Time: Mon Nov 25 15:11:19 1996
To: Liberty Law
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: 17th Amendment [sic]
Cc: 
Bcc: 

correction:  Gardina v. Board of Registrars,
160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909)

/s/ Paul Mitchell

error follows below:

><snip>
>>I have been doing some work on modelling the
>>concept of our system of government and the 
>>changes through which it has passed. It 
>>occurred to me -
>>
>>Originally, the "federal" or compounded aspect
>>of our legislative government consisted largely 
>>of one clause in the Constitution, which has
>>subsequently been ammended:
>>
>>        Orginally, Senators were chosen by the
>>        State legislatures to represent the state's 
>>        interest. This was changed by Amendment 17
>>        in 1913 to "popular" direct election.
>>
>>In effect, this removed one of the last vestiges of a 
>>compounnd federal legislative government from our
>>system's structure. Taken with other events of this
>>era, it would seem to reinforce the argument that
>>a legal incorporation occurred, in effect, eliminating
>>State citizenship as a separate possibility.
>
>Objection.  What a leap you take here!
>See Gardina v. Board of Supervisors of
>Electors:  The highest exercise of a 
>state's sovereignty is to declare who
>are its citizens.  BTW, 17th amendment
>would have required ratification by
>100% of the Union States, because otherwise
>any State opposed to it would be denied
>equal suffrage within the Senate.  See
>Article V, Clause 1.  I have a draft Application
>for Intervention of Right which develops
>this matter in some detail; it is available
>upon request here.
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
> The 
>>government ceased to be a compounded republic and 
>>became a representative national democracy at that 
>>point.
>
>Only in the federal zone, because
>the Guarantee Clause was never 
>repealed.
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
> True, the number of Senators per "State" 
>>remained the same, but they no longer represented 
>>the "State," only regional interests and differences.  
>>
>>"Sovereignty" is a concept between nations and 
>>entirely dependent upon international law and recognition
>>for its legitimacy. The international community has not 
>>recognized the States as sovereign since the Articles of 
>>Confederation. State "sovereignty," as well as individual 
>>sovereignty rested legally in the limitations and structures
>>"Constituted" as the foundation of government. The removal
>>of internal structures to maintain "state" sovereignty 
>>results in an incorporation of citizenship, with attendant
>>repercussions to the realignment of protection of individual
>>rights and transfer of "police/municipal" powers to the 
>>United States government. 
>>
>>Vestiges of State sovereignty remain in the Presidential
>>"electoral college;" the ninth and tenth Amedment; and, to 
>>some degree, the court structure, but it should
>>be emphasized that the international law does not recognize
>>State and individual sovereignty, and without the internal
>>Constitutional butresses intact to protect such from 
>>encroachment, a State or individual declaring "sovereignty"
>>has no legitimacy or standing in the eyes of international
>>law. 
>>
>>I would appreciate your comments.
>
>Serious logical errors in what
>you have written here.
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
>>
>>Marcia A.      
>>
>>
>
>====================================================================
>[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