Posted by Mercedes Ormilugue on October 28, 1998 at 13:13:20:
In Reply to: State Constitutions posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on June 09, 1998 at 22:57:25:
: : : 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
Post a Followup