Time: Sat Mar 22 06:55:54 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA22158;
Sat, 22 Mar 1997 06:25:25 -0700 (MST)
by usr10.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA17156;
Sat, 22 Mar 1997 06:25:19 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 06:54:19 -0800
To: SafanNews@aol.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Marbury v. Madison
And furthermore, the Ninth Amendment gives us all
a fine rule of construction, in situations like this.
It says,
"The enumeration in the Constitution,
of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the
people."
Justice Marshall should have done what Justice Taney
did in Dred Scott, namely, tell the American people
that the high Court was not constituted to alter the
Constitution; Article V was constituted to alter
the Constitution. If the Framers goofed by omitting
the authority to overturn acts of Congress, then
it was up to three-fourths of the states to correct
that oversight.
The Ninth Amendment says so!
----------------------------------------------------
When C.J. Rehnquist spoke about Marbury v. Madison
at the University of Arizona in January, he asked
the class what issues of law were before the court.
After no one raised their hands for quite a long
time, I volunteered my opinion. I said that federal
authority must be expressed and enumerated. This
comment gave Rehnquist a very long pause. He then
answered that it was NOT at issue. You will note,
however, that the Constitution does not give to
the Supreme Court the authority to overrule
unconstitutional laws. The Supreme Court usurped
that power. We can debate this question until
kingdom come, but it is a fact that the Constitution
does not enumerate a judicial power to overturn the
acts of Congress. It may be implied, but it is
certainly not expressed. So, Rehnquist was wrong,
again. The power to overturn acts of Congress WAS
at issue in Marbury v. Madison, and this power is not
expressed or enumerated in the Constitution.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
p.s. "one supreme Court" means 1, as in O-N-E.
At 01:11 AM 3/22/97 -0500, you wrote:
> STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW!
> S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 343, March 21, 1997
>
>EMERGENCY WAR POWERS AND PL-95-223 (DEC. 1977)
>by Richard Biondi (rbiondi@u.washington.edu
>
>To: SafanNews@aol.com
>
>Here is a public law that Dr. Gene Schroder missed in his booklet,
>"War and Emergency Powers." I have not seen his published
>version, and I am interested in knowing whether or not he
>addresses this Public Law that refutes his earlier findings.
>
>Dr. Schroder argued correctly that Section 502 of the National
>Emergency Act of 1976 failed to regulate Section 5(b) of the Act
>of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 USC 95a; 50 USC App.(b)).
>The following Public Law closed that loophole, and ended the
>President's use of the TWEA under periods of national emergency.
>
>Most of these arguments become normative considering that
>Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the precedent that the
>Supreme Court can exercise Judicial Review. There has been
>an ongoing debate between those who believe in original intent,
>and those who believe that the Constitution is a living document.
>If the founders were alive today, they would most likely look
>upon the President as a quasi-dictator annointed by the Congress
>and backed by the Supreme Court.
>
>We must all realize that most of the President's authority can be
>terminated by passing and ratifying the Bricker amendment.
>Senator Bricker may have lost the battle in 1954, but be he
>essentially crippled the original intent of internationalists trying
>to create domestic law through treaty law.
>
>Sua Sponte,
>
>Richard R. Biondi
>Operation Patriot Spectre
>rbiondi@u.washington.edu
>-----------------
>
>PUBLIC LAW 95-223 [H.R. 7738]; Dec. 28, 1977
>
>WAR OR NATIONAL EMERGENCY--PRESIDENTIAL POWERS
>
>For Legislative History of Act, see p. 4540
>
>An Act with respect to the powers of the President in time of war
>or national emergency.
>
> Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives
>of the United States of America in Congress Assembled,
>
>TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMIES ACT
>
>REMOVAL OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY POWERS UNDER THE TRADING
>WITH THE ENEMY ACT.
>
> Sec. 101, (a) Section 5 (b) (1) of the Trading With the Enemy Act
>is amended by striking out "or during any other period of national
>emergency declared by the President" in the text preceding
>subparagraph (A).
> (b) Notwithstanding the amendment made by subsection (a),
>the authorities conferred upon the President by section 5 (b) of
>the Trading With the Enemy Act, which were being exercised with
>respect to a country on July 1, 1977, as a result of a national
>emergency declared by the President before such date, may
>continue to be exercised with respect to such country, except
>that, unless extended, the exercise of such authorities shall
>terminate (subject to the savings provisions of the second
>sentence of section 101 (a) of the National Emergencies Act) at
>the end of the two-year period beginning on the date of the
>enactment of the National Emergencies Act. The President may
>extend the exercise of such authorities for one-year periods upon
>such authorities with respect to such country for another year is
>in the national interest of the United States.
> (c) The termination and extension provisions of subsection
>(b) of this section supercede the provisions of section (101) a
>and of title II of the National Emergencies Act to the extent
>that the provisions of subsection (b) of this section are
>inconsistent with those provision.
> (d) Paragraph (1) of Section 502 (a) of the National
>Emergencies Act is repealed.
>
>WARTIME AUTHORITIES
>
> Sec. 102. Section 5 (b) (1) of the Trading With the Enemy
>Act is amended--
> (1) in the text preceding subparagraph (A), by striking out
>"or otherwise." the first time it appears; and
> (2) by striking out "; and the President may, in the manner
>herinabove provided, take other and further measures not
>inconsistent herwith for the enforcement of this subdivision.
> Sec. 103. (a) Section 16 of the Trading With the Enemy Act
>is amended by striking out "$10,000" and inserting in lieu
>thereof "$50,000."
> (b) Section 5 (b) (3) of such act is amended by striking our
>the second sentence.
>###
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand
> by the President or any other public official save exactly to the
>degree
> in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support
>him
> insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to
> oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he
>fails
> in his duty to stand by the country." .........................Theodore
>Roosevelt
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> SAFAN %Dot Bibee (DotHB@aol.com) Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011
> SAFAN Internet Newsletters are archived on http://feustel.mixi.net
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
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
========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail