CONCEPT OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS
EXTRACTS AND SUMMARY OF PART OF A TREATISE ON
HISTORY, POWERS, AND MODES OF PROCEEDING.
JOHN ALEXANDER JAMIESON, LL. D.
LATE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
BY JOHN A. JAiLESON.
The Riverside Prea, Camtmdgt: Blectrotyped and Printed by H. 0. Houghton & Co.
Republic art tee populi; Populus nutem non omnie bominum coitus qnoque modo congregatiu,
Be-i cactus multttudlnis luris con««ensu et utllltatis communione eociatus.
—— CICERO, de Repub.
They that go about by disobedience to do no more than reforme the commonwealth shall find that they do thereby destroy it.
—— HOBBU, Uviatkan.
REVISED, CORRECTED, AND ENLARGED.
CHICAGO: CALLAGHAN AND COMPANY.
Updated by Vance J. Beaudreau, Chief Justice Constitutional Court, Confederate States of America
There are differences in the types of conventions such as shown:
STATE AUTHORIZED CONVENTION
REVOLUTIONARY CONVENTIONS IN ENGLAND
REVOLUTIONARY CONVENTIONS IN FRANCE
REVOLUTIONARY CONVENTIONS IN COLONIAL AMERICA
STRICTLY REVOLUTIONARY CONVENTIONS IN AMERICA
RESTRICTIVE REVOLUTIONARY CONVENTIONS
Early history of government shows a patriarchal beginning. But due to the extremely long life spans of men in those pre flood days, Patriarchal Government became large and tribal and politics or favoritism began to enter the scene.
The civil laws of the Ten Commandments of Moses began a basis for a system of laws and statutes whether tribal or otherwise and evolved as a foundation of Western law. It could be argued that the ten Commandments are themselves patriarchal under God, but there are different interpretations possible opening the door for various forms of government. Groupings of tribes made up national governments under Kings who were champions of the people.
As common law began to enter the scene the idea of representative government developed which did not necessarily depend upon patriarchy or monarchy or which helped constrain the excesses of monarchy. Much development of common law occurred in England.
SPONTANEOUS CONVENTIONS, such as those voluntary assemblages of citizens, which characterize somewhat free communities in advanced stages of civilization, having for their purpose agitation or conference in respect of their industrial, religious, political, or other social interests. These gatherings are at once the effects and the causes of social life and activity, doing for the State what the waves do for the sea: they prevent stagnation, the precursor of decay and death. They are among the most efficient manufactures of public opinion; or, rather, they are public opinion in the making, —— public opinion fit to be the basis of political action, because sound and wise, and not a mere echo of party cries and platforms. Spontaneous assemblages, for such purposes, of the masses of a people, betoken a very high state of civilization, or instincts that are sure to develop into it. To be possible, in perfection, as we see them amongst us, freedom must be ripe and well-nigh universal. But when rulers and social institutions do not favor them, to the occurrence at all would be necessary a native passion for liberty strong enough to break all chains, and which could be daunted by no perils. We are prepared, therefore, to believe that it is only our own race, here and in England, that has thus far successfully vindicated the right of freely assembling. This right was asserted in England as early as the twelfth century, history telling us of the " conventus publicos propria authorilate, or voluntary meetings of the people, under the protection of the common law. With some fluctuations, as the work of social development proceeded, this right became more firmly rooted in the parent soil, and from it a vigorous scion was planted in America, which has exhibited a still stronger vitality, and now overspreads the land. A common and most invaluable provision of our constitutions, State and Federal, guarantees to the people the right " peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. The right, thus expressed in the Declaration of Independence: “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another , and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
For a most excellent view of the vicissitudes of this right under the English Constitution, see May's Constitutional History of England, Vol. II. ch. ix. * Hinton's Hist. United States, Vol. II. pp. 324, 325. ' May's Const. Hist. Eng., Vol. II. ch. ix.
STATE AUTHORIZED CONVENTIONS
A State Authorized Convention may be called by the State to bridge over a chasm between two orders of things: an order that has expired or been extinguished or otherwise failing; and an order emerging, under the operation of existing social forces, to replace it which is a part of the apparatus of revolution or change of some degree in concert with the existing State establishment. Such Convention may be operating outside of the authority of the Legislature or the executive of the State and yet be effectively a “State authorized Convention.” such as State registered Political party conventions or to approve some new measure desired by the State establishment or some emergency thus being a Constitutional type convention. If there is State franchise for the convention it should be called a Constitutional Convention It consists of those bodies of men who, in times of political crisis, assume, have cast upon them, provisionally, the function of government. They either supplant or supplement the existing governmental organization.
This third type of species of Conventions may be a Spontaneous Convention being a convention called by disgruntled people without State support (sort of a mutiny against the State) being a “Revolutionary Convention” not franchised by the State. In short, a Revolutionary Convention is simply a PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT.
A characteristic of this type of convention is that they are dehors (beyond) the law; that they derive their powers from necessity and from revolutionary force and violence; that they are possessed, accordingly, to an indeterminate extent, depending on the circumstances of each case, of governmental powers: finally, that they are not subaltern (controlled) or ancillary to any other institution whatever, but lords paramount of the entire political domain.
To this may be added, that there are of no definite numbers or organization, comprising sometimes one and sometimes several chambers, and composed indifferently of ex-officers of the government that was, of persons possessing neither office nor the qualifications requisite for it, nor even for the elective franchise, or of a mixture of all of these together, as chance may have tossed them to the surface. The general purpose of the Revolutionary Convention, moreover, is to bridge over a chasm between two orders of things: an order that has expired or been extinguished, or become intolerable to the people and an order emerging, under the operation of existing social forces, to replace it. In short, a Revolutionary Convention is simply a PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT.
Examples of the Revolutionary Conventions have been numerous in the political history of the world, and becoming daily more so. Among the most famous and, for our purpose, the most important, are those held in England in 1660 and in 1689 and in the Republic of Texas in 1861.
REVOLUTIONARY CONVENTIONS IN ENGLAND
A royal writ was absolutely necessary in a State that had been traditionally monarchal. In these alarming crises, and as the last and only resource for temporary government, as well as for providing the initial points of new organizations, Conventions were summoned. That called in 1660 consisted of persons elected by the several constituencies of the realm, as for a lawful parliament, but elected illegally, on the recommendation of a rump of the old Parliament, which had been dispersed by the army under Richard Cromwell, and, for that reason, as Macaulay observes, more accurately described as a Convention, as having been called without the royal writ.
The Convention of 1689, summoned by the Prince of Orange, afterwards William III., on his accession by force to the throne left vacant by James II., consisted of persons elected in a similar manner, on the call of the usurping prince, issued at the recommendation of the lords spiritual and temporal at the time in London, forming a quasi House of Lords, and of old members of the House of Commons, together with the magistrates of the city of London, acting as a House of Commons. This Convention, also, though made up of members chosen by the electors for members of Parliament, in their several districts, was not styled or considered a Parliament, because called by a person not constitutionally authorized, acting on the advice of an assembly, which, though regarded by the nation with a large measure of the respect due to a Parliament, on account of the eminence and former official station of its members, was yet without a shadow of legal authority. The proceeding was revolutionary, and so universally admitted to be. Such were the two great English Conventions, the models after which most subsequent bodies of the same class have been formed or organized, both in this country and in Europe, and of which, as we shall see, our Constitutional Conventions are special adaptations or modifications. They were Provisional Governments,—— the only governments England had during the periods of their existence. And for our purpose it will be interesting to note further, that the English Convention of 1689, having taken steps, as a revolutionary body, to settle the succession to the throne, passed a bill declaring itself to be a parliament, and from that time acted as such in conjunction with the king it had itself called to the throne.2 1 Macaulay, Hist. Eng., Vol. I. eh. i. 2 Id. Vol. II. ch. xL
REVOLUTIONARY CONVENTIONS IN FRANCE
One of the best known examples of the Revolutionary Convention is the National Convention, by which was effected the bloody overthrow of the old feudal monarchy of France at the close of the last century. Enough has been said, however, to show the characteristic features of an institution, too often, as we shall see, confounded with the Constitutional Convention, to which we discus later. l Palfrey's Hist. New Eng., Vol. III. pp. 587-589.
REVOLUTIONARY CONVENTIONS IN COLONIAL AMERICA
Interesting examples of the Revolutionary Convention are found in U.S. history. The first occurred in New England simultaneously with the English Convention of 1689, its assembling being the result, in part, of the same causes which led to that, but, in part, of causes local to New England. Both, However, were called and composed in a similar manner, and organized after the same model, that of 1660, convened at the time of the Restoration.
The leading facts in the history of that held in New England are as follows :
Whilst the tyrannical acts of James II. were, in England, exciting the discontents which finally led to his abdication, those of Sir Edmond Andros, the Governor of Massachusetts, were arousing the fiercest opposition in New England, against both the colonial and the imperial administrations. It is believed that as early as January, 1689, before the news of the landing of the Prince of Orange in England had reached the colony, arrangements had been made in the latter to rise against the unpopular governor. So soon as that news arrived an outbreak occurred. On the 18th of April, a " Declaration of the Gentlemen, Merchants, and Inhabitants of Boston and the country adjacent," was published, recounting their oppressions, and announcing their purpose to "seize upon the persons of those few- ill men which have been (next to our sins) the grand authors of our miseries." The governor and the magistrates and crown officers adhering to him, were accordingly thrown into prison ; the castle was occupied by colonial militia, and an English frigate, lying in the harbor, was forced to surrender.'
On the day following this revolutionary outbreak, the leaders in the movement with twenty-two others, whom they now associated, formed themselves into a Provisional Government, under the name of a " Council for the Safety of the People and Conservation of the Peace." Feeling the weakness of their position, since they " held their place neither by deputation from the sovereign nor ' by election of the people," and hesitating to set up again the charter, " formally condemned by the King's courts," " they decided to call a Convention, to consist of two delegates from each town in the jurisdiction, except Boston, which was to send four." This Convention met on the 9th of May, and attempted to put i'Sue 133, pnit. 1 Palfrey's Hist. New Eng., Vol. III. pp. 574-587.
A charter of government (a royal writ or declaration or constitution) may have been in force, but meeting with opposition from the magistrates, steps were taken to call a second Convention with " express instructions from their towns." Fifty-four towns sent delegates to this latter Convention, the large majority of them with instructions to insist on the resumption of the charter. After two days' debate, the governor and magistrates, chosen at the last election under the charter, were prevailed upon "to assume the trusts committed to them, and, in concert with the delegates recently elected, to form a General Court," or Legislature, " and administer the colony, for the present, according to the ancient forms."
Two days after this revolutionary government was established, a ship arrived from England with the news that the revolution there had succeeded, and bringing orders to the authorities to proclaim King William and Queen Mary. The Convention, organized as above stated, by which this revolution was effected, was evidently of the species we have denominated Revolutionary Conventions. It rested for its warrant upon necessity, and sought its ends through force. It was a government, intended to supplant another government, and not merely a political institution designed to be subservient to a government conceived of as existing in full activity.
Thus the Revolutionary Convention became domesticated in America. Since this first appearance, there have been numerous others, a few during the colonial condition, but most of them in the course of our two great civil revolutions, those of 1776 and 1861. As we shall see subsequently, most of the organizations, by which, under the names of " Provincial Conventions,'' or " Provincial Congresses," the first of those revolutions was consummated, and all of those by which the late secession movement [of the Confederacy] was carried through, were strictly Revolutionary Conventions.
One of the best known examples of the Revolutionary Convention is the National Convention, by which was effected the bloody overthrow of the old feudal monarchy of France at the close of the last century. Enough has been said, however, to show the characteristic features of an institution, too often, as we shall see, confounded with the Constitutional Convention, to which we now pass.
l Palfrey's Hist. New Eng., Vol. III. pp. 587-589.
STRICTLY REVOLUTIONARY CONVENTIONS IN AMERICA
The Revolutionary Convention of 1776 dissolved the royal writ of government of King George of England and formed a common law Provisional Government called the Confederacy of the United States of America. It resulted in an horrific war with England launched by King George of England and after the United States won the war they were granted a royal writ of independence and peace by King George of England, a document of subservience itself.
The current CSA is a restoration of an occupied CSA Government via Constitutional Convention methods. The original Confederate States of America was the result of a Revolutionary Convention to dissolve an existing writ of a Government referred to as the “Union” and form a new government of several Southern States. This resulted in an horrific war launched by Marxist Dictator Abraham Lincoln of the Union of the United States against the Southern States Confederacy. No writ of independence and no peace treaty was ever signed.
The last species of the Convention is the CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. It differs from the last preceding, in being, as its name implies, constitutional; not simply as having for its object the framing or amending of Constitutions, but as being within, rather than without, the pale of the fundamental law; as ancillary and subservient and not hostile and paramount to it. This species of Convention sustains an official relation to the State, considered as a political organization. It is charged with a definite, and not a discretionary and indeterminate, function. It always acts under a commission, for a purpose ascertained and limited by law or by custom. Its principal feature, as contradistinguished from the Revolutionary Convention, is, that at every step and moment of its existence, it is subaltern(controlled), it is evoked by the side and at the call of a government preexisting and intended to survive it, for the purpose of administering- to its special needs. It never supplants the existing organization of ; It never governs. Though called to look into and recommend improvements in the fundamental laws, it enacts neither them nor the statute law; and it performs no act of administration. As John Randolph said in the Virginia Convention of 1829, it is called as counsel to the people, "as a State physician, to propose remedies for the State's diseases." But it is a physician whose ministrations are confined to the extraordinary maladies requiring a fundamental change in the Constitution, not to those constantly recurring but petty disorders which demand the interposition of the ordinary legislature.
It is apparent that institutions, whose definitions thus mutually exclude each other, cannot be the same, however similar the names by which they are popularly known. But it may happen, (instances will be hereafter mentioned in which it has happened,) that the Constitutional Convention may, by usurpation, assume one or more of the powers of the Revolutionary Convention ; or that the latter may exercise those of the former. How, in such a case, is the usurping body to be classed ? This question is one of great importance, but is susceptible of a ready answer. It is gratifying to be able to identify the distinctions herein made between Constitutional and Revolutionary Conventions by the authority of a judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals, in an opinion delivered upon the hearing of the so-called allegiance cases. See the opinion of Mr. Justice O'Neall, 2 Hill's S. C. R., 222.
REVOLUTIONARY CONVENTIONS IN EARLY AMERICA.
A charter of government of sort being in force [a royal writ, a declaration or a constitution], but meeting with opposition from the magistrates, steps were taken to call a second Convention with " express instructions from their towns." Fifty-four towns sent delegates to this latter Convention, the large majority of them with instructions to insist on the resumption of the charter. After two days' debate, the governor and magistrates, chosen at the last election under the charter, were prevailed upon "to assume the trusts committed to them, and, in concert with the delegates recently elected, to form a General Court," or Legislature, " and administer the colony, for the present, according to the ancient forms." * Two days after this revolutionary government was established, a ship arrived from England with the news that the revolution there had succeeded, and bringing orders to the authorities to proclaim King William and Queen Mary. The Convention, organized as above stated, by which this revolution was effected, was evidently of the species denominated as Revolutionary Conventions. It rested for its warrant upon necessity, and sought its ends through force. It was a government, intended to supplant another government, and not merely a political institution designed to be subservient to a government conceived of as existing in full activity.
Thus the Revolutionary Convention became domesticated in America. Since this first appearance, there have been numerous others, a few during the colonial condition, but most of them in the course of our two great civil revolutions, those of 1776 and 1861. Most of the organizations, by which, under the names of " Provincial Conventions,'' or " Provincial Congresses," the first of those revolutions was consummated, and all of those by which the late secession movement was carried through, were strictly Revolutionary Conventions.
Review of a Strictly Revolutionary Convention in Texas
TEXAS SECESSION FROM THE FEDERAL UNION
AND RE-STAFFING OF THE GOVERNMENT
Summary of Highlights by Vance J. Beaudreau, July 28, 2005
President Sam Houston of the Republic of Texas was a key factor in getting the Republic of Texas to join the union as a State on February 19, 1846 during 1845. Many Texans, however, opposed joining the union, but President Houston prevailed. Years later, Houston became a Governor of the State of Texas.
When South Carolina pulled out of the union in December 1860 due to the election of Marxist Abraham Lincoln, Texan began insisting for Texas to secede as well, but Governor Houston stonewalled the requests of the people. This prompted a Texas Supreme Court Justice to contact a few of his friends around the State and suggest that they organize a Constitutional Convention. This they did. On Jan.29, 1861, Delegates to a Texas Constitutional Convention voted 96.2% for secession. Three days later, on Feb. 1, 1861, the Texas Constitutional Convention then voted 95.4% for a formal ordinance of secession repealing and annulling the Texas annexation laws of 1845 and they sent delegates to Montgomery, Alabama to participate in establishing the Confederate States of America.
Shortly after the Feb. 1, 1861 vote for a formal ordinance of secession the Constitutional Convention became a Revolutionary Convention formed a Committee of Public Safety which ordered the forced removal of 2,800 federal troops in Texas and the seizure of all Federal property. The Constitutional Convention adjourned Feb. 4, 1861 after calling for a public referendum. The Texas Legislature refused to interfere with the Constitutional Convention recognizing them as the ultimate political power in the State and the Legislature turned the State house over to the Convention.
On Feb. 23, 1861, Texas Citizens in a public referendum, ratified secession by a vote of 75.8%.
On March 5, 1861, the Secessionist Revolutionary Convention reassembled and took further steps in the process of transforming their State government from a State of the Federal Union into a State of the Confederacy. A new 1861 Texas Constitution* similar to the Constitution of 1845 was written and all State officials were required to take an oath of loyalty. Governor Sam Houston, refused the oath so the Constitutional Convention declared his office vacant and removed Houston as Governor. His office was filled by Lieutenant Governor, Edward Clark who did sign the loyalty oath to the Confederate State of Texas.
Between 1861 and 1865 Texas supplied 115,000 troops to the Confederate Army and Navy and the Federal Union never won a significant battle in Texas.
*Article I. -- Bill of Rights. Section 1, 1861 Texas Constitution as also in 1845 Constitution.
"All Political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient; and, therefore, no government or authority can exist or exercise power within the State of Texas, without the consent of the people thereof previously given; nor after that consent be withdrawn."
This is how it was with a State that had been a fledgling nation of its own which had a voting population of about 210, 830 at the time of this Constitutional Convention when this small group of men (177) effectively fired Governor Sam Houston and changed the State from the Union to the Confederacy. The Constitutional Convention ratified their actions with a public referendum where a majority supported secession. (75.8% which was well in excess of a majority vote.)
Fortunately for us, we do not have to take those steps as they were taken by our forefathers and need not be done again. All that is needed is for a responsible group of C.S.A. Registered Citizens to meet in a Constitutional Convention to re-staff the existing Texas Confederate State government. A majority of the eligible voters (C.S.A. Registered Citizens) would be required to elect, re-staff the empty Governmental offices and pass resolutions for government authority and actions. The actual number therefore of affirmative votes required depends upon the total number of eligible voters. To be reasonably representative, voters should come from various parts of Texas. A minimum, for appearance sake then, would be between 25 and 50 voters.
While that sounds small, consider the Gideon number of 300 is needed to achieve success. That works out to about 15-20 per State and 5-19 per Territory. These are the valiant and the wise similar to those the Lord had Gideon pick to defeat the invading nation of the Midianites and their army of 135,000 troops. With that many in each State and territory we can re-staff the CSA State and Territorial Governments legally. Then, we can build upon this by adding thousands of Citizens.
There is a limit to the amount of irrigation a farmer should put on land preparing for the planting of an orchard. Eventually, he must plant at least a few trees and then irrigate those and take care of the land keeping the weeds down. He can then add more trees later more easily. Such is the case with the re-staffing of our State Confederate Governments and then with the resurrection of our national Confederate States of America. We can do it with 300 valiant men.
(See the Texas Senate Resolution #526 dated March 30, 1999 regarding the Confederacy
RESTRICTIVE REVOLUTIONARY CONVENTIONS
Restrictive Revolutionary Convention is what the delegates from the current Confederate States have called for. That is the Convention is restrictive to C.S.A. Citizens only and it is revolutionary because the States holding such Convention will be re-staffing their still existing Confederate State Governments under the occupation of fictitious Federal States also called satellite states. It is possible for this revolution to proceed without military hostility culminating in a Constitutional Convention of the States’ delegates resulting in the re-staffing of the national C.S.A. Senate and the Constitutional resurrection of the Confederate States of America with goals of gaining a suitable peace treaty with the United States of America including trade and possible security agreements. Because there can be much economic and civil turmoil in the meanwhile an intrim govrnment has been ordered by the Constitutional Court and is now in place subject to fulfillment of the plan of liberation.
We must Avoid adopting the Federal Union establishment of political party limitations or other non jurisdictional rules, etc.
As part of Reconstruction the Federal Union established rules making it nearly impossible for third parties to enter the political field. They are supposed to register and be controlled by the Federal election code. In 2000 A.D. the Southern Independence Party was established and we organized State SIPs in some 10 states and registered with the Satellite States involved. We did not register with the Federal Election Board because we were not entering into any Federal elections.
It soon became obvious that we were not going to have 10 or 15 years required to become a force in the political party fashion, but 7 states sent delegates to Jackson Mississippi where they authorized the formation of the Constitutional Court and they elected Justices thereto as well.
CHRONOLOGY OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS LEADING TO THE CREATION OF THE FEDERATION OF STATES AND THE RESTORATION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.
1 March 4, 2000, New Braunfels, Texas - Hotel Faust
The First Caucus of the Southern Party of Texas, in New Braunfels
under Jerry Baxley with the SPEC and Madison Cook with the SNC
1 May 6, 2000 - A Constitutional Convention was held in Bryan, Texas to Approve a new Southern Party Constitution to be presented at the national Convention of the Southern Party to be held in Charleston, South Carolina for ratification.
2 June 10, 2000 - State Convention of the Southern Party of Texas held a Second Constitutional Convention adopting the Southern Independence Party (SIP) Constitution. This was to be offered in our own Convention if Texas got thrown out of Baxley’s Convention which we had heard might occur.
3 July 4, 2000 Third Convention of the Revolutionary species occurred where the FEDERATION OF STATES Formed to promote the SIP, Southern Independence Party, nationally to the various Southern States to replace the Southern Party of Jerry Baxley.. Legal creation of the FEDERATION OF STATES and its Trust by Carole Moore, Chairwoman of Independent Southern Party of Arkansas and Dennis Joyce, Chairman of the Southern Party of Texas in Atoka, Oklahoma. Meeting was witnessed by Vance J. Beaudreau who served as secretary. Dennis Joyce was named as National Chairman.
4 July 27-28, 2000 Birmingham, Alabama- Wynfry Hotel. Fourth Constitutional Convention and First National Constitutional Convention of the Federation of States promoting the Southern Independence Party held in Wynfry Hotel in Birmingham two days prior to the public National Convention of the SPA. Mississippi and Florida were present and joining the Federation.
5 May 10-11, 2001, Jackson, Mississippi, The Edison Walthall Hotel Fifth Constitutional Convention and Second National Convention of the FEDERATION OF STATES. The Round Table of State Chairmen (Federation Councilors) present included, Vernon Ray White of Mississippi, Joe Gresham of Kentucky and Vance J. Beaudreau of Louisiana. Mick Hubbard of Alabama, Carol Moore of Arkansas, Kenneth Mead II of Missouri, Dennis Joyce of Texas and Nathan Jesse Blue Forrest of Virginia attended by telephone. The CONSTITUTIONAL COURT of the Federation of States was established and Vance Beaudreau, Dennis Joyce, Kenneth Mead II, Joe Gresham and Nathan Jesse Blue Forrest were elected as Justices and Nathan Forrest was elected as Chief Justice.
6 May 12, 2001, Jackson, Mississippi, The Edison Walthall Hotel - During the Sixth Constitutional Convention, an ORGANIZING CONVENTION OF THE SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE PARTY (National SIP) was held with two Delegates from each Federated State being invited. The Delegates voted to accept the Constitution of the Southern Independence Party and CERTIFIED it for the Ratification Process which would require the assent by six (6) of the eight (8) Federated States. It was ratified by seven States. the purpose of the Federation of States was to bring to pass the restoration of the Confederate States of America.
The Confederate States of America is not a political party, but a Government which never surrendered and which has no peace treaty with the occupying nation, the United States and therefore still existed in a dormant stage.
The CSA is not bound by laws and rules established by the Occupying nation, the U.S.A. since they lack jurisdiction over the territory of the South who did not surrender nor sign any treaty with the Federal Union.
The Constitutional Court decided early in the struggle that a representative number required for liberation should be based upon the Gideon number of 300 men of Gideon type divided up for the States according to their apportionment. For Florida for example the number is 30 which is 75% of the 40 needed for a representative in each of the Senatorial districts. These goals are admittedly spiritual in nature, but are a solid basis for representative Revolutionary Conventions. See Judges 7:1-22, in particular, and Judges 8:10.
On November 1,2006 the Constitutional Court ordered the establishment of the Office of Registration to begin a program of registering citizens to restore the government of the Confederate States of America.
On August 25, 2007 the Constitutional Court ordered the Congressional 1861 C.S.A. Acts 24,26, 29, 43 & 48 observed as organization of Thirteen States and 10 Territories was underway with citizen enrollment working towards their respective Gideon numbers to hold State Constitutional Conventions.
A series of Court Orders followed for the organization of an interim provisional Government for the national Confederate States of America and a Security Council was organized followed by a Department of Defense, a Department of War, a State Department, a Confederate Intelligence Bureau, a Department of Justice, and a Treasury Branch were established to prepare for a Convention of Confederate States to re-staff the Senate and fulfill the plan of liberation.