Time: Wed Jan 29 17:14:50 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA18883; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 11:53:40 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:53:16 -0500 (EST) id sma026938; Wed Jan 29 13:52:51 1997 Originator: map@mapinc.org From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] To: pmitch@primenet.com Subject: "The Lawless Rehnquist" >Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:24:40 -0800 >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] >Subject: "The Lawless Rehnquist" > >[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] > > > "The Lawless Rehnquist" > > by > > John E. Trumane > January 28, 1997 > All Rights Reserved > > > William H. Rehnquist is a lawless man. In a lecture today >at the University of Arizona's Law School, the Chief Justice of >the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that federal judges should be >punished for serious crimes, like tax evasion. A student then >drew his attention to the Supreme Court's decision in 1920 which >immunized those judges from income taxes. The U.S. Constitution >specifically guarantees that their pay shall not be diminished >during their continuance in office. Rehnquist then replied, >"There has been a change in doctrine." The class has now been >barred from discussing any contemporary issues, on orders from >the Law School's Dean of Academic Affairs. > > What doctrines, if any, have changed to justify this lawless >result? Perhaps the most pernicious, and least understood of >these new doctrines, is the stealthy destruction of the >principles of freedom. At the turn of the century, the U.S. >Supreme Court issued a series of pathetic decisions called The >Insular Cases. Briefly, the high Court ruled that the >Constitution of the United States, as such, does not extend >beyond the limits of the States which are united by and under it. >Later, in 1945, under cover of the first nuclear war on planet >earth, the high Court extended this doctrine by ruling that the >guarantees of the Constitution extend to the federal zone, only >as Congress makes those guarantees applicable, by statutes. > > The federal zone is the area of land over which Congress >exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction. These are areas >which are under the American flag, yet they are not within the >boundaries of any particular State. They are territories, >possessions and federal enclaves, like military bases. Recent >research has proven, conclusively, that the Internal Revenue >Code, the set of laws used to collect the income tax, can only be >enforced within the federal zone, and upon citizens of that zone. >A Congresswoman has even admitted as much, in 1996, on official >stationery from the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. >This discovery is consistent with the doctrine established in The >Insular Cases, of which Downes v. Bidwell is the most notorious. > > In his discussion of John Marshall's immense contribution to >the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Chief Justice made an >important point of discussing the role of dissenting opinions by >other members of the high Court. When queried about contemporary >practices, however, the Chief Justice deferred the matter to the >end of the class. It was then that the Dean of Academic Affairs >explained that contemporary practices would be off-limits, on >orders from Rehnquist. > > Is the Chief Justice becoming a bit sensitive about dissent, >particularly when those dissenters sit beside him, and decide to >oppose him? Consider, for a moment, the words of Justice Harlan, >whose brilliant dissent in Downes v. Bidwell has already earned >him a permanent place of well deserved honor in American history. >Listen to Harlan explain why the slim 5-to-4 majority in that >case was wrong, flat wrong. Quoting now: > > "The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression >in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country >substantially and practically two national governments; one, to >be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its >restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and >independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as >other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. > > "I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced >should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a >radical and mischievous change in our system of government will >be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of >constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written >constitution into an era of legislative absolutism. > > "It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory >of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds >lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty >rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent >all violation of the principles of the Constitution." See Downes >v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Harlan dissenting. > > And so, against these immensely moving words, we judge the >Chief Justice to be a lawless radical, bent on destroying the >very constitution which he is sworn to uphold. When presented >with clear authority that federal judges cannot be taxed, >including a seminal decision in 1920 which upheld the immunity, >notwithstanding the 16th Amendment, Rehnquist glibly states that >there has been a "change in doctrine" [sic]. How wonderful! >What he is saying, in effect, is that the Supreme Court has >aggrandized to itself the baseless power to invent doctrines >according as the wind should blow, not according to the wishes of >the very People who ordained and established the Constitution for >the United States of America, the People whom he should serve. > > The net result is low fascism, and it is high time we faced >the terrible truth about our lawless government leaders. > > For fascism arrives without fanfare, like tooth decay or dry >rot, behind closed walls, until the very foundation is washed >away, forever. This author received today proof that federal >judges are now being blackmailed. In the 1930's, newly appointed >federal judges were forced to sign contracts agreeing to the >income tax, or they simply were not appointed. Despite the clear >and established immunity against taxation of their pay, federal >judges are now being presented with the following criminal >choice: either agree in writing to waive your fundamental >immunity, or forget about serving as a federal judge. Forget >about integrity; forget about judicial independence; forget >about justice. You may attain the lofty title of Justice, but >you will enjoy that title in name only. > > It is no wonder that well in excess of 80% of the American >People are now disgusted with government, and all of its agents. >Our Chief Justice is clearly a criminal if he continues to >advocate taxation of federal judges, in the face of supreme laws >which maintain the contrary. Federal judges are also heavy >investors in the United States Prison Industries, now the fifth >largest enterprise of the whole American economy. Need we say >any more? Yes, we need to say more, because the incarceration >rate in the land of the free is now the highest in the world, by >wide margins. You can thank William H. Rehnquist for that >honorable distinction. None will dare to call it treason. > > > # # # > ==================================================================== [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 Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.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