Time: Mon Nov 25 18:48:55 1996
To: "John Burr" <john.burr@qmail.eonetworks.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Supremacy Clause
Cc: 
Bcc: 

See below.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 15:11:22
>To: Liberty Law
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: 17th Amendment [sic]
>
>correction:  Gardina v. Board of Registrars,
>160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909)
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>error follows below:
>
>><snip>
>>>I have been doing some work on modelling the
>>>concept of our system of government and the 
>>>changes through which it has passed. It 
>>>occurred to me -
>>>
>>>Originally, the "federal" or compounded aspect
>>>of our legislative government consisted largely 
>>>of one clause in the Constitution, which has
>>>subsequently been ammended:
>>>
>>>        Orginally, Senators were chosen by the
>>>        State legislatures to represent the state's 
>>>        interest. This was changed by Amendment 17
>>>        in 1913 to "popular" direct election.
>>>
>>>In effect, this removed one of the last vestiges of a 
>>>compounnd federal legislative government from our
>>>system's structure. Taken with other events of this
>>>era, it would seem to reinforce the argument that
>>>a legal incorporation occurred, in effect, eliminating
>>>State citizenship as a separate possibility.
>>
>>Objection.  What a leap you take here!
>>See Gardina v. Board of Supervisors of
>>Electors:  The highest exercise of a 
>>state's sovereignty is to declare who
>>are its citizens.  BTW, 17th amendment
>>would have required ratification by
>>100% of the Union States, because otherwise
>>any State opposed to it would be denied
>>equal suffrage within the Senate.  See
>>Article V, Clause 1.  I have a draft Application
>>for Intervention of Right which develops
>>this matter in some detail; it is available
>>upon request here.
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>
>>
>> The 
>>>government ceased to be a compounded republic and 
>>>became a representative national democracy at that 
>>>point.
>>
>>Only in the federal zone, because
>>the Guarantee Clause was never 
>>repealed.
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>
>>
>> True, the number of Senators per "State" 
>>>remained the same, but they no longer represented 
>>>the "State," only regional interests and differences.  
>>>
>>>"Sovereignty" is a concept between nations and 
>>>entirely dependent upon international law and recognition
>>>for its legitimacy. The international community has not 
>>>recognized the States as sovereign since the Articles of 
>>>Confederation. State "sovereignty," as well as individual 
>>>sovereignty rested legally in the limitations and structures
>>>"Constituted" as the foundation of government. The removal
>>>of internal structures to maintain "state" sovereignty 
>>>results in an incorporation of citizenship, with attendant
>>>repercussions to the realignment of protection of individual
>>>rights and transfer of "police/municipal" powers to the 
>>>United States government. 
>>>
>>>Vestiges of State sovereignty remain in the Presidential
>>>"electoral college;" the ninth and tenth Amedment; and, to 
>>>some degree, the court structure, but it should
>>>be emphasized that the international law does not recognize
>>>State and individual sovereignty, and without the internal
>>>Constitutional butresses intact to protect such from 
>>>encroachment, a State or individual declaring "sovereignty"
>>>has no legitimacy or standing in the eyes of international
>>>law. 
>>>
>>>I would appreciate your comments.
>>
>>Serious logical errors in what
>>you have written here.           [see comments supra]
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Marcia A.      
<snip>


Furthermore, the two human rights treaties
to which the United States is a party
give explicit recognition to the fundamental
Rights of the member nations, and their 
People.  This automatically preserves the
sovereignty of the Union States, pursuant
to the Tenth Amendment.  These treaties could
not be constitutional if they conflicted in
any way with the Tenth Amendment, which is
the Supreme Law pursuant to the Supremacy
Clause (easily the most important provision
in the entire U.S. Constitution).

Do you need more?

/s/ Paul Mitchell
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail