Time: Wed Mar 26 01:37:26 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA03990;
Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:50:42 -0700 (MST)
by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA15124;
Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:50:32 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 01:23:41 -0800
To: Bill VanMastrigt <BillV@noller.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: 17th amendment v. 13th Amendment
Cc: <romans@gate.net>
Hi Bill,
I agree with almost everything which you have
written here. Accepting your premise -- that
authority must be de jure -- I believe that the
original 13th Amendment invalidates all subsequent
decisions by Congress, in so far as even
one member of either house had been a licensed bar
member. So, even if the Senate appeared to be
de jure prior to the so-called 17th amendment,
and even if the Senate appeared to be de jure
some 20 years prior to that (when popular
election of Senators was first introduced by
State Legislatures), the ratification of the
original 13th Amendment by Virginia in 1819
surely casts the Congress of 1893 (1913 - 20)
in the same light as the Congress of 1821,
i.e. de facto at best. See the essay entitled
"Esquires" in the Supreme Law Library at URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com
for a summary treatment of the issues, and the
implications, that arise from the original
13th Amendment. I am assuming here that the
Congress which convened in 1821 was the first
one to convene after the elections in 1820,
and those elections were the first ones to occur
after the 13th Amendment was properly ratified
in 1819, pursuant to Virginia's vote in favor
of it. For the full story, please consult
with David Dodge, who is an expert witness
to the pertinent historical documents.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
copy: David Dodge
At 01:24 PM 3/26/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Paul,
>The way I see it. It is one thing to give up or lose authority. It is quite
>another to regain it. Once the chain is broken, it can only be mended as it
>was originally forged.
>
>Congress is without constitutional authority. So is the executive and the
>judiciary. I refer now specifically to the 17th Amendment to the US
>Constitution. You will find, in the organic body, that the role of the Senate
>is pivotal to insuring the continuance of the chain of authority. It is only
>the Senate, which is the true emissary of the states united under the
>Constitution, that can break the chain. The most profound argument to
>support this, is that the Constitution is a compact uniting the interests of
>the states under international law. That my friend was its primary intent
>from the very beginning. The Senate is the link in the chain that has been
>broken. All else flounders for lack of true Constitutional authority.
>
>The (unsettled) question as to whether or not the Constitution is a
>compact with or between the people, that manifests itself in the form of
>the House of Representatives, is really moot; for the very reason that the
>check of a bicameral house was removed and is non-existant in the
>eyes of the law. Under this condition, the House of Representatives is
>without Constitutional authority to move in any direction. It is effectively
>checkmated. It is only one half of the equation, that insures against a
>legislative democracy. And since the interests of both houses are
>merged into one, the inverse form of a republican government
>necessarily controls. It does so in the vacuum of any checks and
>balances.
>
>The reforging of the link in the chain of authority, of necessity, will be in
>the same fire that furnaced it originally. Then, the furnace of necessity
>was stoked by the actions of George III. Today, the very same thing must
>be played out, for it is improbable that we should all become
>ambassadors of truth without necessity. That necessity lies in the maxim
>that the truth will not return, except there be a penalty required. It is
only
>under the burden of penalty that will force us to act to reestablish lawful
>authority. That penalty will not be easy to pay. And yes, it will be a
>greater one, far exceeding that exacted, when we shed the authority of
>old George.
>
>Bill
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
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
========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail