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