Time: Sun Jul 13 08:45:43 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA00354;
Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:46:24 -0700 (MST)
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA13632;
Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:46:17 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:46:01 -0700
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Many Christian Leaders Declare Constitution Crisis (fwd)
The population of federal citizens who
inhabit the several states are, indeed,
a democracy, because they owe their
political allegiance to the federal zone,
which is not protected by the Guarantee Clause.
That zone is a legislative democracy.
The guarantees of the U.S. Constitution
extend to that zone, ONLY as Congress
makes those guarantees applicable,
by statutes. See Hooven & Allison v. Evatt.
The population of state Citizens who
inhabit the several states are NOT
a democracy, because the supreme Law
guarantees to them a Republican Form
of Government, not a democracy.
So, when you hear "democracy," get out your
voter registration affidavits, and see if
you verified, under penalty of perjury,
that you are a federal citizen.
You might want to do something about that.
I did, and I am very happy that I did.
Under the Tenth Amendment, you enjoy the
Right of Election -- to choose which of
these two classes of citizenship to join:
the one, the other, both, or neither.
Democracies can outlaw blonde hair;
in a Republic, blondes have more fun.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 12:51 AM 7/13/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
>
>: Affirming what the American Founders called this "experiment in
>: ordered liberty," the signers accuse the courts, and the
>: Supreme Court in particular, of promoting "disordered liberty"
>: in a series of decisions. While the statement addresses many
>: questions -including racism, drug abuse, and family
>: disintegration -- the signers say that "the judicially-imposed
>: abortion license is at the very core of the disordering of our
>: liberty." They declare that "this decision of the Court forfeits
>: any claim to the obedience of conscientious citizens."
>
>: The Court, they say, has violated the fundamental principle of
>: democracy that "just government is derived from the consent of
>: the governed." [...]
>
>Call me when they make up their minds!
>
>First, these Christian leaders that government is not being inflicted on
>people who, presumably, do not consent to being governed in those particular
>ways. Drug users do not consent to prohibition. Racists do not consent
>to mandated integration. Divorcees do not consent to laws mandating
>indissolubility. And neither abortionists nor their clients consent
>to an abortion ban.
>
>If they then invoke the Declaration of Independence to override people's
>diverse approaches to the pursuit of happiness, either their argument is
>nonsense, or they're not using the word _consent_ as I understand it.
>
>Legitimate government, as described in the Declaration, is a covenant
>entered by all its subjects to the benefit of each of them. Even a hitman
>may agree to a system that attempts to punish murder, because on balance
>it makes him safer. But nobody benefits from laws designed to protect
>others from themselves.
>
>A majority may demand laws against drugs, divorce, racism and abortion;
>so what? The Declaration of Independence defied majorities. The population
>of Britain outnumbered that of the colonies; and even in the colonies,
>historians believe that only about one-third favored independence. I'll bet
>that well over one-third now favor independence from the kind of laws
>demanded by these Christian leaders.
>
>That's not to say *no* valid argument can be made in favor of such laws --
>but invoking the Declaration, and particularly "the consent of the
governed",
>is plain silly.
>
>: In addition, "judicial usurpation of power" with
>: respect to the great moral questions of our public life has
>: created a crisis in which "it seems that people who are
>: motivated by religion or religiously-inspired morality are
>: relegated to a category of second-class citizenship." The
>: signers warn that, if the present crisis is not effectively
>: addressed, "Increasingly, law and public policy will be pitted
>: against the social and moral convictions of the people, with the
>: result that millions of Americans will be alienated from a
>: government that they no longer recognize as their own."
>
>True enough. The religious are not alone in worrying about this.
>
>Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher@netcom.com
>
>-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>-> Posted by: dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood)
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
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
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail