Time: Thu Nov 28 08:05:14 1996
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 07:42:05 -0800
To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: LLAW: Supremes' construction of P&I clause
=======================================================================
LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
=======================================================================
>In re:
>
>> What is "Art. 14, sec 2, cl 1"?
>> Are you referring to the 14th amendment ...
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>---\\\ Yes, oh ye of little faith.
Just making sure. See Dyett v. Turner,
Utah Supreme Court (1968).
It was perilously close to 4:2:1,
the topic of conversation these days
(see "Subject:" line above).
Incidentally, referring to the 14th
Amendment as "Art. 14" implies that
"Art 1" and "Art I" are two different
things, do you agree? Section 2 of
the 14th amendment is still further
evidence of two separate classes of
citizenship:
"... the proportion which the number of
such male citizens shall bear to the
whole number of male citizens twenty-one
years of age in such State."
"such male citizens" refers to federal citizens,
i.e. "male inhabitants of such State, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the
United States ...."
Thus, the failed 14th amendment is also pertinent
to Congressional apportionment, and such questions
justify a 3-judge panel of federal judges to preside
over the District Court of the United States.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
Read the following and you will
>see that less than 5 years after the above came to be, it was
>rendered a "practical nullity" by the supremes in the Slaughter-House
>Cases, 16 Wall. (83 U.S.) 36, 71, 77-79 (1873). This dicision was
>said to have frustrated the aims of the most aggressive sponsors of
>the clause, to whom was attributed an intention to centralize "in the
>hands of the Federal Government large powers hitherto exercised by
>the States", with a view to enabling business to develop inimpeded
>by state interference. This attempt to expand the federal system was
>to have been achieved by converting the rights of citizens of each
>State as of the date of the alleged adoption of the 14th Amendment
>into privileges and immunities of United States citizenship and
>thereafter perpetuating this newly defined status quo through
>judicial condemnation of any state law challenged as "abridging" any
>one of the latter privileges.
>
> To have fostered such intentions, the supremes declared, would
>have been "to transfer the security and protection of all the civil
>rights . . . to the Federal Government, ... to bring within the power
>of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging
>exclusively to the States,: and to "constitute this court a perpetual
>censor upon all legislation of the States, on the civil rights of
>their own citizens, with authority to nullify such as it did not
>approve as consistent with those rights, as they existed at the time
>of the adoption of this amendment ... [The effect of] so great a
>departure from the structure and spirit of our institutions ... is to
>fetter and degrade the State governments by subjecting them to the
>control of Congress, in the exercise of powers heretofore universally
>conceded to them of the most ordinary and fundamental character; ...
>We are convinced that no such results were intended by the Congress
>..., nor by the legislatures ... which ratified" this amendment, and
>that the sole "pervading purpose" of this and the other War
>Amendments was "the freedom of the slave race."
>
> The words "freedom of the slave race" were used by the supremes.
>I don't believe any human should be enslaved. (Except maybe Gina
>Davis and Sigourney Weaver --- and then only if they wear studded
>collars and spurs and bring along saddle, a quirt, three cans of whipped
>cream and two peanut brittle bars when they visit the massa's house.)
>Yipee ki yea!
>
>> P.S. It is better form to use "L.Ed.2d"
>> rather than "LEd2d" -- Lawyers' Edition,
>> Second Series.
>
>----/// Do you prefer form over substance?
No, I prefer form AND substance,
whenever and wherever possible.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
P.S. "LED2duh Slaughterhouse" by Janet Reno
The courts accept either.
>By not using dots I save at least three or four thousand of them a year,
>not to mention all the extra paper, laser toner and wear & tear on my
>dot-pressing finger which has to push the dot key. I'm what you could
>call a "dot conservationist," who's doing his little bit to preserve Mother
>Nature's dots.
>
>pap
Aha, I see. Have you considered
the Dvorak simplified keyboard (DSK)?
That will conserve finger travel too,
which should make EPA very happy with
you.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
P.S. Nice quotes from Slaughterhouse.
>\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>The first thing we do, we eat all the lawyers!
> ... Lex t. Rex
> e-mail = jpapania@asu.campus.mci.net
> alternate = jpapania@aztec.asu.edu
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
>
>
>
>
>
====================================================================
[Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @]
[65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.]
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win]
We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding.
Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan
====================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail