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 http://www.supremelaw.com 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. > >demetrious ======================================================================== 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