal domination. The present situation has taken a long time to develop and may take a long time to remedy. Accordingly, some more fundamental and far-reaching change in the Federal Constitution is necessary to preserve and protect the states.

It is the ultimate of political ingenuity to achieve a vigorous federal system in which dynamic states combine with a responsibly central government for the good of the people”

Basically, the power of the federal government just grew over time, little by little, through a judicial activism, which characterized the Warren and Burger courts, but was prevalent in other courts as well. The meaning of judicial activism is attempting to achieve social reform through judicial decision. Judge Jerome Frank described this process by saying that ‘judges work back from conclusions to principles.”64A more detailed explanation of judicial activism is as follows: Judges formulated out of the record and the arguments a tentative conclusion as to what justice and the law require. Then the judge searches for theories and authorities to support the tentative conclusion.65 Judges excuse this approach claiming, “it is psychologically impossible even to approximated objectivity and impartiality.”66

The two major constitutional theories by which the activist courts have extended their power to control state activities are the commerce power and the fourteenth amendment. Concerning the commerce clausse*, legal scholars have stated: “during the forty years since the New Deal, social control has inexorably consolidated in the expanding federal bureaucracy on the strength of the commerce power and the spending power,”67 and “during the Depression years, the country suffered the spectacle of the court distorting the Commerce clause completely out of proportions so as to drastically expand federal power.”68

Concerning the fourteenth amendment, legal scholars have pointed out: “the ironical fact of all this is that the so-called enlightened ‘liberal’ who today invokes the [fourteenth] Amendment for his own selfish aims invariably professes to be conduction some divinely inspired crusade, yet nothing in the history of this country is more immoral, fraudulent or high-handed than the manner in which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.”69

It is not the purpose of this author [James O. Pace] to trace the tortuous precedents concerning the commerce clause and the fourteenth amendment, which have empowered the federal government to control the affairs regulated by the states. Nevertheless, as for the fourteenth amendment, a brief history of the development and interpretation is in order, due to the recommendations this author makes concerning it.

The history of the “ratification” of the fourteenth amendment, which provides in part “that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law,” is as follows.70

The fourteenth Amendment was submitted by a Congress dominated by a radical republican leadership, which never would have succeeded, had Lincoln lived.

The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both houses to submit an amendment for ratification. While the submission was by two-thirds of those present, this two-thirds was obtained only by excluding, under reconstruction acts, representatives of ten confederated states, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution also provides that each state shall have at least one representative in the House. If the Southern delegation in Congress today were to forcibly eject representatives of other states and seek to submit a repeal of the amendment, would anyone seriously contend their actions legal?

Consequently, it follows that the Fourteenth Amendment was never legally submitted.

However, even passing by the illegal submission, it is equally clear that the amendment was never legally ratified. Adoption under the Constitution required ratification by at least three-fourths, or 28, of the 37 states then in existence.

Kentucky, Delaware and Maryland rejected the amendment outright. The amendment has never been ratified by California. New Jersey and Ohio initially ratified it but both later withdrew their ratification. All ten of the Southern states immediately rejected it. The Amendment failed.

Assuming for the moment that the submission was legal, this rejection was lawful and proper under the procedure provided by the Constitution. That should have been the end of the matter. But [‘reconstruction’] Congress became infuriated, and thenceforth adopted high-handed measures.

It enacted, over President [Andrew] Johnson’s veto, the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which declared that no legal government existed in the ‘ten states’ [emph added], placed them all under military occupation, disfranchised the white people, and put the state governments in the hands of illiterate Negroes, scalawags and carpet-baggers. In another section, this wholesale bill of attainder* provided that each excluded state must ratify the amendment in order to enjoy the status of a state, including representation in Congress. It was only under such duress that the amendment was finally adopted.

As mentioned earlier, the bill of rights originally applied only to the federal government. The states ratified the Constitution on the promise that further restraints on enumerated federal power would be adopted by means of a bill of rights, and this was done. The Constitution contains an enumeration of powers expressly granted by the states to the federal government. This indicated that the Constitution is an enabling and not a restraining instrument.71 By virtue of this fact, since the states did not restrict themselves in the bill of rights, the various state legislatures were free to act on the rights contained in the first ten amendments as they saw fit, subject to approval by the state supreme court review and not the U.S. Supreme Court.

Accordingly, states could pass laws outlawing what they perceive to be obscenity, pornography…They could empower their school boards with the right to dismiss incompetent teachers without fear of civil rights reprisals. States could impose the death penalty, crowd the jails and deny the prisoners recreation facilities without fear of federal courts ruling that such acts were unconstitutional. In sum, any right contained in the bill of rights could be handled in a manner the state governments saw fit.*

The adoption of the fourteenth amendment provided the U. S. Supreme Court with the opportunity to change that. Through a series of cases, the U.S. Supreme Court construed the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment (which was applicable to the states) in a manner, which made the bill of rights also applicable to the states. At that point, the U.S. Supreme Court empowered itself to review all actions by the states in regard to bill of rights issues and pass on their constitutionality.

Historically, “due process” meant that the federal government would not deprive someone of his rights without following lawful procedures. This meant that in order to send a suspect to jail there had to be a duly conducted trial held first. This concept is embodied in numerous laws and ordinances besides the Constitution. The concept of due process was expanded by dividing it into two areas, one called procedural due process, the traditional concept, and one called substantive due process. Procedural due process concerned the legal procedure employed to deprive an individual of his rights.

The procedural due process safe guards ensured that the individual charged with a crime would be assured of the right to such things as:

    1. Notice of the nature and cause of the charge against him;

    2. A speedy and public trial by an impartial jury;

    3. Opportunity to confront witnesses accusing him and to compel witnesses in his favor to appear;

Furthermore, the individual would not be:

a. Subject to unreasonable searches or baseless arrests by government


b. Compelled to incriminate himself.

These and other procedural rights are incorporated into the bill of rights. The concept of substantive due process was developed to extend the power of the court’s authority beyond the mere enforcement of proper procedure when depriving a person life, liberty, or property, to include the power of the court to guarantee what it saw as a basic liberty. At this point, it no longer was sufficient for Congress or the sates to pass laws, which restrict the actions of the citizens. Even if they did so according to proper, established procedure, i.e. due process of law. Every act of Congress o the states which could affect an implied constitutional right became subjects to judicial scrutiny. The courts would determine if a right is guaranteed under the Constitution by implication, and if it was, the court could rule it unconstitutional in the event the court thought is unjust. Hence, the courts, for example, were able to read into the Constitution the guarantees of the right of a woman to have an abortion, even if elected legislators enacted laws to make it illegal. Under other amendments contained in the bill of rights made applicable to the states by the fourteenth amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has been able to invalidate state anti-pornography statutes, state penal codes, zoning laws, etc.

The result has been that in recent years the power and the rights of the communities and citizens of the various states to promote programs and use their duly enacted laws to maintain their traditional value system has been curtailed by the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts as well. Once the U.S. Supreme Court granted itself jurisdiction over state action, it began to cast aside various state action governing standards of conduct as being unconstitutional. At times, it would find an entire state statute to be unconstitutional and at other times only portions thereof.

Because of this social activism on the part of the U.S. Supreme Court, states in the 1960’s bean to raise questions about the Court’s present day function. Many states were saying that the U.S. Supreme Court, comprised of unelected officials, was legislation laws rather than merely interpreting them.

As it stands now, there is no purpose in maintaining separate state constitution or state laws. On vital social issues, the federal courts have removed the power to which the states were originally entitled to construct and construe their own laws.

There is no debate as to the express powers of the federal government. These are many and are fundamental to a united nation. However, the U.S. Supreme court, other federal courts and even congress with increasing fervor in recent years, have been enlarging the role of the federal government by taking a concept in the Constitution and expanding it to include vaguely related principles, giving rise to so-called implied federal rights. For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides that Congress shall have power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” Congress and the federal courts reasoned that race relations affect commerce and since Congress may regulate that area, it may regulate race relations to the exclusion of the states. Accordingly, the power to regulate racial discrimination was delegated to the federal government by implication and the U.S. Supreme Court approved. Thus, there was no violation of the tenth amendment guarantee of states’ rights. [emph. added]

The interpretation of the fourteenth amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court has altered our federal system. The U.S. Supreme Court, by its own social activism, has assumed legislative control over the states and now decides issues of race relations, religion, abortion and many other pivotal issues which determine whether or not a society progresses or regresses. The U.S. Supreme Court thus makes decisions that no state or community can alter no matter how wrong the decisions are and no matter if 100 percent of the population votes to have them altered.

In spite of all we do as individuals to elevate the morality of the nation, our efforts will be thwarted by the strictures of unconstitutionality placed upon the legislatures by the federal courts. Courts, in their attempt to restrict the community of its rights and have mandated the legislation of immorality, and the abandonment of our entire heritage.

There exists a solution.

This [action] would be accomplished by repealing he fourteenth amendment to the constitution and strengthening the tenth amendment guarantees of states’ rights. Since the federal courts use the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to gain supervisory power over the states on key issues, the repeal of this amendment would effectively remove the court created basis on which federal judges rely to regulated state action so extensively. To repeal the fourteenth amendment would be to eliminate the due process clause applicable to the states, with which the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal government have appropriated the constitutional rights of the states. This would mean that only the various state supreme courts and not the U.S. Supreme Court could pass on the constitutionality of these key issues, and they would do this based on the U.S. Constitution and the respective state constitutions. Due process, as applied to the federal system would still exist in the fifth amendment and in federal statutes such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, etc., and due process would exist for the states as set forth in their constitutions and other laws and statutes. The basic rights of the citizens, as they concern the government’s obligation to abide by the laws in its disposition of life, liberty and property, will be unaffected. What will be altered is the power the U.S. Supreme Court has assumed to invalidate state action on issues that are so fundamental to a community’s wholesome development. The supremacy of the Constitution and the federal government would remain unchallenged. Our country would still be centrally controlled areas of national interest, taxation, military, international affairs, commerce, and other areas expressly delegated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. Only the issues of local concern, standards of conduct and racial identity would be affected thereby. [emph. added]



1. Introduction

In recent years, those whom the world traditionally recognizes as Americans72* (those of Western European Stock) have been taught to disregard the richness of their heritage and identity and even be ashamed of it. In certain circles of our society, it is deemed to be misplaced pride to value the achievements of our ancestors and our race. To pride oneself on being descended from the founding Fathers is often considered to be hollow boasting. Yet, our forefathers founded this nation and drafted the Constitution for their posterity and for no one else’s [see, for instance, U.S. Constitution, preamble], so, in fact, those that can, should rejoice in being of their lineage and heir to that birthright. America must value its past and rejoice in its rich heritage, or forever lose that heritage to other races who value theirs. [emph. added]

There is a direct link between our past and our future. If we despise, make light of, or ignore our past, we cannot pass on our identity and culture to our posterity. Our children will abandon our culture and the ideals we hold.73 They will increasingly marry into other races and allow those races to continue immigrating to America en masse until America is no longer white but thoroughly mixed. At that point, national unity will become impossible to regain until we are unified as one dark-skinned race. This darkening of America is rapidly taking place today, and we are so confused by our identity that no one can speak out against it and feel comfortable in society. Unless we remember our heritage and strive to preserve it for our posterity. America will be overrun and ruined.

3. Outline of Incorrect Philosophies on Racial Identity

The incorrect philosophies regarding our identity will be discussed in this part of the text. Further, this part will deal with the issue of race, how America is being replaced with other peoples and how our incorrect philosophies regarding identity allow this to happen.

Some incorrect notions subscribed to by a large number of Americans and which prevent us from preserving our nation are as follows:

  1. Maintaining the racial composition of a society is racist.

  2. America is a country for all races. Except for the American Indians from whom we took this land, all Americans are immigrants, so to restrict immigration or citizenship to whites is un-American.

  3. History has proved that our past racial discrimination was groundless. Racial diversity enhances our influence in the world community and gives us vitality that racially homogeneous countries do not have.

  4. It does not matter if Americans become a nonwhite people.

Following is an analysis of the above mentioned notions.

  1. Maintaining the racial composition of a society is racist.

The International Convention on the Eliminations of All forms of Racial Discrimination provides that “racial segregation…[is] condemned by the States’ parties, and they pledge to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all such practices in their territories.”74 This UN –sponsored convention is express in its position that maintaining racial identity and communities of one’s own people is racist. Further, articles in the UNESCO Courier assert that “integration, both racial and cultural, is certainly an indispensable stop on the road to the eradication of racialism.”75

    1. There are pure races

[See Text]

ii) These pure races are biologically superior

[See Text]

iii) Superiority explains and justifies their predominance and privileges.

[See Text]

2. America is a country for all races. Except for the Indians, form whom we took the land, all Americans are immigrants. Thus, to restrict immigration or citizenship to whites only is un-American.

[See Text]

i) We took the land from the Indians.

[See Text]

ii) America is a country for all races.

[See Text]

3. History has proved that our past racial discrimination was groundless. Racial diversity enhances our influence in the world community and give us vitality that racially homogeneous countries do not have.

We have somehow come to believe that our strength is derived from the literate masses of the third world rather than through a systematic growth of a unified country accepting hardworking additions only from the same source from which America sprang – Europe. This relatively new concept, “the Statue of liberty syndrome,” has distorted our view of our country’s strengths and weaknesses. Our nation was strong and unified before the word “melting pot” was used at the beginning of this century to describe certain cities in America, and it remained strong throughout the dedicated era of heavy immigration during this period because the waves of immigrants from Europe could easily assimilated themselves into America’s European heritage.

Those afflicted with the Statue of Liberty syndrome seem to always use the Irish experience as an example and say: “Look at them; they were discouraged from coming to America and discriminated upon arrival, but they have adjusted. The reasons for discrimination against the Irish were groundless, just as groundless as discrimination is against the nonwhite immigrants of today.

Discrimination against the Irish was relatively mild and was based on two factors. First, territorial fears that a great number of immigrants would divide the nation and cause the Americans to lose their land and possessions. Second, the historical, but intense animosity between the Protestants and the Catholics of the British Isles. The Americans feared that the same problems would erupt here, which has proved not to have occurred. America was able to absorb the large number of Irish immigrants because their differences were minor and would vanish in one generation. The same can be said for the immigrants from the other European countries. Such is not the case with the Iranians, Laotians, Samoans or Puerto Ricans. It is more than just silly to say that because the Germans and the Irish adjusted so can the nonwhites; it is fatal tot the future of our country. Nonwhite presence in America will continue to rive the country and prevent progress until we fall apart or are totally overrun.

To make America a white country again is consistent with our history. No nation on earth can point a finger at us or even think ill of us for protecting our borders. They all do it with their own laws and occasionally by force. The world will only wonder why we waited so long.

5. It does not matter if Americans become a nonwhite people.

[See Text]

3. General thoughts in Summation

[See Text]


1. The Scope of the Amendment

In essence, this section of the text advocates a return to the Dred Scott ruling and submits a proposal for repealing the fourteenth amendment, which would make that event a reality.

This proposal bas been drafted with two objectives in mind. The first one is the practicality in making the proposal law and the second one is achieving a fair and non-burdensome adjustment as the status and situation of the nonwhite population.

The fourteenth amendment is quoted below in full to enable the reader to understand its contents and the rationale for rescission thereof:


Passed By Congress June 16, 1866. Ratified July 23, 1868

Section. 1. 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. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

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. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

It should be noted that section 1 is the only important section of the entire amendment. The section 2 language as to apportionment of representatives is found in Article I of the constitution and the rest of Section 2 and the remaining sections contain nothing but punishments directed against the southern states for seceding from the Union.

The fourteenth amendment is an amendment that reflected the zeal of the day and should be repealed. Basically, it grew out of the Northerners’ desire to humiliated the South and exact revenge from them for rebellion. It should not be maintained at the expense of the nation as a whole. Of all the laws contemplated by the Congress and the state legislatures, the most important legislation for the preservation of our union would be the proper repeal of this amendment.

There have been many efforts over the years to repeal the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments and to have them declared invalid. Below is a Senate Resolution of the Georgia Assembly, which sought to do just that. It explains in a clear manner the historical argument that the amendments are invalid.76

Senate Resolution No. 39 (Res. Act No. 45) of the 1957 regular session of the Georgia General Assembly, passed March 8, 1957, memorializes the United States Congress to declare the fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution invalid. The resolution follows:


A memorial to the congress o the United States of America urging them to enact such legislation as they may deem fit to declared that the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States were never validly adopted and that they are null and void and of no effect.

Whereas, the State of Georgia together with the ten other southern States declared to have been lately in rebellion against the United States, following the termination of hostilities in 1865, met all the conditions laid down by the President o the United States, in the exercise of his Constitutional to recognize the governments of states, domestic as well s foreign, for the resumption of practical relations with the Government of the United States, and at the direction of the President did elect Senators and Representatives to the 39th Congress of the United States, as a Stated and States in proper Constitutional relations to the United States; and

Whereas, when the duly elected Senators and Representatives appeared in the Capitol of the United States to take their seat at the time for the opening of the 39th congress, and gain at the times for the openings of the 40th and the 41st Congress, hostile majorities in both Houses refused to admit them to their seats in manifest violation of Articles I and V of the United States Constitution; and

Whereas, the said Congresses, not being constituted of Senators and Representatives from each State as required by the Supreme Law of the Land, were not, in Constitutional contemplation, anything more than private assemblages unlawfully attempting to exercise the Legislative Power of the United States; and

Whereas, the so-called 39th Congress, which proposed to the Legislatures of the several States an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as the 14th Amendment, and the so-called 40th Congress, which proposed and amendment know as the 15th Amendment, were without lawful power to propose any amendment whatsoever to the Constitution; and

Whereas, two-thirds of the Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, as they should have been constituted, failed to vote for the submission of these amendments; and

Whereas, all proceedings subsequently flowing from these invalid proposals, purporting to establish the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments as valid parts of the Constitution, were null and void and of no effect from the beginning; and

Whereas, furthermore, when these invalid proposals were rejected by the General Assembly of the Stated o Georgia and twelve other Southern States, as well as of sundry Northern States, the so-called 39th and 40th Congresses, in flagrant disregard of the United States Constitution, by use of military force, dissolved the duly recognized State Governments in Georgia and nine of ht other Southern States and set up military occupation or puppet state governments, which compliantly ratified the invalid proposals, thereby making (at the point of the bayonet) a mockery of Section 4, Article IV of the Constitution, guaranteeing ‘to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government,’ and guaranteeing protection to ‘each of them against invasion;’ and

Whereas, further, the pretended ratification of the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments by Georgia and other States whose sovereign powers had been unlawfully seized by force of arms against the peace and dignity of the people of those States, were necessary to give color to the claim of the so-called 40th and 41st Congresses that these so-called amendments had been ratified by three-fourths of the States; and

Whereas, it is a well-established principle of law that the mere lapse of time does not confirm by common acquiescence and invalidly-enacted provision of law just as it does not repeal by general desuetude a provision validly enacted; and

Whereas, the continued recognition of the 14th and 15th Amendments as valid parts of the Constitution of the United States as the World’s champion of Constitutional governments resting upon the consent of the people given through their lawful representatives:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the general Assembly of the State of Georgia:

The Congress of the United States is hereby memorialized and respectfully urged to declare that the exclusions of the Southern Senators and Representatives from the 39th, 40th, and 41st Congresses were malignant acts of arbitrary power and rendered those Congresses invalidly constituted; that the forms of law with which those invalid Congresses attempted to clothe the submission of the 14th and 15th Amendments and to clothe the subsequent acts to compel unwilling States to ratify these invalidly proposed amendments, imparted no validity to these acts and amendments; and that the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are null and void and of no effect.

Be it further resolved that copies of this memorial be transmitted forthwith by the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate of the State of Georgia to the President of the United States, the Chief Justice of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, and the Senators and Representatives in the Congress from the State of Georgia.”

Repeal of the fourteenth amendment and thereby reinstating the Dred Scott v. Stanford ruling that nonwhites cannot be citizens is a proper and necessary action for the preservation of the American people. Absent such legal safeguards for the American people, the course of modern America will continue until we are completely replaced by a new race of people.

The method for achieving this repeal, resulting in the revesting of the states with their rights to cure domestic problems regarding standards of conduct, and the unification of ht American people and retention of our racial identity, would be through the ratification of the following amendment to the Constitution, to be numbered the twenty-seventh amendment.

[Note: Herein lies the proposed Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, henceforth known as the ‘Pace Amendment’, and is the essence of this ‘summary’; the analysis to follow is, also, part of the overall Pace Amendment, and it is strongly suggested that the reader should avail himself of the entire work by Mr. Pace, to keep in context his overall construct, and the ‘end’ to which this amendment would realize. FLS]


Section 1.

The fourteenth and fifteenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed. Further, in order to halt the encroachment into the reserved powers of the states by the United States and its judicial branch, the tenth article of amendment is hereby amended to read as follows:

The powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Section 2.

No person shall be a citizen of the United States unless he is a non-Hispanic white of the European race, in whom there is no ascertainable trace of Negro blood, nor more than one-eighth Mongolian, Asian, Asia Minor, Middle Eastern, Semitic, Near Easter, American Indian, Malay or other non-European or nonwhite blood, provided that Hispanic whites, defined as anyone with an Hispanic ancestor, may be citizens if, in addition to meeting the aforesaid ascertainable trace and percentage tests, they are, in appearance, indistinguishable from Americans whose ancestral home is the British Isles or Northwestern Europe. Only citizens shall have the right and privilege to reside permanently in the United States.

Section 3.

The Congress and the several states, except where expressly preempted by the Congress, shall have concurrent power to enforce the provisions of this article by appropriate legislation, in coordination with the President, as such legislation concerns the making of treaties pursuant to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Section 4.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years of its submission.

  1. Analysis of the Sections

The following is a section-by-section discussion of the suggested twenty-seventh amendment.

      1. Section 1.

Section 1 of the amendment would repeal the fourteenth as well as the fifteenth amendments and would amend the tenth amendment by inserting the word “expressly” before the word “delegated.” [emph. added.] The fourteenth amendment has been quoted above. The fifteenth amendment is quoted below.77


Section 1.

The rights 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 race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

A repeal of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments will have two basic effects. It will eliminate the absorption doctrine whereby the U.S. supreme court has expanded the bill of rights protections to cover state action and, thus, ultimately usurp states’ authority.78 Lest there be any doubt in the minds of the U.S. Supreme court justices, the tenth amendment is amended as well to ensure this result. It will also terminate the right of citizenship by virtue of being born in the United States and could return the law to the state it was in after the Dred Scott decision. Since the fourteenth amendment directly reversed that decision, a repeal of the fourteenth amendment could terminate that reversal. The fourteenth and fifteenth amendments are the only references in the entire Constitution, which can be interpreted to bestow the rights of citizenship on nonwhites. In order to ensure this result, Section 2 of the suggested amendment is included. This issue will be discussed in detail in the analysis of Section 2 below.

A repeal of the fourteenth amendment will do much to terminate the illegal encroachment by the central government into the reserved powers of the States and rights of the people. However, a repeal of that amendment alone might not be sufficient in light of the extremely activist nature of the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court has impliedly bestowed powers on itself and the other branches of the central government in blatant disregard for the tenth amendment. A mere repeal of the fourteenth amendment may eliminated the due process theory on which the courts have relied to assume ultimate control over the people but might not prevent them from reaching the same ends by different means. The repeal of the fourteenth amendment is but a treatment of the symptoms, not a cure of the diseases. The cure is a reinforcement of the tenth amendment.

The Texas Legislature recognized this fact and by House Concurrent Resolution proposed as follows:

House Concurrent Resolution No. 5 of the second 1957 special session of the Texas Legislature proposes that a national convention be called, as provided by Article V of the United States Constitution, to amend the constitution so as “to clearly and specifically set out certain limits beyond which the United States government has no authority, as generally provided in the Tenth Amendment…”


WHEREAS, The Constitution of the United States is bases upon the principle of proper limits being placed on the exercise of all power by all governments and officials, both state and national; and

WHEREAS, The people of the United States have historically believed in a written constitution rather than rule by proclamation; and

WHEREAS, The exercise of power by the United States Government has become so great and centralized as a result of the United States Supreme Court’s liberal interpretation of the powers ascribed to the United States Government under the United States Constitution so as to threaten the very existence of all State Governments and states’ rights except as political subdivisions of the United States; and

WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has virtually repealed the Tenth Amendment by interpretation which has resulted in a central government almost without limit of its powers; and

WHEREAS, The Texas Legislature further feels that individual rights and freedoms are best protected by limiting the powers of government rather than centralizing them; and

WHEREAS, The Legislature of the State of Texas recognizes that the easiest way for a foreign enemy to control the United States is to centralize all power and control in one central government rather than have all powers divided and limited among an “indivisible union of indestructible states”; and

WHEREAS, Article V of the United States Constitution provides a method whereby tow thirds of the States’ Legislatures can petition Congress for a National Convention to propose an amendment to the United States Constitution to clearly and specifically set out certain limits beyond which the United States Government has no authority, as generally provided in the Tenth Amendment…”

As set forth above, the Texas legislature petitioned congress and the President to amend the Constitution so as to reinforce the meaning of the tenth amendment. The suggested amendment accomplishes this purpose by inserting the word “expressly” to further limit the powers of the federal government. When the proposed tenth amendment was discussed at the first Congress, the “expressly” was suggested as a clarification of the limitation on the power of the federal government.79 The Hamiltonians, or Federalists, rejected this proposal while the Madisonians, or states’ rights advocates, supported it.80 The Hamiltonians won, and the word did not become a part of the tenth amendment. However, if the Hamiltonians could have seen how meaningless the tenth amendment would become, surely they would have not opposed the insertion of the word.

(b) Section 2 and 3

The citizenship clause of fourteenth amendment is no longer practical in today’s mobile society where foreigners come to live in the United States for a few years with their families. Children are born in the United States and, by virtue of the citizenship clause of ht fourteenth amendment, these children become American citizens, when, in reality, they have no more of a nexus with this country than a birth certificate. Pregnant Mexicans [mestizos], Filipinos and other minority women abuse this clause to gain citizenship for their children by sneaking into this country to have their babies.

Often is the case where a Japanese or Korean company will send a young family to the United States and a baby is born here. When the family returns to it native country, the parents reenter their own country with their Japanese or Korean passports and the baby has a separate U.S. passport. The baby, with no more ties to the United States than a birth certificate, becomes a citizen entitled to live here with the foreign family it brings with it on its next visit. As for the Mexican [mestizo] families who come to America, their companies do not send them, nor do they have proper visas. They come into the country by themselves, illegally, but their children still become citizens. The whole world is taking advantage of these ridiculous laws that allow our country to be turned over to non-Americans. The amendment to the Constitution that this text proposes would plug that one loophole which makes children of Americans and children of illegal aliens equally American under the law. The sheer force of numbers necessitates this change. There are only 200 million actual Americans, but under current laws, there are 4 billion81 potential ones.

Further, as mentioned above, we are seeing not just a massive influx of minorities into the country, but are witnessing an epidemic of miscegenation within the native population, which in the space of two generations will darken and alter the racial composition of our entire nation. Opponents of the suggested Amendment question the right of society to take such drastic action against the minorities and the American whites that want to marry them. The answer is simply that the right develops partly out of necessity. If action is not taken, white America is a doomed race. It is the illegal aliens, the pressing mass of minorities and the misceginators who have no right to unalterably destroy the race, heritage, culture and entire makeup of our nation.

The repeal of the fifteenth amendment fits into the overall scheme of the proposal of this text by removing the right to vote regardless of race. It would be incongruous to repeal the fourteenth amendment, which gives citizenship rights to nonwhites, but not repeal the fifteenth amendment, which gives them voting rights. Moreover, as stated above, in the Georgia Senate Resolution, the fifteenth amendment as well as the fourteenth amendment was illegally proposed and ratified by the radicals at the end of the Civil War.

This step of repealing the fifteenth amendment ultimately is necessary because as the hoards of what we now call minorities increase, they will soon have a more powerful franchise than the so-called American majority. At that juncture, what had been mainstream America will not be able to pass one [single] law. We will be at the mercy of a nonwhite majority who will, and are now, no matter how much we try to deny it, act, and are acting, to curtail our freedoms. Soon America could be like the former Rhodesia where power is turned over to the nonwhites and the whites are forced to flee for their protection. Then America could be like a large Haiti, the one white population gone, its once thriving economy collapsed, and its system of democracy having long since passed away.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, much in our society acts to condition us to reject our heritage, and as the nonwhite forces grow stronger, the pressure and conditioning will intensify until remedial action will be no longer possible. At this stage, action is possible if all of us shake off the years of conditioning that have dulled our perception and look at this proposal with a clear, rational mind, weighing the facts, the trends and ultimate justice (justice not construed to be what is easy or nice to each individual who may appear oppressed, but justice that can be disciplined and even harsh when needed). We must look to the future and envision what the results of inaction will be.

(i) Definition of White

In order to enforce t his amendment as it relates to the vast majority of people, there is no real need to define the term “white of the European race”. This is because most Americans can be easily defined as either white or nonwhite. Someone of English, German, Swedish, or Polish ancestry would never be confused as being nonwhite. Conversely, a Negro, a Chinese, and Arab, and most Mexicans are, by appearance, obviously nonwhite. The division between whites and nonwhites can easily be drawn in the vast majority of cases. There are, however, arguments and complexities concerning a small percentage of the people, which can be carried to the extreme to bog down the entire process of defining who should and who should not be a citizen of the United States. Moreover, since America is now preoccupied with the concepts of individual rights over the rights of the country as a whole, this issue of unclear lines between white and nonwhite can deter some people from supporting the amendment. With each year, the problem becomes more and more complex.

Such problems concern the classification of part-white/part-nonwhite peoples, or nonwhite Caucasoids such as those from Iran, Armenia, and other parts of Asia, etc. For example, many states had laws providing that a person with one-eight or one-fourth African, American Indian, or Asian blood was classified a nonwhite.82 Opponents to such classifications have asserted that the same logic should be applied in reverse, that is, someone who is one-eight European should be classified a white. In this manner, much of the black community could claim to be white due to past racial mixing, giving rise to confusion and frustration of progress. The end result of this would be that the Americans will have rationalized away their country. The point to be made here is that this delicate issue of classification can be used to thwart any attempt to solve America’s racial problem. Accordingly, we must artfully draw a line and maintain it. We should not let small problems obscure the large picture.

As mentioned above, in the recent past, America had clear standards to determine who was white and who was nonwhite; who would be eligible for citizenship and who would not. We must readopt those measures and classifications or calamity will result. If America would only resort to the citizenship requirements of as recently as the 1940’s and 1950’s, our heritage would not be in jeopardy. We could, with slight modification, return to those laws to effect a proper solution to our racial problems. Certainly, a reversion to that principle will not be simple, but it is necessary and can be accomplished with minimum amount of difficulty.

The language used to define who will be a citizen is taken from various instances in American law. Until recently, in a number of instances in the United States, classification based on race, color, ancestry or national origin have been utilized for the purpose of drawing distinctions in legal rights and obligations.83 “Statutory definitions of race [were] generally based on the individuals blood, ancestry, appearance of a combination of these factors. Moreover, the factor of blood is further subdivided into the so-called proportion of percentage test and the ascertainable trace test. The statutes may provide that a person is a member of the racial group either if he has a stated percent of the blood of that group in his veins or if he has any ascertainable basic factor generally provide that a person will be deemed a member of the racial group affected if he has an ancestor who was a member of that group within a specified number of generations removed.”84

Section 2 adapts a combination of these three tests, ascertainable trace of blood, ancestry and appearance. For the Negro, the test is any ascertainable trace. For the other nonwhites, the test is more than one-eighth or more than one great-grandparent who is nonwhite, and for Hispanics [mestizo], it is appearance and distinguishability from other Americans in addition to the ancestry test.

Separate tests for Negroes and other nonwhites had been the law in a number of jurisdictions when such laws were commonly on the books. Virginia’s code, for example, employed the ascertainable trace test for Negroes and an ancestry test for the American Indians.85 Mississippi’s miscegenation statute, a typical example, proscribed marriage between a white person and a Negro “or person who shall have one-eighth or more Negro or with a Mongolian or a person who shall have one-eighth or more Mongolian blood.”86

(ii) Repatriation

The last sentence in Section 2 of the draft twenty-seventh amendment, which reads, “only citizens shall have the right and privilege to reside permanently in the United States” will, in effect, provide for the relocation and repatriation of the non-citizens. This sentence mentions both the “right” and “privilege” and only provided that citizens have the “right” to reside in the United States, the result might be a court ruling that even though the non-citizens would not have the right under the Constitution to live in the United States, they would have the privilege to stay by virtue of their presence here and the harshness of repatriation. Such a ruling would defeat the purpose of much of the amendment and would result in the continued growth of nonwhites who would not be citizens and would brood ill-contentedly until their numbers made them powerful enough to force change. The most sensible and prudent way to solve the problem of race would be to institute a comprehensive and fair program of immigration, so that all nonwhites can be repatriated in a manner that is economically beneficial to them. Section 3 of the draft twenty-seventh amendment would provide the foundation for this program.

Section 3 of this amendment reads: “The Congress and the several states, except where expressly preempted by the Congress, shall have concurrent power to enforce the provisions of this article by appropriate legislation in coordination with the President as such legislation concerns the making of treaties pursuant to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution.”

This places the responsibility and authority to enforce the provisions of the amendment with both the states and the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. This approach provides for the most flexibility and safeguards in enforcing the amendment. Concurrent power vested in the states minimizes the possibility of undue intervention by an activist judiciary on the one hand and systematic injustice by the central government on the other. Unjust action by the states could be checked by express preemption by congress. Moreover, all action for enforcement would be in coordination with the President.

The entire process of repatriation could be done over a very long period of time if it should be determined that this would be the best approach and would provide for a smoother transition for all peoples concerned. The entire process could take thirty years if such time is necessary.

Once actual repatriation is accomplished other programs related thereto could be performed at leisure, such as guest worker permits for those who have repatriated, continued repatriation compensation, and continued employment opportunities with the United States Government in this country and abroad, such as through military service. These programs could extend for many years into the future until all problems and hardships of repatriation are resolved.

Congress and the states could set a period of time by which all easily repatriatable nonwhites are to leave the country of their own volition. A one-year period of time could be sufficient. A determination could be made according to the facts as to which groups are easily repatriatable can, if they desire, liquidate their belongings, sell their homes, gather their possessions together and relocate. They need not sell their property if they do not desire to do so. They may retain title and rent or operate their businesses in abstentia. They would have that choice and a period of time to make all necessary arrangements. Former citizens that voluntarily leave can be paid generous relocation allowances depending upon many factors such a need, length of time in America, economic level of the country they are returning to, etc., and they may be given priority to receive guest worker permits to return to the United States to work for a few years’ duration at a time. During this one-year period, the government can assist in all ways possible, such as by the purchase of homes that are not easily marketable, providing subsidized transportation and financing the construction of additional housing in the homelands.

After the expiration of the one-year voluntary repatriation period, stricter yet fair measures could be taken to accomplish repatriation. If the Mexicans [mestizo], for example, have not returned to their country, they could be rounded up and promptly returned across the border and their belongings could be confiscated as a penalty and to help defray the administrative costs. Forced repatriation could begin at this point. The ones who can most easily be repatriated will be, either swiftly and decisively or gradually and methodically, as the situation dictates. Those whose homelands are unwilling to take them may be allowed to stay on a temporary basis in temporary quarters until relocation can be accomplished. With certain adjustments, Hawaii could become a comfortable layover station for them. Below is a general discussion of how each group might be dealt with to effect the fairest and most efficient repatriation possible:

Blacks: Due to the large numbers and deep roots in the United States, it is toward this group that the United States should give the most consideration and allot the largest sums of money in order to ensure a pleasant a repatriation and new life as possible. Moreover, for these reasons, this group will be the most difficult to repatriate effectively and in good faith. The ideal situation would be for Southern African whites to accept U.S. citizenship in return for admitting U.S. blacks into their countries and allowing them to establish their own homelands. In this manner, the racial problems of several nations can be more easily resolved. Tribal problems within the homelands might still remain, and conflicts between blacks repatriated from the United States and local blacks might develop, but those problems can be dealt with in Africa just like national diversity of whites has been dealt with in America. Moreover, an entirely new nation can be established in Africa where the blacks can build their own society. With the current educational level of U.S. blacks and their growing number of professionally trained men and women, this is indeed possible.

Hispanics [mestizo]: Because of the large number of Hispanics [mestizo] in this country and the political instability in their mother countries, repatriation of this group could also be problematic. The vast majority of them can be dealt with simply by returning them to Mexico or elsewhere in Central America or the Caribbean where they or their parents came from illegally. Generally, they should not be greatly compensated for their repatriation unless they were legitimate citizens and then the compensation should be in proportion to their period of stay in the United States. Those who could, but would not, return home voluntarily within the initial one-year period would have their opportunity to take advantage of U.S. government largesse and programs curtailed. In any event, foreign aid to Mexico would be appropriate to help them relocate their citizens.

Hispanic whites who are basically indistinguishable form Americans whose ancestral home is the British Isles or Northwestern Europe, need not be repatriated. They should assimilate into the white society without turning our country into an extension of Latin America.

It should be noted that repatriation has become necessary primarily because of the abuses that the Hispanics [mestizo] have made upon our system. They have come in illegally by the tens of millions and once they become citizens, they use their influence and power to manipulate the system to protect their illegal alien countrymen. This nation is on the brink of becoming a Latin American nation. Strict action must be take to aver this occurrence. Accordingly, stricter standards for citizenship are applied to them than to any other group. They must meet both the percentage tests and the appearance test for citizenship, otherwise they must be returned to Latin America.

Orientals: Orientals, as a whole, have not been in America very long or in large numbers. There are some who have been here several generations but, by and large, the bulk of the Oriental population in America has immigrated after the racial quotas were lifted in the 1960’s. Accordingly, the first generation Orientals can be repatriated fairly easily along with their first children for they might still claim citizenship in their mother country. They and their children will not have much culture shock of many adjustment problems. In addition, their English language skills will put them in valuable positions in business when they return. It should be noted that Asia is the future center of world leadership and economic prosperity so repatriation for them should prove to be a blessing. Some Orientals will have a harder time returning than others. A breakdown is as follows:

Chinese: [See Text]

Japanese: [See Text]

Filipinos: [See Text]

Koreans: [See Text]

Indochinese: [See Text]

Native Americans: American Indians, Aleuts, and Hawaiians should be allowed to remain in America and not face relocation. They would not be citizens of the United States and so would have to maintain their residence on their tribal reservations, but they would be permitted to remain within the nation’s boundaries. This is how the constitution contemplated the situation concerning them. Orientals and South Pacific Islanders who were born in Hawaii will not be considered Hawaiian just because they were born there.

Peoples of Mixed Parentage: According to the suggested amendment, persons of mixed parentage will not be citizens and will thereby be subject to repatriation to the country of their nonwhite parent. Where this is feasible, it should be done. Where it is not, certain alternative arrangements could be made.

Some flexibility may be necessary when working out the details of repatriation of those of mixed race and those nonwhites who are married to whites. For those of mixed race, it may at times be difficult to determine to which country they are to be repatriated. Factors to be considered are the desires of the individuals, the willingness of the homeland to accept them and the cultures with which they predominantly associate themselves. As for part-whites, it may not be practicable, at times, to return them to the country of their nonwhite origin. Action should be taken to effect repatriation where possible, particularly where the part-white is single. Individuals with a preponderance of white blood, but less than the statutory requirement for citizenship, and no Negro blood, who are nearly white in appearance might possibly be allowed to stay with their spouses in Hawaii, not as citizens, but under some legal fiction, such as granting them renewable guest worker permits, but requiring them to leave the United States every few years for brief durations to comply with the amendment’s requirement that only citizens have the right to permanent residency.

In addition, since the repeal of the various state miscegenation statutes in the 1950’s and 1960’s and the breakdown of social taboos against interracial marriage, this nation has seen a rise in interracial couples. It should not be the policy of the nation to break up marriages, even interracial ones. Whites who are married to nonwhites should be encouraged to accompany their nonwhite spouse to his or her homeland. The fact that a nonwhite is married to a white should not, however, enable the nonwhite to remain in America. Such a ruling might cause a dramatic increase in interracial marriages as a means of nonwhites maintaining residence in the United States. Repatriation of nonwhites married to whites should, in the end, be effected.

The issue of interracial marriage would be indirectly dealt with by the suggested amendment. Since nonwhites would not be allowed to reside in the United States, interracial marriages would be impractical and may proscribed by state law. The white spouse and the offspring of such a union would have to ultimately return to the homeland of the nonwhite spouse. If states allow interracial marriage at all, proof of this intention and the ability to effect that intention should be provided for such a union to occur. If certain accommodations are made for persons of mixed parentage to reside in Hawaii, miscegenation statutes can be drafted as necessity dictates.

Miscellaneous Groups: [See Text]

In spite of the above recommendations for repatriations, America can be flexible in the implementation of its plan. Even so, as a whole we must remain resolute in our decisions. The following are some examples of some areas where flexibility might be available to the Congress or the states.

Questions arise as to what to do about those who cannot be easily repatriated at the initial stages. Such individuals could be granted provisional extensions to stay in America on a temporary basis until the situation changes and arrangements can be made for repatriation. Of course, such an arrangement could be easily subject to abuses. Many individuals might try to use the excuse that their repatriation constitutes hardship in an attempt to remain in the United States. People may be inconvenienced in relocating, but that should not constitute grounds for granting a provisional extension to each of them. This arrangement should be reserved only for the extreme cases with possibly some sort of centralized waiting place like Hawaii where they can work and be productive but not make plans to stay permanently.

Another area of possible flexibility could be concerning nonwhite middle-aged and senior citizens. To repatriate them could be more that a mere inconvenience – it could be extremely burdensome on them in their old age. To require them to start life anew at age 50, 60, or 70 is not a necessary step in the overall scheme of retaining America for the Americans. They are past the age where they will bear children and so would not leave a lasting effect on the racial makeup of the nation. These individuals whose children are grown and who wish to stay in America could be allowed to do so under some special arrangement worked out by the states or by Congress.

Nothing to this effect should be written into the constitutional amendment because of the danger of the judicial branch abusing and defeating the purpose of the amendment through misinterpretation of any written exceptions. Instead, states or Congress could devise some sort of legal fiction to allow the non-citizen elderly to stay in America. For example, the government might issue renewable ten-year residence permits to those individuals over age 60 who would be adversely affected by the draft twenty-seventh amendment.

Each of us probably has several friends and acquaintances who will be seemingly adversely affected by this amendment. Therefore it will be easy for us to become caught up in our concern for our friends to such an extent that we forget about the overall effect massive nonwhite immigration is having on our country. Our love and concern for our friends must not prevent us form doing what is right and best for our country. We must realize that they will get along fine under the new adjustments and be able to succeed in their new situation. Our love and concern for our nonwhite friends and acquaintances should encourage us to act for the ratification of t he amendment and for the institution of fair procedures to protect all our interests.

In the long run, the inevitable inconvenience and hardships the amendment will impose on portions of the nonwhite population is the better alternative. A little inconvenience now to a few people is better than the breakdown and collapse of our system and nation resulting in many deaths and much hardship, which will surely result if no action is taken. We can ensure that justice is served if we control repatriation and our country. We can ensure nothing if we relinquish that control. We will not even be able to secure a place in which our children can raise their families.

(c) Ratification

[See Text]


1. Overview

[See Text]


[See Text]


Appendice III


In the pursuit of wisdom, the various avenues of thought, the rigors of intellectual discipline, the emotive powers of our conscious and unconscious thought, are all brought to bear upon what the human mind decides to challenge; in doing so, he comes to a point where a conclusion is made. This conclusion is a matter of orthodoxy to some, to others, it is a simply a milestone, a foothold upon a ledge which ever takes him upward, until he reaches the next level of truth. In either case, the pursuit of knowledge leads inexorably to a greater vision: to wisdom.

Wisdom has come, as we know it, through millennia of trial and error, shouldered, as it were, upon the blood and bone of our very familial and real ancestors. The mothers and fathers of yesteryear, through their living and dying, over thousands of generations, each successive turn of the wheel of life has brought new answers to those many thousands of questions which formed on the wisps of thought, moved to the lips and, perchance, was heard by the ears of pupils, children, and those searching for answers themselves. What was learned through this evolution was wisdom in the sense that we know it. This is experience.

Experience is the construct of tradition, of those lessons learned by those before us; we, in turn, utilize these lessons, or cast them aside and form new ones. The realm of Law is of the same specie.

Legal tradition is the construct of experience.

James O. Pace has attempted to present an avenue of relief for members of the Western race-culture. His attempt focuses on the traditional application of Western mores and law. The philosophy and practice of a ‘system of laws’ belongs to the Western experience, and is the legacy and birthright of every member of the West, be they American, European, or any number of the far-flung colonies, which represent the blood and body politic of the West.

The ‘democratic’ process has been the torch, carried by Western civilization, since Pericles (495-429 b.c.) of Greece; he received this flame from Solon (c. 600 b.c.), a dictator in the benevolent mold, who was preceded by Theseus (c. 1300 b.c.) The process of ‘democratization’ has traveled from its European antecedents to the modern American expression. An interesting note is that the first, Theseus, was considered an ‘Athenian adventurer’, and Solon, the ‘Law giver’, while Pericles, the ‘father of democracy’, was considered the ‘Olympian’ because of his eloquence (he was born of high blood) and the ‘imperialism’ with which he brought riches to Athens. Democracy worked very little, and only for a select few; but it did continue to evolve.

The Pace Amendment follows the legacy of this past. Combining the legacy of this tapestry with the modern application of American experience, including a revolution, a civil war, immigration, and the prospect of losing her direction, sovereignty, and economic power by being seduced into ‘international’ affairs, which, it was said, would make the world safe for democracy. Not that this was the ‘people’s choice’ but, after all, the ‘people’ would benefit thereby. Through it all, the machine of government has tirelessly admitted change; the legislative bodies working for ever more and more democratic change. The change that this, our nation has seen has, truly, been evolutionary, and documents, mores, and law has adapted thereby.

The amendments to the constitution, as we have generally understood them, were enabled through a democratic process, hard-won, debated endlessly, and ‘ratified’ through as many ‘back door’ moves, as public. The government, at that time, was made up of men predominately, and sons of the West, all. The divisions, philosophical, religious, scientific, political differences between them were myriad, and the embryonic ‘contest of cultures’ was just as dynamic as it is today, but with one difference: The divisions presented at the beginning of this ‘great experiment’ were but the common differences between family members who, for the most part, saw god, the almighty, or the deity as having bestowed upon these particular persons and nation a just imperative, an obligation to provide justice and fairness for that body of persons who, rightly or wrongly, looked to them as their servants, as well as leaders. Even then, at the signing of one of the most important documents in the history of man, authority raged against demos. Law against ‘predisposition’.

Authority, as is natural in any government, did not demand a ‘bill of rights’, demos did. The ‘people’, concerned with abuse of power demanded, in writing, an affirmation of these rights for their posterity. The ratification of these ‘bills’ were duly legislated through a democratic process and passed. The mechanism of government and legislation provided by the Constitution, through its numerous articles, was the template, which they used. This template, however, was based upon the smallest of elements: the individual participant. The Electoral College is but one example. The point is, that the ‘decisions’ were majority votes, by individuals who, collectively, came to the decisions, which affect us now, today. Issues of abortion, inter-racial marriage, homosexuality, were not defined in the ‘bill of rights’ simply because these issues, and literally hundreds of other modern ‘issues’ were not contemplated by these restrained, and prudent men; these aforementioned acts were as far removed from these men, as space travel. For over two hundred years, these mores, and individual social traditions, made this nation the envy of the world.

In point of fact, the collaboration between these individuals was nothing short of miraculous, if not predestined. Therefore, we have a homogeneous racial collaboration in a destiny-filled event, all the participants having a knowledge of history, science, economics and a belief in manifest destiny. When it came to campaigning for a system of government, a single leader seemed reasonable; the checks and balances were deemed safer. In any event, even with men of similar backgrounds, religious inclinations, and mental integrity, it was hard-going, this work of building a system of government. It took years to come to compromise. Then, after war, discussion, and deliberation, a nation was born.

Mr. Pace, like all men of keen mental discipline, and a vision liken unto his fathers, sees the task of ‘change’, or reaffirmation possible, through the disciplines of what created this great experiment. And rightly so. In a theoretical discipline, the premise of an amendment is sound, providing the members of government, as well as the demos, were of the same caliber. Add to this, the shared vision of a vibrant present, an acute premonition of the future, and a working knowledge of the past, are all present.

The power of money existed in the time of our forefathers, it is a thousand-fold now, and the human qualities of greed, avarice, envy and the like, have become monstrous. Without the disciplines of old-fashioned morality, and knowledge of who we, as a Western people are, then, to what shall we anchor ourselves? By what ledger do we find accounting? In addition, how, with all this said, are we to convene a new morality, a new convention of political destiny? In fact, split, as we are, into distinct race-cultures inhabiting this continent, just where is our majority? Where are we to find, in those deep recesses of the halls of justice, our venue for change, for reaffirmation?

A reaffirmation of our Western values, most certainly.

I think, however, that most of the members of the West are hardly in a position to demand anything; demands come from a sense of knowing what is needed, or what needs to be done. Hardly a viable achievement in a society, which deems racial awareness as akin to ‘hate’, or worse, as akin to ‘self-hate’. If legislation can be passed, in almost every state in this union, to berate, hound, chastise, and legally incarcerate for ‘hate crimes’ those who stand for the principles of the West, who feel righteous indignation at the thought or the deeds of many who would sterilize the past and make the very blood of this nation of no effect, then to what body politic do we take our pleadings too? In addition, what national convention do we say ‘our piece’, and by acclimation or dissent, know the value of our claim? I think we all know the answer.

Do we, as men and women of the West, living in these United States, have any way to enforce these desires? Where is our army? Who will take up the banner for our children? Are the men and women in uniform today fighting for the future of white children, or simply the ‘children of the world’? If asked, what do you think these men and women would declare? I think you know the answer. So, once again, who do we turn too? If the present system were challenged, just how long, before we are declared traitors, terrorists, seditionists, and persona non grata here, in our own homeland?

How many, indeed, hold offices of power and control, over you and I, who are foreign in thought, and spirit, who demand justice and equality for the ‘new’ citizen, but none for the old? To whom are they accountable? Moreover, who could ever enforce it?

To the amendment, I say, bravo!! Let us, then, be stalwart and march on the halls of our ancestors and demand a vote. The leaders of our people will welcome us with open arms, and we will be victorious.

Mr. Pace, if you are still of a mind to proceed with this project come, and let us begin, for the wind of resentment is stirring, sacrifices have been made, lives have been given, and what has been given in return is sadly lacking. Maybe, like the Great War, there is one who has seen the bloodshed of his comrades, and the betrayal of the mighty, and a resentment will build in the breast of even one as this. But, maybe not.

Frank L. DeSilva




This heading is the working title of James O. Pace’s Work published by – Johnson, Pace, Simmons & Fennell Publishers, 1985. This section is an attempt, in summary, of the fine work, in which Mr. Pace has presented the very workable construct of an Amendment for the reinsertion of the Western imperative, that truly primal need to extend what is his, the nature of which, is bred within the confines of the West, alone. Since, to date, this is the only credible attempt at utilizing the ‘democratic’ process to claim what is ours, it is fittingly used to impart this attempt in a democratic fashion to establish the will and intent of those particular Western Peoples who share in the birthing and extension of this great America.

The Amendment, which Mr. Pace has presented to the Western Public, indeed to all who reside on this continent, is a work of clarity and foresight. At present, I am not certain if it is still in print. I do know that it caused quite an outcry shortly after its inception, and received tepid reporting even during its heyday in the mainstream press. In many circles, however, it has proven quite workable, and there are groups, both legal and financial, who continue to work on this premise. As with all attempts in a democracy, the machine moves slowly, all too slowly, for the most part, and always runs the risk of dying on the vine – or in committee. But, its very premise, like it or no, is democratic, and was/is intended to go before the public, be voted on by members of the House and Senate as is the way the Founding Fathers had intended such amendments to be passed.

It is less certain, today, than it was in 1985, that it would have any legitimate chance to receive a fair hearing in the halls of government, those repositories of the ‘voice of the People’, those who have the best interests of the nation at heart. I will try my best to present, in Summary, the intent of the so-called Pace Amendment for the serious student of change and renewal. FLS

1 Here Mr. Pace is speaking of the turbulent 60’s in which racial integration was foisted upon unwilling members of Western stock as a ‘majority’ by the machinations and cowardice of the federal government. Force was used in Arkansas [1957] to force members of the West to accept social change/control as seen by those who change the primitive fundamental construct of race-culture, to the detriment of all parties involved. FLS

2 See NEWSWEEK, Feb.27, 1984, pg. 49.

3 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Historical Census of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, 57 (1975) [herein after cited as HISTORICAL STATISTICS]

4 Ibid. at 45

5 See, e.g. U.S. Department of Commerce…(1982)

6 See, e.g. employment questionnaires given by California state colleges and universities to prospective professors and lecturers or other equal opportunity employers.

7 Historical Statistics, supra note 7, at 9.

8 NEWSWEEK, Jan. 17, 1983, at 23.

9 Ibid.

10 Newspaper Enterprises Association, Inc., THE WORLD ALMANAC & BOOK OF FACTS, 210 (1983).

11 NEWSWEEK, Ibid., at 22.

12 We now are aware, of course, that up to 12-15 million illegal Mexican [mestizo] immigrants now reside within the continental united states. FLS

13 Los Angeles Daily News, May 9, 1984 (News) at 1 cols. 3-4.

14 The technics of ‘marriage’ could, at some point create a sense of false security, since it is not, necessarily, marriage proper, which is of concern here; rather, that of sexual union, period. With the numerical advancement of child-bearing females of Western stock, over that of their male counterparts, and the likelihood of permanent or semi-permanent liaisons between inter-racial couples, the magnitude of the burgeoning births from these unions will be extraordinary, and will add, geometrically, to the changing face of the United States and its Western countenance. FLS

15 U.S. Department of Commerce, Social Indicators III, at 515 (1980); American Institute of Public Opinion, The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion, 1972-199, The Gallup Opinion Index, rep. no. 145 (1978).

16 Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Abington Township School Dist. v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203 (1963).

17 Los Angeles Daily News, Sept. 8, 1984, (News) at 12, col. 5.

18 Newspaper Enterprise Association, Inc., The World Almanac & Book of Facts, 1983, at 575.

19 Grading Time for U.S. Schools, Scholastic Update, Feb. 3, 1984, at 2.

203Almost all common persons who view this situation, view it simply and logically. In the late 70’s, anecdotally, I prepared a fence for the yard, I had to purchase fence poles, and chain fencing. In the neighbors yard were several existing, dated, poles which would have allowed for a little more than half of the job; the dated material was stamped ‘U.S. Steel’ ‘made in USA’, and seemed a better gauge steel, being heavier and threaded deeper. The other material purchased to finish the job was lighter, did the job, but was made in Japan. Consequently, I was informed that since the closure of American steel plants, we were shipping ‘our’ steel overseas to Japan, and in return, the Japanese were selling this same material back to us, cheaper than we could have [?] in the first place. However you look at it, someone was benefiting in a

larger degree, and that was not us. How many jobs were lost because of this ‘national direction’? Thousands, to be sure. Was it worth it to the common people, losing their jobs, keeping local communities tight knit, and maintaining a competitive productive edge with the Europeans and the Japanese? Remember, these decisions came from international financial recommendations, as well as those in our own government who stood to gain thereby. This was just one of the many ‘de-nationalisations’ to occur within this country that would change the way in which we viewed ourselves, and developed as a growing nation. The issues of ‘clean air’, ‘water pollution’ and the like, would have been solved if the Corporate entities saw their very survival at stake; if they were prone to leave the shores of this country regardless, than temporary nationalization of domestic raw materials and resources and industry would be the punishment meted out to these concerns. FLS

1 Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, World Motor Vehicle Data 10 (1982).

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Current Affairs Atlas, supra note 82, at 35.

216 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industrial Economics, 1984 U.S. Industrial Outlook 33-1 (1984).

227 Ibid, at 33-2.

238 Ibid.

249 Ibid.

U.S. Department of Commerce, The U.S. Industrial Outlook for 1961, at 164 (1964).

1984 U.S. Industrial Outlook, supra note, 144, at 143-6.

U.S. Industrial Outlook for 1961, supra note, 150.








32 U.S. Industrial Outlook for 1961, supra note, 150.

33 1984 U.S. Industrial Outlook, supra note, 144, at 143-6.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid. at 27-3.

38 Ibid. at 37-2.

39 Ibid. at 44-14.

40 W. Wilshard, supra note 130, at 317.

41 Ibid.

42 Milton & Rose Friedman, Free to Choose, 190-1 (1980). See, supra note 348 and accompanying text.

43 Ibid.

44 Address by John c. Calhoun, in Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government, The Fort Hill Address of John C. Calhoun (1960).

45 Fry v. United States 421 U.S. 542, 559 (1975) (Rhenquist, J., dissenting).

46 Gladstone, Kin Beyond the Sea, North American Rev., Sept. 1878.

47 This period is calculated from 1776, including the events of the Continental Congress under the Articles of confederation, to 1788 when the call for constitutional revision was issued.

48 Leverett, supra note 303, at 352.

49 Ibid.

50 92 U.S. 542 (1876).

51 247 U.S. 251, 275-6 (1918).

52 Leverett, supra note 303, at 353.

53 B. Schwartz, The Law in America 47 (1974).

54 Merrill, supra note 304, at 579.

55 Leverett, supra note 303, at 353.

56 U.S. Constitution amend. X.

57 Mason, Must We Continue the States Rights Debate?, 18 Rugers L. Rev. 60, 61 (1963).

58 Ibid., at 60.

59 Prof. Charles L. Black, Jr., Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law School, Cong. Rec. 8263 (daily ed., May 15, 1963), as quoted in McGovern, Confederation vs. Union, 9 S.D.L. Rev. 1 (1964).

60 Merrill, supra note 304, at 584.

61 Douglas, The Tenth Amendment: The Foundation of Liberty, 16 New Hampshire Bar J. 286 (1975).

62 Mason, supra note 343, at 60.

63 State Government 10 (Winter, 1963).

64 J. Frank, Law And the Modern Mind 102 (1930)

65 Merrill, supra note 304, at 358.

66 M. Thomas, Felix Frankfurter, Scholar On The Bench 286 (1960).

* Clause 3. Commerce Power: POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE

Purposes Served by the Grant

This clause serves a two-fold purpose: it is the direct source of the most important powers that the Federal Government exercises in peacetime, and, except for the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is the most important limitation imposed by the Constitution on the exercise of ‘state power’. The latter, restrictive operation of the clause was long the more important one from the point of view of the constitutional lawyer. Of the approximately 1400 cases, which reached the Supreme Court under the clause prior to 1900, the overwhelming proportion stemmed from state legislation. The result was that, generally, the guiding lines in construction of the clause were initially laid down in the context of curbing state power rather than in that of its operation as a source of national power. The consequence of this historical progression was that the word ”commerce” came to dominate the clause while the word ”regulate” remained in the background. The so-called ”constitutional revolution” of the 1930s, however, brought the latter word to its present prominence.

Definition of Terms

Commerce. –The etymology of the word ”commerce” [cum – merce (with merchandise)] carries the primary meaning of traffic, of transporting goods across state lines for sale. This possibly narrow constitutional conception was rejected by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, which remains one of the seminal cases dealing with the Constitution. The case arose because of a monopoly granted by the New York legislature on the operation of steam-propelled vessels on its waters, a monopoly challenged by Gibbons who transported passengers from New Jersey to New York pursuant to privileges granted by an act of Congress. The New York monopoly was not in conflict with the congressional regulation of commerce, argued the monopolists, because the vessels carried only passengers between the two States and were thus not engaged in traffic, in ”commerce” in the constitutional sense.

”The subject to be regulated is commerce,” the Chief Justice wrote. ”The counsel for the appellee would limit it to traffic, to buying and selling, or the interchange of commodities, and do not admit that it comprehends navigation. This would restrict a general term, applicable to many objects, to one of its significations. Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more–it is intercourse.” The term, therefore, included navigation, a conclusion that Marshall also supported by appeal to general understanding, to the prohibition in Article I, Sec. 9, against any preference being given ”by any regulation of commerce or revenue, to the ports of one State over those of another,” and to the admitted and demonstrated power of Congress to impose embargoes.

Marshall qualified the word ”intercourse” with the word ”commercial,” thus retaining the element of monetary transactions. But, today, ”commerce” in the constitutional sense, and hence ”interstate commerce,” covers every species of movement of persons and things, whether for profit or not, across state lines, every species of communication, every species of transmission of intelligence, whether for commercial purposes or otherwise, 586 every species of commercial negotiation which will involve sooner or later an act of transportation of persons or things, or the flow of services or power, across state lines. [Note added. FLS]

67 Heldt, The Tenth Amendment Iceberg, 30 Hastings L. J. 1763, 1764 (1979).

68 Leverett, supra not 303, at 358.

69 Ibid, at 335.

70 Ibid, at 355.

* [Note: Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual’ or ‘group’ for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.” [emph. added]

“The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply – trial by legislature.” U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. … The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy, which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788. FLS]

71 Worcester v. Georgia 6 Peters 515 (1832); Brown v. Epps 91 Va. 726, 21 SE 114 (Va. 1895).

* Note: I personally feel some uncertainty in this area. Since my personal experiences include interaction with the ‘legal’ system and its various arms, on a federal level, yet am also aware of the particular and individual ‘state’ excesses in which the public, especially ‘prisoners’ are exposed, I feel it necessary to point out that, while supporting ‘state rights’, it is necessary to understand that if a ‘nation’ is to share both flesh and bone, then a common legal system, such as our already existing Anglo-Saxon/Dane Law, which has already attempted to provide for this Western nation this very example, through many hundreds of generations, to prove its validity and value, both socially and legislatively. In other words, common interests, in the name of decency and justice, should always be paramount in determining the ‘federal’ jurisdiction or, in any term, the ‘national character’ through its laws and perceptions of their consequence. Pater familias, must always be judged by its consequences. FLS]

72 The Japanese, for example, often call Anglo-Saxons the “real Americans.”

* [Note: As was stated in ROTW, race-cultures, such as the Japanese, see the West in ‘traditional’ terms; this includes the rationalization that our Military might comes from ‘within’, that our soul is part and parcel of our ‘race-soul’, that is, what we are made of. Those persons not of the West, whether friend or foe, knows, without a doubt, just who are members of the West, and who are not. Ironically, it appears that, for the most part it is, precisely, those very members of the West who have no waking idea of just who they are as it relates to those various and diverse race-cultures which inhabit this world with them. FLS]

73 [See Text]

74 20 UN Chronicle, Oct. 1983, at 54.

75 Retamar, Mixed Metamorphosis, UNESCO Courier, Nov. 1983, at 22.

76 Senate Resolution No. 39 (Res. Act No. 45) of the 1957 regular session of the Georgia General Assembly, passed March 8, 1957. See also The Maryland Petition Committee, etc., et al. V. Lyndon B. Johnson, etc., et al. 265 F. Supp. 823 (1967) which was an action in Federal Court against the President of the United States seeking declaratory judgment that the 14th and 15th amendments are null and void.

77 U. S. Constitution amendment XV

78 See, e.g. Gitlow v. New York 268 U.S. 652 (1925); Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 43 (1961)

79 Comment, An Affirmative Constitutional right: The Tenth amendment and the Resolution of the Federalism Conflicts, 13 San Diego L. rev. 876, 878 (1976); 3 J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution 608 (1836).

80 Comment, Ibid., at 878-9.

81 The total world population, as of this writing, is approx. 6 billion. The point, however, remains in effect. FLS.

Note: A better term would be ‘civil war of fratricide’, a war of racial suicide; based on the assumption that once ‘sovereign and independent’ states, who voluntarily accepted a form of decentralized ‘federalism’, were forced, through force of arms, to submit to a stronger and omnipotent federalism which used the onerous practice of slavery to mobilize the emotional content of the Northern States who, in their naiveté, sought to protect those who were unable to protect themselves. Unwittingly, or in spite of it, these same ‘easterners’ foisted the tyranny of their sanctimonious altruism upon their brethren, not withstanding the tremendous assault with which they, themselves, destroyed the very construct of their forefathers, forever denying themselves and their children’s children the right to determine their future, and the right to secure an existence consonant with their needs and desires. No one, now, can honestly submit for intellectual discussion, that those persons, specifically Western in race-culture, have a fairer existence today, rather than that of fifty years ago, or that the introduction of aliens and their compounded alienness, have secured a more harmonious existence for the present generation, or for the future. FLS

This, of course, is the democracy so sought after by the Modern, as this will usurp the often narrow, and recalcitrant nature of his own people; independent as those of Western stock are, the browning of this nation will, ultimately, make the masses that much more malleable, as opposed to the traditional history and experience of those of the West. FLS

82 See: Legal Definition of Race, 3 Race Rel. L. Rep. 571 (June 1958).

83 See: Legal Definition of Race, 3 Race Rel. L. Rep. 571 (1958).

84 Ibid. at 573.

85 Ibid., at 574.

86 Ibid., at 579.

87 POSTSCRIPT: those of you who favor the concepts embraced by this amendment are urged to support its proposal and ratification by sending (1) a copy of this text to your state legislator with a letter of support and (2) your contributions to: Johnson, Pace, Simmons & Fennell Publishers, POBox 1139, Sunland, Ca. 91040


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s