Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 11, 1998 at 22:01:11:
In Reply to: More Evidence and Commentary on the Diversity Clause posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 11, 1998 at 21:27:26:
Notice what happened "when the war ended":
"General Lee had surrendered his army on April 9, 1865, and
General Johnston surrendered his 17 days later. Within a period
of less than six weeks thereafter, not one Confederate soldier
was bearing arms. By June 30, 1865, the Confederate states were
all restored by presidential proclamation to their proper
positions as states in an indissoluble union,(1) and practically
all citizens thereof(2) had been granted amnesty. Immediately
thereafter each of the seceding states functioned as regular
states in the Union with both state and federal courts in full
"President Lincoln had declared the freedom of the slaves as
a war measure, but when the war ended, the effect of the
proclamation was ended, and so it was necessary to propose and to
ratify the Thirteenth Amendment in order to insure the freedom of
[Dyett v. Turner, Utah Supreme Court (1968)]
That's 1968, NOT 1868!!!!
100 years AFTER the so-called 14th amendment.
... the Confederate states were all restored
... to their proper positions as states
in an indissoluble Union.
Not "STATES" or "political subdivisions"
"or fraudulent clear plastic overlays"
aka "States within a state" [sic],
but "states in an indissoluble Union".
In other words, the southern states failed
in their attempt to secede, and thus the
Union was preserved, and did not dissolve.
Since then, that Union has persevered
right up to the present time.
practically all citizens thereof [of those states]
had been granted amnesty.
Once again, the Utah Court recognizes Citizens --
of states in an indissoluble Union, and NOT
citizens of the United States aka federal citizens.
Immediately thereafter each of the seceding states
functioned as regular states in the Union,
with both state and federal courts in full operation.
Once again, as if to beat a dead horse one more
time, those southern states functioned as
regular states in the Union, and not as
anything else. There is no debate, and there
is no need for any debate, over the meaning
of "regular states in the Union." These
are the stars on the American flag.
So much for the bogus and rebuttable
"Grand False Theory of Perpetual Martial Law
or Perpetual Martial Rule (if you don't
buy the perpetual martial law version)" [sic]
See Ex parte Merryman, U.S. Supreme Court
(1861), for clear and unequivocal authority.
Use Alta Vista to search for:
"Ex parte Merryman"
and the full opinion by C.J. Taney should
appear. I just read it again; it's quite
magnificent: the President has never had
any authority whatsoever to suspend the
great Writ of Habeas Corpus. C.J. Taney
correctly enumerates the limited authorities
which are specifically, expressly granted by the
U.S. Constitution. There is, in that
instrument, absolutely no authority whatsoever
to impose perpetual martial law, or perpetual
martial rule. See the Ninth Amendment for
the key rule of constitutional construction.
Thus, the President, as Commander in Chief,
cannot suspend the Constitution, no matter
what he does, unsubstantiated assertions
and arguments to the contrary nonwithstanding.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Private Attorney General
Post a Followup