Time: Thu Nov 28 08:05:14 1996 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 07:42:05 -0800 To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: LLAW: Supremes' construction of P&I clause ======================================================================= LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing ======================================================================= >In re: > >> What is "Art. 14, sec 2, cl 1"? >> Are you referring to the 14th amendment ... >> /s/ Paul Mitchell > >---\\\ Yes, oh ye of little faith. Just making sure. See Dyett v. Turner, Utah Supreme Court (1968). It was perilously close to 4:2:1, the topic of conversation these days (see "Subject:" line above). Incidentally, referring to the 14th Amendment as "Art. 14" implies that "Art 1" and "Art I" are two different things, do you agree? Section 2 of the 14th amendment is still further evidence of two separate classes of citizenship: "... the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." "such male citizens" refers to federal citizens, i.e. "male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States ...." Thus, the failed 14th amendment is also pertinent to Congressional apportionment, and such questions justify a 3-judge panel of federal judges to preside over the District Court of the United States. /s/ Paul Mitchell Read the following and you will >see that less than 5 years after the above came to be, it was >rendered a "practical nullity" by the supremes in the Slaughter-House >Cases, 16 Wall. (83 U.S.) 36, 71, 77-79 (1873). This dicision was >said to have frustrated the aims of the most aggressive sponsors of >the clause, to whom was attributed an intention to centralize "in the >hands of the Federal Government large powers hitherto exercised by >the States", with a view to enabling business to develop inimpeded >by state interference. This attempt to expand the federal system was >to have been achieved by converting the rights of citizens of each >State as of the date of the alleged adoption of the 14th Amendment >into privileges and immunities of United States citizenship and >thereafter perpetuating this newly defined status quo through >judicial condemnation of any state law challenged as "abridging" any >one of the latter privileges. > > To have fostered such intentions, the supremes declared, would >have been "to transfer the security and protection of all the civil >rights . . . to the Federal Government, ... to bring within the power >of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging >exclusively to the States,: and to "constitute this court a perpetual >censor upon all legislation of the States, on the civil rights of >their own citizens, with authority to nullify such as it did not >approve as consistent with those rights, as they existed at the time >of the adoption of this amendment ... [The effect of] so great a >departure from the structure and spirit of our institutions ... is to >fetter and degrade the State governments by subjecting them to the >control of Congress, in the exercise of powers heretofore universally >conceded to them of the most ordinary and fundamental character; ... >We are convinced that no such results were intended by the Congress >..., nor by the legislatures ... which ratified" this amendment, and >that the sole "pervading purpose" of this and the other War >Amendments was "the freedom of the slave race." > > The words "freedom of the slave race" were used by the supremes. >I don't believe any human should be enslaved. (Except maybe Gina >Davis and Sigourney Weaver --- and then only if they wear studded >collars and spurs and bring along saddle, a quirt, three cans of whipped >cream and two peanut brittle bars when they visit the massa's house.) >Yipee ki yea! > >> P.S. It is better form to use "L.Ed.2d" >> rather than "LEd2d" -- Lawyers' Edition, >> Second Series. > >----/// Do you prefer form over substance? No, I prefer form AND substance, whenever and wherever possible. /s/ Paul Mitchell P.S. "LED2duh Slaughterhouse" by Janet Reno The courts accept either. >By not using dots I save at least three or four thousand of them a year, >not to mention all the extra paper, laser toner and wear & tear on my >dot-pressing finger which has to push the dot key. I'm what you could >call a "dot conservationist," who's doing his little bit to preserve Mother >Nature's dots. > >pap Aha, I see. Have you considered the Dvorak simplified keyboard (DSK)? That will conserve finger travel too, which should make EPA very happy with you. /s/ Paul Mitchell P.S. Nice quotes from Slaughterhouse. >\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ >The first thing we do, we eat all the lawyers! > ... Lex t. Rex > e-mail = jpapania@asu.campus.mci.net > alternate = jpapania@aztec.asu.edu >/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > > > > > > ==================================================================== [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