Time: Sun Jul 13 08:45:43 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA00354; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:46:24 -0700 (MST) by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA13632; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:46:17 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:46:01 -0700 To: snetnews@world.std.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Many Christian Leaders Declare Constitution Crisis (fwd) The population of federal citizens who inhabit the several states are, indeed, a democracy, because they owe their political allegiance to the federal zone, which is not protected by the Guarantee Clause. That zone is a legislative democracy. The guarantees of the U.S. Constitution extend to that zone, ONLY as Congress makes those guarantees applicable, by statutes. See Hooven & Allison v. Evatt. The population of state Citizens who inhabit the several states are NOT a democracy, because the supreme Law guarantees to them a Republican Form of Government, not a democracy. So, when you hear "democracy," get out your voter registration affidavits, and see if you verified, under penalty of perjury, that you are a federal citizen. You might want to do something about that. I did, and I am very happy that I did. Under the Tenth Amendment, you enjoy the Right of Election -- to choose which of these two classes of citizenship to join: the one, the other, both, or neither. Democracies can outlaw blonde hair; in a Republic, blondes have more fun. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com At 12:51 AM 7/13/97 -0700, you wrote: > >-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List > >: Affirming what the American Founders called this "experiment in >: ordered liberty," the signers accuse the courts, and the >: Supreme Court in particular, of promoting "disordered liberty" >: in a series of decisions. While the statement addresses many >: questions -including racism, drug abuse, and family >: disintegration -- the signers say that "the judicially-imposed >: abortion license is at the very core of the disordering of our >: liberty." They declare that "this decision of the Court forfeits >: any claim to the obedience of conscientious citizens." > >: The Court, they say, has violated the fundamental principle of >: democracy that "just government is derived from the consent of >: the governed." [...] > >Call me when they make up their minds! > >First, these Christian leaders that government is not being inflicted on >people who, presumably, do not consent to being governed in those particular >ways. Drug users do not consent to prohibition. Racists do not consent >to mandated integration. Divorcees do not consent to laws mandating >indissolubility. And neither abortionists nor their clients consent >to an abortion ban. > >If they then invoke the Declaration of Independence to override people's >diverse approaches to the pursuit of happiness, either their argument is >nonsense, or they're not using the word _consent_ as I understand it. > >Legitimate government, as described in the Declaration, is a covenant >entered by all its subjects to the benefit of each of them. Even a hitman >may agree to a system that attempts to punish murder, because on balance >it makes him safer. But nobody benefits from laws designed to protect >others from themselves. > >A majority may demand laws against drugs, divorce, racism and abortion; >so what? The Declaration of Independence defied majorities. The population >of Britain outnumbered that of the colonies; and even in the colonies, >historians believe that only about one-third favored independence. I'll bet >that well over one-third now favor independence from the kind of laws >demanded by these Christian leaders. > >That's not to say *no* valid argument can be made in favor of such laws -- >but invoking the Declaration, and particularly "the consent of the governed", >is plain silly. > >: In addition, "judicial usurpation of power" with >: respect to the great moral questions of our public life has >: created a crisis in which "it seems that people who are >: motivated by religion or religiously-inspired morality are >: relegated to a category of second-class citizenship." The >: signers warn that, if the present crisis is not effectively >: addressed, "Increasingly, law and public policy will be pitted >: against the social and moral convictions of the people, with the >: result that millions of Americans will be alienated from a >: government that they no longer recognize as their own." > >True enough. The religious are not alone in worrying about this. > >Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher@netcom.com > >-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com >-> Posted by: dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail