Time: Wed Jan 29 17:14:50 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA18883;
Wed, 29 Jan 1997 11:53:40 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:53:16 -0500 (EST)
id sma026938; Wed Jan 29 13:52:51 1997
Originator: map@mapinc.org
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: "The Lawless Rehnquist"
>Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:24:40 -0800
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: "The Lawless Rehnquist"
>
>[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>
>
> "The Lawless Rehnquist"
>
> by
>
> John E. Trumane
> January 28, 1997
> All Rights Reserved
>
>
> William H. Rehnquist is a lawless man. In a lecture today
>at the University of Arizona's Law School, the Chief Justice of
>the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that federal judges should be
>punished for serious crimes, like tax evasion. A student then
>drew his attention to the Supreme Court's decision in 1920 which
>immunized those judges from income taxes. The U.S. Constitution
>specifically guarantees that their pay shall not be diminished
>during their continuance in office. Rehnquist then replied,
>"There has been a change in doctrine." The class has now been
>barred from discussing any contemporary issues, on orders from
>the Law School's Dean of Academic Affairs.
>
> What doctrines, if any, have changed to justify this lawless
>result? Perhaps the most pernicious, and least understood of
>these new doctrines, is the stealthy destruction of the
>principles of freedom. At the turn of the century, the U.S.
>Supreme Court issued a series of pathetic decisions called The
>Insular Cases. Briefly, the high Court ruled that the
>Constitution of the United States, as such, does not extend
>beyond the limits of the States which are united by and under it.
>Later, in 1945, under cover of the first nuclear war on planet
>earth, the high Court extended this doctrine by ruling that the
>guarantees of the Constitution extend to the federal zone, only
>as Congress makes those guarantees applicable, by statutes.
>
> The federal zone is the area of land over which Congress
>exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction. These are areas
>which are under the American flag, yet they are not within the
>boundaries of any particular State. They are territories,
>possessions and federal enclaves, like military bases. Recent
>research has proven, conclusively, that the Internal Revenue
>Code, the set of laws used to collect the income tax, can only be
>enforced within the federal zone, and upon citizens of that zone.
>A Congresswoman has even admitted as much, in 1996, on official
>stationery from the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C.
>This discovery is consistent with the doctrine established in The
>Insular Cases, of which Downes v. Bidwell is the most notorious.
>
> In his discussion of John Marshall's immense contribution to
>the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Chief Justice made an
>important point of discussing the role of dissenting opinions by
>other members of the high Court. When queried about contemporary
>practices, however, the Chief Justice deferred the matter to the
>end of the class. It was then that the Dean of Academic Affairs
>explained that contemporary practices would be off-limits, on
>orders from Rehnquist.
>
> Is the Chief Justice becoming a bit sensitive about dissent,
>particularly when those dissenters sit beside him, and decide to
>oppose him? Consider, for a moment, the words of Justice Harlan,
>whose brilliant dissent in Downes v. Bidwell has already earned
>him a permanent place of well deserved honor in American history.
>Listen to Harlan explain why the slim 5-to-4 majority in that
>case was wrong, flat wrong. Quoting now:
>
> "The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression
>in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country
>substantially and practically two national governments; one, to
>be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its
>restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and
>independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as
>other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.
>
> "I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced
>should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a
>radical and mischievous change in our system of government will
>be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of
>constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written
>constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.
>
> "It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory
>of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds
>lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty
>rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent
>all violation of the principles of the Constitution." See Downes
>v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Harlan dissenting.
>
> And so, against these immensely moving words, we judge the
>Chief Justice to be a lawless radical, bent on destroying the
>very constitution which he is sworn to uphold. When presented
>with clear authority that federal judges cannot be taxed,
>including a seminal decision in 1920 which upheld the immunity,
>notwithstanding the 16th Amendment, Rehnquist glibly states that
>there has been a "change in doctrine" [sic]. How wonderful!
>What he is saying, in effect, is that the Supreme Court has
>aggrandized to itself the baseless power to invent doctrines
>according as the wind should blow, not according to the wishes of
>the very People who ordained and established the Constitution for
>the United States of America, the People whom he should serve.
>
> The net result is low fascism, and it is high time we faced
>the terrible truth about our lawless government leaders.
>
> For fascism arrives without fanfare, like tooth decay or dry
>rot, behind closed walls, until the very foundation is washed
>away, forever. This author received today proof that federal
>judges are now being blackmailed. In the 1930's, newly appointed
>federal judges were forced to sign contracts agreeing to the
>income tax, or they simply were not appointed. Despite the clear
>and established immunity against taxation of their pay, federal
>judges are now being presented with the following criminal
>choice: either agree in writing to waive your fundamental
>immunity, or forget about serving as a federal judge. Forget
>about integrity; forget about judicial independence; forget
>about justice. You may attain the lofty title of Justice, but
>you will enjoy that title in name only.
>
> It is no wonder that well in excess of 80% of the American
>People are now disgusted with government, and all of its agents.
>Our Chief Justice is clearly a criminal if he continues to
>advocate taxation of federal judges, in the face of supreme laws
>which maintain the contrary. Federal judges are also heavy
>investors in the United States Prison Industries, now the fifth
>largest enterprise of the whole American economy. Need we say
>any more? Yes, we need to say more, because the incarceration
>rate in the land of the free is now the highest in the world, by
>wide margins. You can thank William H. Rehnquist for that
>honorable distinction. None will dare to call it treason.
>
>
> # # #
>
====================================================================
[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
Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.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