Time: Sat Aug 16 23:42:32 1997
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 23:42:10 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in toolbar]
Subject: SLL:CC:PVPCCJC.ZIP
Cc: [address in toolbar]
compressed with -ex option
(use extra compression)
and encoded with BinHex
(I can also encode with MIME and Uuencode)
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
Legend:
SLL = Supreme Law Library
CC = Court Cases
PVPCCJC = People v. Pima County Consolidated Justice Court
.DIR = DOS directory suffix (user convention)
Attachment Converted: "C:\ATTACH\PVPCCJC.zip"
========================================================================
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 toolbar] : 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.]From ???@??? Sun Aug 17 09:18:57 1997
by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA15360;
Sun, 17 Aug 1997 09:16:39 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 09:15:24 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: "Of the People, by the People, for the People" (fwd)
<snip>
>
>WEDNESDAY ON THE WEB
>08/15/97 By Kim Weissman
>
> OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR
> THE PEOPLE:
>
>
>
> Consider the following hypothetical: It is the summer of the year
>2000. The presidential election is fast
> approaching. President Clinton goes on national television and
>announces that, as a result of some
> pending "crisis" -- perhaps new "evidence" of global warming, and a
>Senate which refused to ratify the
> greenhouse gas reduction treaty back in 1997 -- he has decided to
>temporarily postpone the
> presidential election due to the National Emergency.
>
> Pursuant to Executive Orders being formulated, the Constitution and
>the Bill of Rights will be
> temporarily suspended until new restrictive mandates on the
>production of greenhouse gasses are fully
> implemented. Vice President Gore will lead the "bipartisan" task
>force charged with drawing up those
> mandates, which will be imposed pursuant to Executive Order since
>the Congress will also be
> temporarily disbanded, having already demonstrated their inability
>to deal with the crisis by rejecting
> the aforesaid treaty. To insure compliance with the new mandates
>which are being implemented so as
> to assure our children a safe and secure world in which to grow up,
>Martial Law will be imposed.
>
> Under this hypothetical scenario, what would be the reaction of
>most of our national news media? What
> would the reaction be from a large portion of our citizens? The
>hopeful among us (or naive) expect that
> the great majority of citizens would raise their voices in
>righteous indignation at such a scenario as
> outlined above. But would they?
>
> Haven't we been experiencing, in slow motion, just such a
>usurpation of power and destruction of
> Liberty for decades, with barely a murmur of discontent? Haven't we
>even welcomed the destruction of
> our Liberty, in the name of saving the environment, preserving our
>natural resources, controlling crime,
> assuring our health, stabilizing our economy, implementing
>fairness, and a host of other useless
> excuses for what in actuality amounts to creeping totalitarianism?
>
> Item: The majority of voters in California recently decided to
>make racial preferences illegal. A
> single federal judge decided that such an exercise of popular
>will was unconstitutional, deciding in
> effect that the Constitution requires discrimination. Where
>was the great mass of citizens raising
> their voices in righteous indignation?
> Item: Citizens in states across the nation have decided,
>through popular referenda, to limit the
> terms of their representatives in state and federal
>legislatures. State and federal judges have
> uniformly decided that such exercises of popular will must not
>be permitted, and have struck
> down such term limits laws. Where is the great mass of
>citizens raising their voices in righteous
> indignation?
> Item: The Constitution provides that treaties negotiated with
>foreign nations are subject to
> ratification by the United States Senate. To avoid the
>inconvenient need to obtain the consent of
> the putative representatives of the governed to such
>international agreements, our current
> president has begun to simply rename those agreements which he
>negotiates with foreign
> nations. They are no longer "treaties," -- they are "political
>agreements, "memorandums of
> understanding,", "founding acts," and "global initiatives;"
>thereby eliminating the need for
> Senate ratification. Once these agreements are in place, the
>president tells us that of course
> these are treaties, and as such, according to the
>Constitution, they must take precedence over
> state and federal laws enacted by the mere elected
>representatives of the people. Where is the
> great mass of citizens raising their voices in righteous
>indignation?
> Item: The Constitution designates one segment of our national
>government as the only group
> empowered to enact laws to govern the nation, the Congress.
>This is proper, because if the
> governed do not like the laws enacted by Congress, the People
>have the ability to remove the
> offending legislators from office at the next election. Thus
>does the Constitution provide for
> control by the People over the laws which govern them. The
>Congress, however, has established
> an alphabet soup of regulatory bodies and granted them rule
>making authority, rules which have
> the full force and effect of law. What recourse is left to the
>People when they object to the laws
> which the myriad bureaucrats, which infest government, enact
>daily?
>
> The fundamental flaw with this method of governance is that the
>People are no longer able to exert
> control over the rule makers, that control is vested in the
>Congress instead. When the Army Corps of
> Engineers or the Environmental Protection Agency decide to
>confiscate private property in the name of
> "wetland" protection, when the term "wetland" is nowhere to be
>found in Congressional legislation,
> and the Congress refuses to overrule the bureaucrats, who in
>Congress can be held accountable?
> Which Congressmen should be removed from office in the next
>election because of the actions of the
> bureaucrats? Where is the great mass of citizens raising their
>voices in righteous indignation?
>
> Item: The regulatory agencies aren't the only source of
>unconstitutional legislative authority.
> Consider Executive Orders of the President, an exercise of
>Presidential Power nowhere
> designated in the Constitution.
