Time: Sun Oct 05 06:19:36 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA16658;
	Sat, 4 Oct 1997 21:27:00 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 00:26:46 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: SLS: HERITAGE-L Preliminary Announcement

I would like to join this debate, as someone
who knows a fair amount about the Constitution
for the United States of America, as lawfully
amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution").  

If we are going to elevate this debate to the
level it deserves, I would encourage everyone
here first to read Dred Scott v. Sandford,
from start to finish.  Many people mistakenly
believe that this case was ONLY about slavery;
it was not.  It was primarily about federal 
jurisdiction.  Scott was told he could not
plead as a state Citizen, and therefore he
had no standing.  The REASONS why the high
Court held as they did, are what make the
published opinion so rich and rewarding.

Taney was certainly one of the most brilliant
Chief Justices we have ever had, certainly
coming close to the great, if not the greatest --
John Marshall, writing circa 1828.  Taney did
struggle in places with the meaning of "citizen".
His struggles are most evident when he attempts
to construct the Preamble, which is THE proper
place to start any careful analysis of the
U.S. Constitution.  Even though several courts
have ruled that the Preamble has no force or
effect in Law, other courts have held that
the intent of a Law IS the Law.  I happen
to side with the latter view.  The Preamble
is the intent, in plain English.

Now, if you read the Preamble carefully, you 
will note that the terms "United States", and 
"United States of America", are both used.
The "People of the United States" ordained and
established the U.S. Constitution, but it was
written expressly for the "United States of 
America."  I believe that Taney missed this
all-important difference, by arguing that 
these two terms were interchangeable;  
they are not.  

The proof is found in all of the places
within the Constitution where "United States"
is clearly used to refer to the federal 
government, and "United States of America"
are clearly associated with the several states
which comprise the Union.  A case in point is
the Guarantee Clause, which is now being actively
litigated before the 8th Circuit in St. Louis,
in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF (now published in
the Supreme Law Library).  

It is clear now that the "United States" is separate
and distinct from "every State in this Union" --
i.e. the United States of America.  The language
of the Guarantee Clause makes this all too obvious.
But, what has not been all too obvious, heretofore,
is that this Guarantee is enjoyed ONLY by the
several states, and NOT by the federal government.

In other words, the federal government has been
free, since its inception, to create a form of
government for itself which is NOT Republican.
That is the main reason why Harlan's dissent
in Downes v. Bidwell is so prescient, and so
important:  he used the power and authority of
his office to define the federal zone as a 
legislative democracy, not a constitutional
republic. At least, he predicted that a full-blown
legislative democracy would result from the 
5-4 holding in Downes, and his prediction has
come true, with amazing accuracy.

So, I would like to urge all of you to ground
yourself in this crucial, on-going debate, happening
throughout our Land right now, by studying
Dred Scott v. Sandford, and with that study,
do keep in mind the crucial distinction between
the federal and state governments, under the
Tenth Amendment.  When you have finished Dred Scott,
jump on over to the Supreme Law Library, and dive
into Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF.  I think you will
be richly rewarded by the depth of judicial review 
which has already been accomplished.

Put yourself in the mindset of a judge, who has
been hired specifically to sort out all of these
manifold issues, and then write the kind of opinion,
which will withstand the test of time.

In other words:  You be the judge!!

This no mean feat!

Eventually, we will come full circle to discuss
whether, or not, the U.S. Constitution is an
inspired document.  I have lots of things to
share with everyone on that point, but first,
let us ground ourselves in what STILL remains THE
longest decision ever issued by the U.S. Supreme
Court in the 2+ centuries of our brief existence
as a nation.  When you read it, you will know why!

/s/ Paul Mitchell

p.s.  Here is a representative (and short) sample of
      Taney's obvious brilliance.  

Quoting now from Dred Scott v. Sandford, by Taney, C.J.:

     No one,  we presume,  supposes that  any  change  in  public
     opinion or  feeling, in relation to this unfortunate [black]
     race, in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country,
     should induce  the  court  to  give  to  the  words  of  the
     Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than
     they were  intended to  bear when  the instrument was framed
     and  adopted.     Such   an  argument  would  be  altogether
     inadmissible in  any tribunal called on to interpret it.  If
     any of  its provisions  are deemed  unjust, there  is a mode
     prescribed in  the instrument  itself by  which  it  may  be
     amended;   but  while  it  remains  unaltered,  it  must  be
     construed now  as it  was understood  at  the  time  of  its
     adoption.  It is not only the same in words, but the same in
     meaning, and  delegates the  same powers  to the government,
     and reserves  and secures  the same rights and privileges to
     the citizen;   and  as long  as it continues to exist in its
     present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with
     the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came
     from the  hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted
     by the  people of  the United  States.   Any other  rule  of
     construction would  abrogate the  judicial character of this
     court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or
     passion of  the day.   This  court was  not created  by  the
     Constitution for  such purposes.   Higher  and graver trusts
     have been confided to it, and it must not falter in the path
     of duty.                                                       
                            [Dred Scott vs Sandford, 19 How. 393]
                             [60 U.S. 709 (1856), emphasis added]

At 11:34 PM 10/3/97 -0400, you wrote:
>From:  Pam Crane [SMTP:cbs@gate.net]
>Sent:  Friday, October 03, 1997 5:42 PM
>To:  poh@ix.netcom.com
>Subject:  Re: HERITAGE-L Preliminary Announcement
>>Resubmitted, original author below:
>> Not only am I VERY EXCITED about this development BUT would like to ask
>> permission to cross-post this discussion to several other "conservative"
>> groups that I participate in.  They are both composed mostly of LDS 
>> people.  The LDS Church has as a matter of DOCTRINE that the Constitution
>> is an INSPIRED document in its original form.  Do I have that permission.
>> Thanks for the consideration.
>> Doug Schell
>Not only is it Ok to cross post, but please do invite the members of the 
>other groups to signup and participate directly. This is there opportunity 
>to learn some, and ask questions to an expert on the subject. For some of 
>those academians, who discount all of the rest of us this expert is a 
>tenured, published professor and certainly is well versed in this subject.
>So extend an invitiation and then cross post any material that you believe 
>would be of interest. The start date will be posted next Monday.
>> On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Mike Crane wrote:
>> > Constitution of Confederate States of America
>> >
>> > For those who are interested in the history of Constitutional
>> > development in these united States, a special discussion will be
>> > available on heritage-l. Details should be available next Monday.
>> >
>> > This study of the Confederate Constitution, assisted by one, if not the
>> > most recognised authority in our country and the US, on this document
>> > will demonstrate the cross-road that the nation faced and the fork 
>> > it took. It will help you understand many of today's Constitutional
>> > issues with a fresh perspective.
>> >
>> > Pass the word and stay tuned for details next Monday.
>> >
>> > Mike Crane
>> > HERITAGE-L Moderator
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________________
>> > To subscribe to heritage-l send e-mail to listproc@gate.net
>> > and include in the message:
>> >
>> > SUBSCRIBE     HERITAGE-L     <your name>
>> >
>> > heritage-l is a moderated listserver available to all who desire to
>> > preserve a true history.
>> > __________________________________________________________
>> >

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail