Time: Thu Sep 11 15:08:51 1997
	by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA23632;
	Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:22:24 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:22:14 -0700
To: TWStough@aol.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Is Bill of Rights enforceable in several states? (fwd)

In order for a prospective state to be
eligible to join the Union, its constitution
must be adjudged Republican in Form by Congress.  
THE KEY prerequisite is a provision in that state
constitution which recognizes the U.S. Constitution 
as the supreme Law of the Land.  

If the prospective state's constitution does 
NOT have such a provision, then:
it is NOT Republican in Form, and it can be
excluded from the Union, until such a provision
is put into it.  For this reason alone, the
U.S. Constitution, including of course the
Bill of Rights, is the supreme Law in each
and every state of the Union, pursuant to the
Guarantee Clause.  

But, be advised that, to be entirely eligible 
to invoke the U.S. Constitution within your 
Union state, you must also be a state Citizen.  
Federal citizens, on the other hand, are members 
of an association who owe their allegiance 
to a jurisdiction which is NOT protected 
by the Guarantee Clause.  

Read it and study what it says:  "The United
States shall guarantee to every State
in this Union a Republican Form of Government ...."
It does NOT say that the United Staes will
guarantee to itself a Republican Form of Government.

Notice also that the United States is bound by
the Guarantee Clause to protect each Union State
against invasion.  This implies, of course, that
the federal government is prohibited itself from
invading the several States.

FYI: we are litigating the construction of the
Guarantee Clause right now, in Gilbertson's
OPENING BRIEF, available in the Supreme Law 
Library at the URL just below my name here:

/s/ Paul Mitchell

At 03:36 PM 9/11/97 -0400, you wrote:
>"Specifically, James is arguing that the states are under no obligation to
>comply with the Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments to the US
>Constitution, most of which guarantee individual freedoms. Legal scholars
> have long argued that the subsequent 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, links
>the states to the Bill of Rights. But James insists that their interpretation
>is overbroad and wrong: He argues the Bill of Rights' limitations on
>government apply only to Congress, not to states."
>Before I begin (OOPS too late), let me first clarify that Gubernatorial does
>NOT translate as "the birth of Guber".  It means effectively "relating to the
>By the way, Governor James has been on my mailing list for months.  I don't
>know  if he or any of his staff actually reads any of this stuff, but he GETS
>Governor James has a great staff of advisors (the Founding Fathers).  He
>wants to uphold the Constitution.  That's a great step.  He wants to scuddle
>the Bill of Rights.  That is BEYOND DANGEROUS.  If his logic held, guns could
>be LEGALLY confiscated and all the rights his advisors (our Founding Fathers)
>fought for would be lost.
>Here is the concept he needs to study and modify:  Jury Nullification.  Why
>Jury Nullification?  Because it holds the key to the whole problem.  We know
>that the federal judiciary is corrupt, liberal and has been stacked by the
>Conspiracy for decades.  That means that their "decades of decisions" often
>aren't worth the paper they were written on.
>Let me propose a new concept for Governor James: 
>Gubernatorial Nullification
>The problem is not the Bill of Rights, it's the federal judiciary.  The
>Founding Fathers would probably have REQUIRED the Ten Commandments to be
>placed in all Courthouses.
>So what would this new concept of Gubernatorial Nullification do for Governor
>James or any other Governor with the courage to take a stand?  It would allow
>him to decide based on all the Constitutional Support Materials whether a
>federal court ruling was right or not, just as a jury can decide whether a
>law is fair or is being applied correctly.  If in his best honest judgement,
>he felt it was clearly wrong, he could disregard it.  The Governor can do
>this because the federal judiciary DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION over, in this
>case, a State Court.
>Could this be abused?  Sure it could.  But it couldn't be worse than the
>liberal (read communistic) rulings we are all trying to deal with now!  And
>if a Governor crossed the line and made a decision clearly in conflict with
>the original intent, the people could remove him.   We could even use as a
>check on this newly found (but always there) tool.  This would consist of the
>State Supreme Court reviewing all such decisions with the ability to
>recommend impeachment if the line was clearly crossed.  The opposite would
>also need to be true.  If the State Supreme Court were filled with a bunch of
>totalitarian liberals, they would have to go!
>Let's say that the Governor woke up one morning after a bit too much to drink
>and too little sleep.  On his way to the bathroom he sees a framed copy of
>the Constitution.  He looks for a while and because of  his bleary eyes
>declares "I don't see anything about guns.  I think I will outlaw them.  I
>don't care what the feds say."  Clearly he as crossed the line.   We would
>have to pour him a cup of coffed and find out which part of "shall not be
>infringed" was unclear to him.  If he stayed fuzzy, he would be fuzzy
>somewhere else.  The Governor's Mansion would have a new resident.
>This is the kind of creative thinking we need to take back control of our
>States and our lives from the illegal, immoral and totally corrupt federal
>Tell everyone you can about this new concept, Gubernatorial Nullification,
>and maybe some officials and candidates will start to see the light!

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