Archuleta County resident Wayne Bryant, who has announced his candidacy for County Sheriff, has accepted my challenge to debate, in this forum, his qualifications for the job.
In doing so he expressed his happiness with me inviting the debate — so I will make him happier by responding to his latest missive, ‘Living Under the Tyranny of Lawyers and Courts’.
First, some context. The impetus of the debate was Mr Bryant’s column reciting a distorted history of the United States.
I then retorted by correcting his historical errors.
He has now replied to my retort. So I guess the ball is in my court!
In his word-salad reply to me, he repeats his original factual errors about an alleged “missing Thirteenth Amendment”, and that the United States Constitution was “re-written” in 1871 — but still fails to provide any evidence for either claim. I’ll readdress each claim — again — since I apparently didn’t clearly explain it the first time.
The Thirteenth Amendment that is now part of the Constitution abolished slavery. It was ratified in 1865. But Bryant claims there was another one, earlier. He is correct there was one written, and submitted to the States — but it was not, and never has been, ratified. In 1810, Congress proposed what would have been a Thirteenth Amendment, and sent it to the States for consideration. That’s where it died.
Here’s the full proposed Amendment:
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.
It has been referred to as the “Titles of Nobility Amendment” (TONA), because of the first clause — which very clearly addressed what is, in the 21st century, an anachronistic concern.
In 1817, to resolve confusion about the fate of TONA, President James Monroe directed Secretary of State John Quincy Adams to research the matter. Adams determined it had not been ratified by the minimum required number of States.
You can download a history of the TONA here. In this document, you will find reference to the likely source of Mr Bryant’s misguided belief in the TONA’s existence as part of the Constitution: an anti-lawyer, conspiracy theory website.
Leaving aside any debate about the constitutionality of the TONA, what exactly is Mr Bryant’s obsession with titles of nobility? It’s not like we have a King, Prince, Duke or Earl amongst our citizens… other than the late musicians Elvis, Prince, Duke Ellington, Count Basie… and Gene Chandler.
Even ex-pat English Royal, Prince Harry, isn’t an American citizen, though Queen Elizabeth apparently has not stripped Harry’s American wife (Meghan Markle) of her title as Duchess of Sussex.
Perhaps if Mr Bryant responds to me, he will both furnish us with evidence of the ratification of the TONA, and give us examples of titles of nobility currently being held by U.S. citizens, other than Duchess Meghan… and me! Apparently, according to Mr Bryant, I have a title of nobility. In his op-ed, he wrote, “Remember the 13th Amendment concerning titles nobility? Well, here you go. Mr. Beatty comes out of and represents that agenda…”
I’ve been called, in addition to unprintable things, the “King of closing arguments” because I once did an Elvis impersonation during one (you had to be there), but I wasn’t aware that constitutes “nobility”.
As you can ascertain from the treatise about the history of the TONA linked above, there is at least a reason for Mr. Bryant’s confusion about its existence. But his repeated claim that the U.S. Constitution was “re-written” in 1871 is less understandable.
Mr. Bryant needs to show us where, and by whom, the Constitution was re-written. When was it ratified? Perhaps he can show us the records of the debates, and voting from the ratifying States… And where can I see a copy of the re-written one? All I’ve ever seen is the original, signed by the authors in 1787.
Is it possible Mr Bryant is confusing ‘re-writing of the Constitution’ with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868? The Fourteenth was proposed by an anti-states-rights Congress dominated by pro-Union northern radicals, then ratified in the immediate post-civil war period to address legal issues in the former Confederacy .
There is an argument to be made that the Fourteenth has subsequently been misinterpreted by the Supreme Court to expand the power of the federal government far beyond that intended by the drafters of both the original Constitution and Fourteenth Amendment. Harvard law school professor, legal historian, and constitutional expert Raoul Berger believes so, and has written a seminal treatise on the subject, Government by Judiciary.
I agree with Berger’s thesis, but even he doesn’t call it a ‘re-write’ of the Constitution.
That Berger, an eminent constitutional law expert, and myself — and many other legal scholars believe the Court has erred in its expansive reading of the Fourteenth Amendment refutes Mr Bryants’ claim that all us lawyers are in a conspiracy to take away his rights.
But where Mr. Bryant really shows his confusion is when he writes about common law. In his original column, he opined that before the alleged 1871 ‘re-write’, the Constitution “was still under Common Law.”
In his latest response to me, he writes “In the federal court system, decisions tend to be based on previous rulings instead of on the Constitution itself…”
Since the very definition of common law is that which is based on previous judicial rulings (precedent), it seems Mr Bryant has impaled himself on the horns of dilemma. Is the Constitution “under common law”, as he originally espoused… or not, as he subsequently wrote?
Perhaps Mr. Bryant can provide an example of a constitutional case “based on previous rulings” where those previous rulings are not taken from the language of “the Constitution itself”.
As a legal scholar, I’m curious to see that unique case.
But all that discussion of legalisms is merely philosophical and provides limited information to help voters decide if Mr. Bryant is qualified to hold the office of Archuleta County Sheriff. Let’s get to specifics of that job.
In his original column, Mr. Bryant wrote that he would take the deputies in the Manazanares case before a “common law grand jury”. I asked him under what legal authority does such a grand jury exist — and how is the County Sheriff empowered to convene one? He has not responded, so I assume he has no answer to either question. That might suggest that, as sheriff, he would make up whatever law suits him.
Finally, Mr. Bryant agrees with my proposition that he explain to the voters his understanding of the duties of the sheriff. He says he understands those duties to be “to abolish this corrupt system of government”.
And here I thought the role of the sheriff was to enforce the law!
As I’ve previously written, the basis for all government in Colorado is the state Constitution.
Article 14, Section 8.5 of the Constitution says only this about the office of sheriff:
The general assembly shall have the authority to establish by law qualifications for the office of county sheriff, including but not limited to training and certification requirements.
The legislature has done so in Sections 30-10-501 thru 527 of the Colorado statutes, which define the duties of a county sheriff. Nowhere in those duties can I find anything about abolishing a system of government. Again, Mr. Bryant is suggesting that, if elected, he will make up his own laws.
So now the voters may have a clearer understanding of Wayne Bryant as a candidate for Sheriff. He is confused about the history of the United States Constitution. He seems unable to articulate a correct understanding of the legal duties, and limits of the authority, of the office he is seeking.
I hope this response makes him as happy as he says my last one did.