Time: Tue May 27 19:54:01 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA22137;
	Tue, 27 May 1997 15:29:58 -0700 (MST)
	by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA16890;
	Tue, 27 May 1997 15:29:51 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 19:45:26 -0700
To: "Joshua C. Walton" <cort@alaska.net>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Howard Freeman's essay "The Two United States ...."
References: <3.0.1.16.19970525043927.350f92d2@pop.primenet.com>


>Mr. Mitchell--
>
>	Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my e-mail. I'm
>sorry to hear of Mr. Freeman's passing. It is obvious from his article
>that he was well-read and knowledgeable; we need more people like that.
>	My question had to do with a point he made in "The Two United States
>and the Law"; he stated that some attorneys discovered that through a
>loophole in the Constitution, there were two United States's, one being
>a collection of fifty states, and the other being a legislative
>democracy.

The Guarantee Clause is not operative
inside the federal zone, unless Congress
decides to make it operative, which 
Congress has not.  Congress faked the
14th amendment instead, which was the
cornerstone in a democracy of subjects
who are directly taxable, because the
restrictions placed upon direct taxation
are not binding in the federal zone either.
NONE of those restrictions are binding,
unless Congress enacts them into being,
by means of statutes.  Read further:


 He goes on from there, decribing the second United States'
>powers and authorities.
>	I was just wondering what loophole these attorneys found in the
>Constitution. Mr. Freeman said it was in Article 1, Sec. 8, cl. 17, but
>I don't see how clause 17 created a second government.

Read Downes v. Bidwell, and the controversy
which erupted in the Harvard Law Review right
after that decision.  The dissenting opinion
by Justice Harlan tells the whole story in
a few succinct paragraphs.  Here is an abstract:

"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 the Hooven case, the high Court extended
this doctrine as follows:

"The guarantees of the Constitution extend to the
 federal zone only as Congress makes those guarantees
 applicable."

You can see here, then, that Congress can create whatever
form of government they want to create, as long as
it is created by municipal law, which can be enforced
inside the federal zone, and upon those who owe their
allegiance to that jurisdiction, i.e. federal citizens
(a/k/a "citizens of the United States").

Does this help?

For more information, read "The Lawless Rehnquist"
in the Supreme Law Library at the URL beneath my 
signature below.

/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.surpemelaw.com


 I don't doubt
>him, I'm just not sure how cunning attorneys could have conjured up a
>new government from a seemingly innocent clause giving Congress the
>power to rule the District of Columbia and federal land-holdings.

They arbitrarily interpreted the term "exclusive"
to mean "unrestricted", when the two terms are
extremely disparate in meaning.  We have formally
challenge the Downes Doctrine, but the federal 
judge in that case chose to commit 112 felonies
instead of ruling on any of the motions we filed
in his court.  Go figure!

/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com



 If you
>could clear up my ignorance, I'd be very grateful. Thanks a bunch!
>
>Joshua Walton
>-- 
>Joshua Walton cort@alaska.net
>--------------------------------------------
>
>

========================================================================
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