>
> But Executive Orders, as substitutes for the Constitutionally
>designated legislative process, have been
> used by presidents for so long that the People and the Congress no
>longer even question them.
> Executive Orders totally bypass Congressional legislative authority
>and place unilateral legislative
> power in the hands of the President. A Presidential Executive Order
>becomes law simply by publication
> in the Federal Registry. Where is the great mass of citizens
>raising their voices in righteous
> indignation?
>
> Item: Innocent citizens were killed near Waco, Texas in 1993.
>Attorney General Reno accepted
> responsibility for the numerous improper actions by law
>enforcement agents which contributed to
> those deaths. The Clinton White House violated the
>Constitutional rights of private citizens, and
> made inappropriate political use of the FBI, when it
>improperly gathered hundreds of confidential
> files on political opponents. The White House displayed
>contempt of its constitutional
> responsibilities, resorted to cover-up, made frivolous claims
>of executive privilege, and abused
> its powers and the rights of citizens, to reward political
>cronies in the Travel Office employee
> firings. The FBI presented misleading testimony and flawed
>evidence tailored to convict criminal
> defendants, in various cases emanating from the FBI
>laboratory. To date, no senior officials of
> any of the departments involved have been held accountable for
>any of these abuses of power.
> Where is the great mass of citizens raising their voices in
>righteous indignation?
>
> All of the elected members of our national government take a solemn
>oath upon entering office, to
> preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
>States. As the above examples
> demonstrate, along with many more which could be detailed, the
>elected members of our government
> violate their oaths of office almost daily. Yet they remain in
>office. Where is the great mass of citizens
> raising their voices in righteous indignation? Thanks to a
>dysfunctional educational system and a
> Supreme Court which has expanded, contracted, ignored, and
>otherwise blurred the rights and
> limitations contained in the Constitution, the unfortunate reality
>is that far too many citizens of this
> nation no longer have a clear understanding of their Constitution,
>or any concept of their rights under,
> or the limitations imposed on their government by, that document.
>
> Examine all the newly created "rights" which people claim, which
>have sprung up like weeds over the
> years: to be fed, to a job, to housing, to health care, to an
>education. Some people go even further,
> claiming that animals, and even rocks and trees, have rights.
>
> From where do all these newly minted "rights" spring? From a
>"living" Constitution, of course.
>
> Even worse, most citizens relegate the interpretation of their
>Constitution to unelected members of the
> very government which that Constitution is supposed to restrain. We
>have been convinced that we, the
> People, are not competent to understand what the words of the
>Constitution mean, that we are too
> stupid to read it, to research it, and to decide for ourselves what
>those words mean; and that we must
> rely on unelected federal judges to tell us what the plain words of
>that document really mean. Thus we
> have a Supreme Court which tells us that the Congress may spend
>money for any purpose which can be
> defined as contributing to the general welfare of the nation. The
>basic idea has therefore taken hold
> with most people that the federal government can do anything it
>want to do, just as long as enough
> people agree, and the concept of accountability of our servants in
>government for their improper and
> abusive actions has virtually disappeared.
>
> We have a Supreme Court which discovers rights lurking in the
>Constitution which two centuries of
> previous Supreme Courts somehow failed to notice. We have a Supreme
>Court which, until recently,
> has allowed the Congress to regulate virtually any local activity
>which someone claims may affect
> interstate commerce, regardless of how absurd that claim may be.
>The Tenth Amendment, which
> specifically says, "The powers not delegated to the United States
>by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
> it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
>the people," has been called a nullity by
> the Supreme Court; in other words, it is irrelevant, mere words
>which don't mean anything
>
> Contrast that expansive view of government power which has taken
>root during this century, with the
> words of Thomas Jefferson, who was concerned that just such a
>problem might arise: "Congress has
> not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only
>those specifically enumerated."
>
> The danger of abrogating our fundamental rights and
>responsibilities as citizens becomes evident when
> the history of our founding is reviewed: the People fought a war
>for independence, then selected
> delegates to come together and form a new government for their new
>nation. Those delegates of the
> People created a document, a Constitution, which created that
>government. That document simply said:
>
> 'We created this government. We control it. These are the powers
>over us which we, the People, grant
> to this government. These powers and no more. And to make doubly
>sure of our Freedom, we attach a
> list of our fundamental rights which this government may not
>impair.' Now, two centuries later, we have
> made the potentially fatal mistake of saying to that government,
>'We will give to you the authority to
> tell us what powers you have over us. We will allow the government
>to define its own limits.'
>
> This is the perfect prescription for tyranny.
>
> For a government which has the power to define its own limits, in
>fact has no limits. And a Constitution
> which is a "living" Constitution, which "grows" to meet evolving
>standards, is no Constitution at all.
>
> As Jefferson admonished:
>
> "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us
>carry ourselves back to the time when
> the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in
>the debates, and instead of trying what
> meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it,
>conform to the probable one in which it
> was passed."
>
> There is an old story about the proper method for cooking a frog.
>
> If you throw a live frog into a pot of boiling water, the story
>goes, it will instantly jump out. If, however,
> you throw the frog into a pot of cold water, it will merrily swim
>about. Then you can gradually turn up
> the heat until, before long, it is cooked and ready to be eaten.
>The scenario outlined in the first
> paragraph above would probably cause the citizens of this nation to
>react much as the frog thrown into
> boiling water. However, the elites in our government have been
>using the cold water method for
> decades, and we are still merrily swimming around as the water
>approaches boiling. Are we cooked
> yet?
========================================================================
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