FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 28, 1997
"The Lawless Rehnquist"
by
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
and Private Attorney General
January 28, 1997
All Rights Reserved
William H. Rehnquist is a lawless man. In a lecture today
at the University of Arizona's Law School, the Chief Justice of
the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that federal judges should be
punished for serious crimes, like tax evasion. A student then
drew his attention to the Supreme Court's decision in 1920 which
immunized those judges from income taxes. The U.S. Constitution
specifically guarantees that their pay shall not be diminished
during their continuance in office. Rehnquist then replied,
"There has been a change in doctrine." The class has now been
barred from discussing any contemporary issues, on orders from
the Law School's Dean of Academic Affairs.
What doctrines, if any, have changed to justify this lawless
result? Perhaps the most pernicious, and least understood of
these new doctrines, is the stealthy destruction of the
principles of freedom. At the turn of the century, the U.S.
Supreme Court issued a series of pathetic decisions called The
Insular Cases. Briefly, the high Court ruled that the
Constitution of the United States, as such, does not extend
beyond the limits of the States which are united by and under it.
Later, in 1945, under cover of the first nuclear war on planet
earth, the high Court extended this doctrine by ruling that the
guarantees of the Constitution extend to the federal zone, only
as Congress makes those guarantees applicable, by statutes.
The federal zone is the area of land over which Congress
exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction. These are areas
which are under the American flag, yet they are not within the
boundaries of any particular State. They are territories,
possessions and federal enclaves, like military bases. Recent
research has proven, conclusively, that the Internal Revenue
Code, the set of laws used to collect the income tax, can only be
enforced within the federal zone, and upon citizens of that zone.
A Congresswoman has even admitted as much, in 1996, on official
stationery from the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C.
This discovery is consistent with the doctrine established in The
Insular Cases, of which Downes v. Bidwell is the most notorious.
In his discussion of John Marshall's immense contribution to
the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Chief Justice made an
important point of discussing the role of dissenting opinions by
other members of the high Court. When queried about contemporary
practices, however, the Chief Justice deferred the matter to the
end of the class. It was then that the Dean of Academic Affairs
explained that contemporary practices would be off-limits, on
orders from Rehnquist.
Is the Chief Justice becoming a bit sensitive about dissent,
particularly when those dissenters sit beside him, and decide to
oppose him? Consider, for a moment, the words of Justice Harlan,
whose brilliant dissent in Downes v. Bidwell has already earned
him a permanent place of well deserved honor in American history.
Listen to Harlan explain why the slim 5-to-4 majority in that
case was wrong, flat wrong. Quoting now:
"The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression
in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country
substantially and practically two national governments; one, to
be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its
restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and
independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as
other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.
"I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced
should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a
radical and mischievous change in our system of government will
be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of
constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written
constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.
"It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory
of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds
lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty
rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent
all violation of the principles of the Constitution." See Downes
v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Harlan dissenting.
And so, against these immensely moving words, we judge the
Chief Justice to be a lawless radical, bent on destroying the
very constitution which he is sworn to uphold. When presented
with clear authority that federal judges cannot be taxed,
including a seminal decision in 1920 which upheld the immunity,
notwithstanding the 16th Amendment, Rehnquist glibly states that
there has been a "change in doctrine" [sic]. How wonderful!
What he is saying, in effect, is that the Supreme Court has
aggrandized to itself the baseless power to invent doctrines
according as the wind should blow, not according to the wishes of
the very People who ordained and established the Constitution for
the United States of America, the People whom he should serve.
The net result is low fascism, and it is high time we faced
the terrible truth about our lawless government leaders.
For fascism arrives without fanfare, like tooth decay or dry
rot, creeping in, behind closed walls, until the very foundation
is washed away, forever. This author received today proof that
federal judges are now being blackmailed. In the 1930's, newly
appointed federal judges were forced to sign contracts agreeing
to the income tax, or they simply were not appointed. Despite
the clear and established immunity against taxation of their pay,
federal judges are now being presented with the following
criminal choice: either agree in writing to waive your
fundamental immunity, or forget about serving as a federal judge.
Forget about integrity; forget about judicial independence;
forget about justice. You may attain the lofty title of Justice,
but you will enjoy that title in name only.
It is no wonder that well in excess of 80% of the American
People are now disgusted with government, and all of its agents.
Our Chief Justice is clearly a criminal if he continues to
advocate taxation of federal judges, in the face of supreme laws
which maintain the contrary. Federal judges are also heavy
investors in the United States Prison Industries, now the fifth
largest enterprise of the whole American economy. Need we say
any more? Yes, we need to say more, because the incarceration
rate in the land of the free is now the highest in the world, by
wide margins. You can thank William H. Rehnquist for that
honorable distinction. None will dare to call it treason.
email: Contact Us
website: http://supremelaw.org
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Published Press Releases