Time: Sun Oct 05 06:19:36 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA16658; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 21:27:00 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 00:26:46 -0400 Originator: heritage-l@gate.net From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] To: pmitch@primenet.com Subject: SLS: HERITAGE-L Preliminary Announcement I would like to join this debate, as someone who knows a fair amount about the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"). If we are going to elevate this debate to the level it deserves, I would encourage everyone here first to read Dred Scott v. Sandford, from start to finish. Many people mistakenly believe that this case was ONLY about slavery; it was not. It was primarily about federal jurisdiction. Scott was told he could not plead as a state Citizen, and therefore he had no standing. The REASONS why the high Court held as they did, are what make the published opinion so rich and rewarding. Taney was certainly one of the most brilliant Chief Justices we have ever had, certainly coming close to the great, if not the greatest -- John Marshall, writing circa 1828. Taney did struggle in places with the meaning of "citizen". His struggles are most evident when he attempts to construct the Preamble, which is THE proper place to start any careful analysis of the U.S. Constitution. Even though several courts have ruled that the Preamble has no force or effect in Law, other courts have held that the intent of a Law IS the Law. I happen to side with the latter view. The Preamble is the intent, in plain English. Now, if you read the Preamble carefully, you will note that the terms "United States", and "United States of America", are both used. The "People of the United States" ordained and established the U.S. Constitution, but it was written expressly for the "United States of America." I believe that Taney missed this all-important difference, by arguing that these two terms were interchangeable; they are not. The proof is found in all of the places within the Constitution where "United States" is clearly used to refer to the federal government, and "United States of America" are clearly associated with the several states which comprise the Union. A case in point is the Guarantee Clause, which is now being actively litigated before the 8th Circuit in St. Louis, in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF (now published in the Supreme Law Library). It is clear now that the "United States" is separate and distinct from "every State in this Union" -- i.e. the United States of America. The language of the Guarantee Clause makes this all too obvious. But, what has not been all too obvious, heretofore, is that this Guarantee is enjoyed ONLY by the several states, and NOT by the federal government. In other words, the federal government has been free, since its inception, to create a form of government for itself which is NOT Republican. That is the main reason why Harlan's dissent in Downes v. Bidwell is so prescient, and so important: he used the power and authority of his office to define the federal zone as a legislative democracy, not a constitutional republic. At least, he predicted that a full-blown legislative democracy would result from the 5-4 holding in Downes, and his prediction has come true, with amazing accuracy. So, I would like to urge all of you to ground yourself in this crucial, on-going debate, happening throughout our Land right now, by studying Dred Scott v. Sandford, and with that study, do keep in mind the crucial distinction between the federal and state governments, under the Tenth Amendment. When you have finished Dred Scott, jump on over to the Supreme Law Library, and dive into Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF. I think you will be richly rewarded by the depth of judicial review which has already been accomplished. Put yourself in the mindset of a judge, who has been hired specifically to sort out all of these manifold issues, and then write the kind of opinion, which will withstand the test of time. In other words: You be the judge!! This no mean feat! Eventually, we will come full circle to discuss whether, or not, the U.S. Constitution is an inspired document. I have lots of things to share with everyone on that point, but first, let us ground ourselves in what STILL remains THE longest decision ever issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2+ centuries of our brief existence as a nation. When you read it, you will know why! /s/ Paul Mitchell http://supremelaw.com p.s. Here is a representative (and short) sample of Taney's obvious brilliance. Quoting now from Dred Scott v. Sandford, by Taney, C.J.: No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling, in relation to this unfortunate [black] race, in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country, should induce the court to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted. Such an argument would be altogether inadmissible in any tribunal called on to interpret it. If any of its provisions are deemed unjust, there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself by which it may be amended; but while it remains unaltered, it must be construed now as it was understood at the time of its adoption. It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day. This court was not created by the Constitution for such purposes. Higher and graver trusts have been confided to it, and it must not falter in the path of duty. [Dred Scott vs Sandford, 19 How. 393] [60 U.S. 709 (1856), emphasis added] At 11:34 PM 10/3/97 -0400, you wrote: >---------- >From: Pam Crane [SMTP:cbs@gate.net] >Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 5:42 PM >To: poh@ix.netcom.com >Subject: Re: HERITAGE-L Preliminary Announcement > >>Resubmitted, original author below: >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >------- >> Not only am I VERY EXCITED about this development BUT would like to ask >> permission to cross-post this discussion to several other "conservative" >> groups that I participate in. They are both composed mostly of LDS >Church >> people. The LDS Church has as a matter of DOCTRINE that the Constitution >> is an INSPIRED document in its original form. Do I have that permission. >> Thanks for the consideration. >> >> Doug Schell >> > >Doug, > >Not only is it Ok to cross post, but please do invite the members of the >other groups to signup and participate directly. This is there opportunity >to learn some, and ask questions to an expert on the subject. For some of >those academians, who discount all of the rest of us this expert is a >tenured, published professor and certainly is well versed in this subject. > >So extend an invitiation and then cross post any material that you believe >would be of interest. The start date will be posted next Monday. > >Mike > >> On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Mike Crane wrote: >> >> > Constitution of Confederate States of America >> > >> > For those who are interested in the history of Constitutional >> > development in these united States, a special discussion will be >> > available on heritage-l. Details should be available next Monday. >> > >> > This study of the Confederate Constitution, assisted by one, if not the >> > most recognised authority in our country and the US, on this document >> > will demonstrate the cross-road that the nation faced and the fork >which >> > it took. It will help you understand many of today's Constitutional >> > issues with a fresh perspective. >> > >> > Pass the word and stay tuned for details next Monday. >> > >> > Mike Crane >> > HERITAGE-L Moderator >> > >> > _________________________________________________________ >> > To subscribe to heritage-l send e-mail to listproc@gate.net >> > and include in the message: >> > >> > SUBSCRIBE HERITAGE-L <your name> >> > >> > heritage-l is a moderated listserver available to all who desire to >> > preserve a true history. >> > __________________________________________________________ >> > >> > > > > > =========================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01 B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02 tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03 email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04 website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05 ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06 Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07 Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08 _____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09 As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10 not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11 ======================================================================== 12 [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail