Time: Wed Jul 30 11:48:03 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA08585;
	Wed, 30 Jul 1997 11:42:54 -0700 (MST)
	by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA22500;
	Wed, 30 Jul 1997 11:40:34 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 11:39:48 -0700
To: libnw@circuit.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Since reading Vulture

Unconstitutionality dates from enactment,
not from the decision so branding it.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

copy:  Supreme Law School

At 07:37 AM 7/30/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Harold Thomas wrote:
>> Demetrious Eugenios wrote:
>> > Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 07:32:10 -0700
>> > To: Demetrious Eugenios <demetrious@mrdivorce.com>
>> > From: Harold Thomas
>> > Demetrious wrote:
>> > until a law is declared unconstitutional by the supreme court it
>> > remains
>> > binding.  in other words, just because you or I disagree with a law
>> > and/or its implementation is irrelevant if the supreme court doesn't
>> > agree.
>> >
>> > Harold writes:
>> Demetrious, I have heard and read this argument many times.  Of course,
>> in a legal or judicial setting this is absolutely true.  However, the
>> Founders admonished THE PEOPLE repeatedly that they were not bound to
>> obey any law which was unconstitutional, in fact, had a moral obligation
>> to resist laws which violated the Constitution.
>> The question I have is this:  why would the Founders make such
>> statements if they were operating on the assumption that 1) in order for
>> a law to be "unconstitutional" it would have to be declared so by the
>> Supreme Court, and 2) the instant a law is declared "unconstitutional"
>> it no longer exists in law and therefore could not possibly be either
>> disobeyed or resisted???
>> Demetrious, I suspect that the Founders expected THE PEOPLE to be the
>> ultimate guardians of the Constitution and their rights protected
>> thereby.  It is when the people abdicate this responsibility that they
>> become ruled by the sophistry of the courts, otherwise known as judicial
>> tyranny.
>> I believe you are quite correct:  a goodly number of people are going to
>> have to summons the courage to do some time in jail, if that is what is
>> required to awaken their fellow Americans and preserve true Liberty.
>> Thank you again for your contribution to this topic.
>> Harold Thomas
>> >
>> >
>> > ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
>> > --
>> > | Fidonet:  Demetrious Eugenios 1:346/16
>> > | Internet: Demetrious.Eugenios@libnw.circuit.com
>> > | Fido->Internet/Usenet via Net 346 Services
>Even the Founders followed the laws that existed in their time...up to a
>point.  When it became obvious to them that their property was slowly
>being confiscated by a government which exchanged little of value for
>what was being taken they rebelled.  
>Each individual must decide for himself which laws to follow and which
>to disregard.  Generally the self interest of a person will induce them
>to follow most laws.  Where there is general agreement in a society that
>various laws are best followed to maintain a reasonable level of
>civilized behavior there must be an enforcement mechanism to enforce
>that accepted behavior.
>At present the various governmental entities confiscate about 50% of my
>income in income taxes. The question is:  do they take more than the
>value I am receiving from living in this society?  Apparently, the vast
>majority of citizens believe that it is still better to pay the looters
>than to lose one's property and personal freedom. As soon as some as yet
>undefined critical mass is reached, so many people will refuse to pay
>that the system will collapse. 
>In short, I believe that the constitutional arguments are not going to
>underly the reasons for the type of change most of us seek.  We all have
>to face the fact that the looters and those who benefit from their
>activities are never going to agree that the system in place today
>should be radically modified.  Modified in a way which significantly
>diminishes their power over our lives.  The only way in which they would
>agree that the system should be changed is if it was in their best
>interests to do so...for example, if collection efforts were disregarded
>or met with violence on a widespread basis.
>To some extent what is happening today is a race.  The looters are
>trying to financially and morally weaken the individual citizens who
>might oppose their activities, all the while disarming them to the
>extent possible. In the meantime, the patriot movement is trying to act
>while it 's members still have some power and a reasonable level of
>personal freedom.  Unfortunately, we are losing ground every day.  Just
>take a look at what the level of taxation your parents paid into the
>goverment and the rights they enjoyed.
>Thanks for taking the time to respond.

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