Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on May 28, 1998 at 13:31:04:
In Reply to: Re: Diversity Statute is a MAJOR KEY: graphic illustration posted by Two Cities on May 26, 1998 at 17:03:37:
:
: : Articles of Confederation
: : |
: : | U.S. Constitution
: : | |
: : | | 1866 Civil Rights Act
: : | | |
: : | | 1 class: | 2 classes:
: : *---*----------------*---------------------->8
: : state Citizens | state Citizens
: : |
: : *---------------------->8
: : federal citizens
: :
: : where "8" means infinity,
: : because the Union is perpetual.
The poster's comment rambles a bit, so
I will be a bit selective as to the points
to which I will respond.
: It's all contract.
It's NOT "all contract".
"Contract" is synonymous with equity jurisdiction.
The Constitution recognizes two OTHER matters
over which Article III grants original juris-
diction: law, and admiralty. The "common law"
[sic] is preserved in the Seventh Amendment,
meaning that government employees MUST recognize
the common law as a fundamental Right of the
People, i.e., the People who are NOT government
employees. See Eisner v. Macomber, paraphrasing:
"Congress CANNOT by legislation alter the
constitution, from which alone it derives
its power to legislate, and within whose
limitations alone that power can be lawfully
exercised." [decision construing definition
of "income", and predicated upon ratification
of the so-called 16th amendment, i.e. "income"
is a term found in the latter] Therefore,
the "common law" [sic] being a term found
in the Seventh Amendment, Congress cannot
amend or alter the original meaning of this
term and, moreover, the term's meaning is
now frozen, until such time as the Seventh
Amendment is further amended. To date, it
has NOT been amended since the Bill of Rights
was first ratified. Finally, the Bill of
Rights is supreme Law, pursuant to the
Supremacy Clause. See Article VI, Clause 2
("6:2").
: Articles of Confederation (a contract)
... binding the parties, i.e., the states
(and their employees) and the United States
(and ITS employees)
: constitution of the united States of America (a contract)
... ditto.
: Primary contracting parties, and late comers to the contracts
: of all varieties.
The Sixth Amendment can be construed as
conferring on the federal government the
right to compel witnesses' attendance
at criminal proceedings. You could, of course,
fight a subpoena to testify, by referring to
state laws which do not create such an
obligation, e.g. California's common law,
which states that the ONLY obligation
which arises from the operation of law
is to avoid doing injury to others,
or doing damage to their property; and ...
ALL OTHER OBLIGATIONS DERIVE FROM THE
CONTRACT TO THE PARTIES. Confer at
"obligation" in the California Civil Code.
: 'Perpetual' is of course a perception, much like that of all roads
: leading to Rome (or should I say ROME)
see Texas v. White on this point.
: The contracting parties to the Articles are?
The answer is right in the Articles.
Why belabor this point?
: The nation states (could say States, but this term has been usurped)
: Who empowered the states?
: The contracting parties to the state constitution.
: The ratifiers (the people) seem to be holders in due course
: to a contract they did not author.
: The contracting parties to the U.S. Constitution are?
: We the People.
I disagree with C.J. Taney on this crucial
point. The Guarantee Clause makes a careful,
and obvious, distinction between the
"United States" and the several states of the
Union. The Preamble also contains a reference
to the "United States" ("We the People of the
United States"), and to the United States of
America ("ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America" [sic]). See,
in pari materia, 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) and (2).
I believe the Framers were highly intelligent
and knew they were making a very careful
distinction between the "United States" [sic]
and the "United States of America" [sic],
because this all-important distinction had
already been made in the Articles. Therefore,
C.J. Taney was wrong to hold that "We the People
of the United States" referred to the Citizens
of the United States of America; it did NOT
and can NOT refer to them, unless the Framers
utilized the term "United States" differently
in the Preamble than they did in the Guarantee
Clause, which I believe is highly unlikely.
In conclusion, the Constitution for the
United States of America was written by
some of the People of the "United States",
i.e., the People who signed it, e.g.
George Washington, William Jackson, etc.
Having done that, the document was then
proposed to each of the legislatures of
the several states, who each separately
voted upon same. So, the authority to
enact the U.S. Constitution originated
in the sovereignty of the several states;
and THEIR authority originated in the
popular elections which placed their peoples'
representatives in their respective state
legislatures. If Taney was wrong about the
meaning of "People of the United States"
in the Preamble, then a whole lot of other
People were also wrong too! :)
: Who are the people with a capitilized "P"?
... answered above, although "Person" [sic]
is often used in place of "People", e.g.
1:2:2 (one of the Qualifications Clauses).
Do not confuse "Person" with "person".
Nothing prevents the People at Large from
modifying their respective state constitutions
by means of initiative and/or referendum.
I hope this helps.
I believe one of the most powerful statutes
in current federal law is 28 U.S.C. 1746.
Note that it distinguishes "United States"
from "United States of America", quite
deliberately, I might add! Does anybody
ever notarize their Form 1040 federal
income tax returns? Answer: NO! Why??
Because Form 1040 is verified under penalty
of perjury INSIDE the "United States" [sic],
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(2)!!!!!!!!!
The proof of this latter statement is found
in the absence from Form 1040 of the qualifier
"under the laws of the United States of America"!
Title 28 governs the conduct of federal courts,
where the rubber meets the road.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
Private Attorney General, and Candidate
for the U.S. House of Representatives