RESTORING THE REPUBLIC

by Professor Revilo P. Oliver

September 1986

During the past several years, every month or six weeks on the average, I have received an impassioned essay from some gentleman who has discovered a way to restore the American Republic by Constitutional means. The essays range from twenty to two hundred or more pages; some are loose sheets, reproduced from typewritten copy; others are well-printed booklets or books. I always read these with great interest, hoping that I will be proved to have been wrong in 1966, when I concluded that such a restoration was no longer possible.

Typical and significant in their way were several proofs that the Fourteenth Amendment is null and void and of no legal effect, since it was passed by the Congress in open violation of the procedure expressly required by the Constitution and was not ratified by a sufficient number of the states, having been proclaimed as ratified by a lying Secretary of State. That has been known and notorious for a hundred years. It was imposed by violence and in open contempt for the Constitution by the loathsome gang that then owned the Republican Party, for the enrichment of thieves and to appease the vicious malevolence of degenerate Puritans and rabble-rousing holy men. The only thing that has permitted the pretense that the so-called Amendment was part of the Constitution has been the pavidity of the successive Supreme Courts, who placed expediency above legality. And now that the Supreme Court has been replaced in all but name by a Revolutionary Tribunal, the chances of persuading that scoff-law gang to uphold legality are precisely none whatsoever.

That, of course, is exactly the difficulty that legalists seem always to overlook: a law, however desirable and just, is only a theory until it can be enforced in practice. In the real world, as distinct from philosophical discourse and historical analysis, the validity of a law depends, not on nice reasoning, but on the force that is available to prevent or punish violation of it.

The most ingenious and original exercise in legalism that has come to me was based on a fact that will astonish most of my readers. Ohio was never a part of the United States until 7 August 1953, when the fact that it legally was a foreign state was belatedly discovered and Ohio was hurriedly and almost covertly admitted to the Union by an act of Congress, which contained the strange provision that it "took effect" in March 1803, a hundred and fifty years before!

The author of the little monograph contended that the belated admission of Ohio was void, since the Constitution expressly provides that Congress may not enact an "ex post facto" law. It followed therefore that a very large amount of legislation which depended in one way or another on the mistaken idea that Ohio was a member of the United States was legally void. And presidents who were natives of Ohio never held office legally, since they had not been eligible for that office.

That was nice reasoning and conformed to the principles of both Roman and Germanic law and to the Anglo-American Common Law, derived from them, which was long recognized and applied in this country (albeit with a few cowardly concessions to the lawless mentality of do-gooders and their mobs). That, however, did not validate the author's argument, for he had not taken into consideration another principle of our law, to-wit that lapse of time confers legality when a given act has gone unchallenged. Under our law, the status of Ohio, obviously the result of a Congressional oversight, could have been legalized by application of the principle that is generally known with reference to land titles: open and notorious possession of land for twenty years (the usual term) by a person who exercises without challenge from anyone all the functions of ownership confers legal title, even in the absence of a deed or will, with only a few exceptions for extremely unusual circumstances and demonstrable fraud.

I sent the monograph, as an interesting curiosity, to a learned legal friend, who somewhat astonished me by informing me that as early as 1798 a Supreme Court distorted the obvious meaning of the Constitutional provision to limit the term "ex post facto" to penal and criminal statutes.(1)

All the foregoing, however, is significant only historically and for political philosophy. It is relevant to the present only as a measure of what has been done to the American people. We have been talking about American law, which was, as we have said, generally accepted when our nation was independent and until a known Communist agent (so identified by the chief of the F.B.I.), a slimy Sheeny named Frankfurter, was appointed to the Supreme Court by the unspeakably vile traitor called Franklin Roosevelt to begin the stealthy conversion of American law to the Soviet system devised by the Judaeo-Communist enemies of America and of Western civilization. That is the law now administered by the Revolutionary Tribunal in Washington, although it still makes, with tongue in cheek, references to the Constitution and even to the Common Law, to content sentimentalists who mistake words for facts.

By far the best and most cogent of the proposals that I have seen is the work of a practicing lawyer in the city that is still called New York, James O. Price, whose "Amendment to the Constitution Averting the Decline and Fall of America" is published by Johnson, Pace, Simmons, & Fennell (P.O.Box 1139, Sunland, California; paperback, $8.00). The first ninety-one pages are a sagacious and comprehensive survey of the present plight of the American people, with a reasoned indication of the only means of escape still open to them without a real Civil War. That unique means is a restoration of the Republic by strictly limiting citizenship to members of our race ("the European race"). There is nothing in this first section to which one of us could object, although we may wish to change the emphasis in a few details here and there. The author's proposition commands unqualified assent.

The requisite limitation of citizenship is to be obtained by enacting an amendment to the Constitution, and the amendment is to be proposed by a Constitutional Convention, summoned at the behest of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states, and is to be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or, if necessary, by specially called conventions in those states.

Mr. Pace has drawn up the text of the amendment and shown in detail why each provision of the amendment is politically sound, and has illustrated the whole process by which the amendment will be enacted and save the American people from the deadly trap into which they thoughtlessly put themselves. And all this, please note, will be done with strict adherence to the Constitution and by entirely Constitutional and legal procedures.

This is a splendid plan and I endorse it whole-heartedly. Mr. Pace has, in his 179 pages, documented with a lawyer's thoroughness, given us everything we need to restore the American Republic, even the text of the amendment that will resurrect it. The only thing that he has not fully explained is the conduct of the elections that will be necessary at some stage preliminary to the triumphal recovery of our liberty and independence. It may be consideration of the procedure at this stage was omitted because it is so obvious that it may be taken for granted.

Some of my readers, however, may be puzzled by the omission, especially when they reflect that all of us "rightists" have been and now are totally unable to elect even one avowed "racist" to the Federal Senate or to the House of Representatives or to the legislature of any state or, so far as I know, even to the board of supervisors of any county or to the municipal government of a small town. We have not even had the power to keep in the Senate or House such men as Senators Percy and Abourezk and Congressman Findlay, men who certainly never knowingly nodded to a "racist," but did have the audacity to suggest that the lowly American boobs might have some interests apart from humbly serving God's Chosen Pirates. The Jews, of course, not only promptly muzzled the obstreperous dogs, but did so quite openly to teach a lesson to other Aryan curs who might be tempted to whine in their masters' presence. And what is more, the boobs seemed quite content to see their would-be champions muzzled.

I can see that readers who take those facts into account may not understand how Mr. Pace's splendid amendment is to be enacted, so for their benefit I will outline, in confidence, the obviously necessary and indispensable procedure:

(1) At the strategic time, guided missiles will be launched from the subterranean silos that so many Americans secretly maintain beneath grape vines and rose bushes. The missiles will be directed at Washington and New York and equipped with warheads that are hydrogen bombs, in sufficient number totally to obliterate the two enemy citadels. It is unfortunately true that the annihilation of those cities will sacrifice some valuable lives and precious works of art, but the sacrifice must be made, since surprise is absolutely requisite for success of the strategy.

(2) Simultaneously, at least two thousand of the MBT-70 tanks that so many Neo-Nazis now keep in the back of the garage or Junior's playhouse will be manned and proceed at once to occupy all centers of communication throughout the nation, covered by both pursuit planes and medium-sized bombers.

(3) Battalions of shock troops – perhaps 50,000 select storm troopers from the National Socialists in Arlington and the Aryan Nations would suffice, if properly trained and equipped – will simultaneously act to maintain order and prepare for elections to be held in sequence in the various communities through which they move, thus obviating the need for large numbers of men to supervise elections on the same day throughout the country.

(4) At the election, polls will be surrounded by detachments of storm troopers, who will make certain that only members of our race are admitted to vote. Election judges equipped with sub-machine-guns will reason with protesters.

(5) With elections thus properly conducted, the ratification of the Great Amendment should proceed smoothly and we should recover our lost country and our lost self-respect.

We should, shouldn't we? But I have just thought of a terrifying question and I want your opinion.

With elections conducted as I have described and the voting strictly and rigorously limited to persons of the European Race, such as the ones with whom you are now acquainted and whom you see and hear every day, are you "confident " that our amendment would receive a majority of the votes? Call to your mind the opinions that you have heard expressed by all the fine Aryans with whom you have talked in recent years. Do you think it likely that our glorious amendment would receive a majority of "their" votes?

===========================NOTES========================

(1) The Court that so ruled was a Federalist court, representing the New England faction that was eager to extend the power of the Federal government and make it virtually a revival of the Cromwellian "Commonwealth." A more reasonable interpretation of "ex post facto" was adopted by the famous Chief Justice Marshall in 1810, but his decision was later ignored, as was a decision extending some protection to property rights in 1875. The common sense interpretation of "ex post facto" was adopted by Justice Joseph Story in his celebrated "Commentaries on the Constitution" (1833), although he was himself a Federalist, but seems never to have been allowed by any court.