Time: Sun Oct 12 13:06:36 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA13324;
	Sun, 12 Oct 1997 13:02:42 -0700 (MST)
	by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA03728;
	Sun, 12 Oct 1997 13:02:15 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 13:01:26 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: CSA -- Differences from united States Constitution
Cc: heritage-l@gate.net

Dear Friends,

I am taking the liberty of forwarding this
excellent summary to all clients of the
Supreme Law School.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

p.s.  "The status of State Citizen shall not be denied
       or abridged by the United States, or by any State,
       on account of race.  The Fourteenth Amendment is
       hereby repealed."  -- The New Amendment, written
       by Paul Andrew Mitchell, Counselor at Law

>There are significant similarities between the U.S. and C.S.A.
>constitutions, such as the commitment to a republican form of government,
>separation of powers,and the bill of rights.
>However, it is important to keep in mind that the Philadelphia 1787
>convention drafted a constitution that was the product of compromise
>between the Federalists (i.e., nationalists) and the Anti-Federalists
>(i.e., states' rights).  As a result, the language of the U.S. Constitution
>can be rendered ambiguous when dealing with certain key aspects of national
>powers. Whereas the C.S.A. Constitution was the product of a constitutional
>convention during which most of the delegates were of one mind on the
>fundamentals of government.
>For example, varying interpretations can be made regarding the "necessary
>and proper" clause in Article 1, section 8,the "supremacy" clause of
>Article 6, and the constitutionality of U.S. Supreme Court judicial review
>over state supreme court decisions. If the Federalists in 1787 specifically
>stated their intention to authorize national judicial review and/or
>extensive congressional commerce powers (to establish a national bank, high
>import duties, protectionism for northern industries, etc.) the proposed
>U.S. Constitution would have been overwhelmingly rejected.
>The outbreak of hostilities between the northern and southern States in
>1861 was not simply a dispute over slavery.  (Slavery was a necessary but
>not a sufficient cause of the war. In other words, it was important, but in
>and of itself slavery would not have resulted in southern secession or the
>northern response to secession--war.)  The events of 1860/61 are
>attributable to the Southern adherence to Anti-Federalists' constitutional
>principles about the relationship between the national and state
>governments.  This is not meant to imply that Southerners consistently
>adhered to Anti-Federalists (i.e., Jeffersonian) principles. But by and
>large, and certainly by 1860/61, the southern States that seceded (or tried
>to secede) did so on the grounds that (a) their membership in the Union was
>voluntary; (b) that the U.S. national government's increasing dominance
>over the States posed a serious threat to the viability of self-government
>within the States and the Union; (c) that the North and South were
>culturally and economically two distinct systems; and (d) the prospects of
>a "reconstructed" union along Anti-Federalists principles was an open
>question; in other words, Southerners did not secede against the American
>tradition, but on behalf of it.
>In short, the C.S.A. Constitution embodied an enhanced commitment to
>self-government through states' rights. Commensurate with that
>re-invigorated Confederate states' rights was the curtailment of the
>C.S.A.'s national governments' legislative, executive, and judicial powers.
>Hence, the answer to your question is YES.  The C.S.A. Constitution is
>based on the U.S. Constitution "properly" understood, and with improvements
>made thereon.
>Best regards,
>Dr. DeRosa
>>Mr. DeRosa,
>>I would like to welcome you to heritage-l and to express our appreciation
>>for your taking the time to help us to better understand this historic
>>To begin, the Confederate Constitution was based on the Constitution of
>>1787, but contained some differences. Could you provide some insight on
>>these differences?
>>Mike Crane
>>"We could have pursued no other course without dishonour. And as sad as the
>>results have been, if it had all to be done over again, we should be
>>compelled to act in precisely the same manner."
>>General Robert E. Lee, C.S.A.

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