State Constitutions

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on June 09, 1998 at 22:57:25:

In Reply to: Re: State Constitutions posted by Judy Reardon on June 09, 1998 at 09:24:56:

: : Some information regarding Washington, from a source deemed to be
: : somewhat reliable.

: : Thank you for your inquiry. ...[chomp]...
: : The original constitution of 1878 is held by the Secretary of State's
: : Division of Archives and Records Management. For more information,
: : contact:

: : Ms. Pat Hopkins
: : Washington State Archives
: : Office of the Secretary of State
: : PO Box 40238
: : 1120 Washington St. SE
: : Olympia, WA 98404-0238
: : 360/586-1492

: : An interesting Initiative to read is I648, available via the
: : Washington State maintained site. Supposedly it never reached
: : the ballot, due to nonsubmission of signatures. Wonder if the
: : legislature just went ahead and passed it???

You must come to terms with the Tenth Amendment,
in order to comprehend the essential differences
between the federal and state governments. The
states can exercise whatever powers are not
prohibited to them, or reserved to the People,
by the U.S. Constitution. For this reason,
their taxing powers are much more broad and
less constrained by apportionment and uniformity
rules (which don't even apply to state govern-
ments anyway).

The Guarantee Clause does circumscribe what
the state constitutions can allow. A major
blow to all state constitutions was the
OPENING BRIEF in USA v. Gilbertson. Limiting
juries AND electors to a single class of
federal citizens, invalidates ALL actions by
juries so convened, and it also invalidates
ALL elections by electors so limited. Congress has
been remiss by failing to enforce the Guarantee
Clause when new states joined the Union, and
when amendments were enacted in the constitutions
of the several states. We have now uncovered
a colossal equal protection violation, with or
without the so-called 14th amendment, because
the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights has as much force, pursuant to the
Supremacy Clause, as the 14th ever had.

To deny voting AND jury service to Citizens of
the several states who are not also, by
freedom of choice (read "Right of Election"),
federal citizens (read "citizens of the United
States"), is to force a clear and unmistakable
violation of equal protection. Such state
Citizens are thus FORCED into associating
with a political jurisdiction which is NOT
protected by the Guarantee Clause, in order
to exercise their fundamental Rights to elect
representatives, and to serve on juries. As
such, these otherwise unalienable Rights have
been "liened" upon, because federal citizens
are taxed for exercising their unique political
franchise. See 26 CFR 1.1-1(a) thru (c).
All the pertinent authorities are available
in "The Federal Zone," eighth edition.

The most recent blow to the federal government's
position on these matters, was the amazing
discovery of a federal judge who ruled that
federal citizens were NEVER contemplated by
the Diversity Clause (Article III, Section 2).
See elsewhere in this forum: "Diversity Clause
is a Major Key." This proves, conclusively,
that there was one and ONLY one class of
Citizens prior to the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
That means one -- NOT two, NOT three, and
NOT zero. One and ONLY one!!!

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
Private Attorney General, and Candidate
for the U.S. House of Representatives

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]