Constitution binds D.C.

Subject:

Comments:
: : : The U.S. Constitution specifically binds : : : the District of Columbia. : : : Confer at "District of Columbia" in : : : Corpus Juris, to wit: : : : "To put at rest all doubts concerning the : : : applicability of the constitution to the District, : : : congress in 1871 specifically extended it thereto : : : [citing Downes v. Bidwell and 16 Stat. 419, 426, : : : Sec. 34]. Hence, the power of legislation in : : : Congress is not unlimited or arbitrary [citing : : : Curry v. District of Columbia, 14 App. (D.C.) : : : 423] but is limited in general by the express : : : constitutional provisions [cites omitted]." : : : 18 C.J., p. 1358, Sec. 11, : : : see also notes 93 and 93[a] : : : : : : The pertinent sentence from 16 Stat. 419 : : : now follows: : : : "... [A]nd the Constitution and all the laws : : : of the United States, which are not locally : : : inapplicable, shall have the same force and : : : effect within the said District of Columbia : : : as elsewhere within the United States." : : : 16 Stat 419, 426, Sec. 34 (1871) : : : Respectfully submitted, : : : /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : : : Counselor at Law, Federal Witness : : : and Private Attorney General : : This makes perfect sense, as the D.C. actually belongs to the several states as the seat of their central government for the prosecution of wars and other dealings with foreign nations. : : We have suspected for some time now that the idea of separate legislation for the D.C., as a totally foreign venue to the several states in that context, was a misinformation or disinformation campaign to distract from reality, such as the contractual nature of most so-called federal legislation. : : Granted, there is separate legislation for military establishments which authorizes the services to enact regulations to certain ends, special legislation authorizing Agriculture and Interior to promulgate regulations for forestry and preservation of parks, and such like that, but to have that power over the lives of the American People in the D.C. is a little far fetched. : : This opinion does not, of course, extend to outside possessions and trust territories like Puerto Rico, N'r'n Marianas, etc. : : How're we doing so far. This opinion is just that, and is not backed by any research. : : You have now comprehended the full (and equally : offensive) implications of the Downes Doctrine. : Read "The Lawless Rehnquist" here in the : Supreme Law Library, for a quick introduction. : The Downes Doctrine is also treated in pleadings : already filed in several cases by the Supreme : Law Firm. We would recommend that you begin : first with the Harvard Law Review articles that : vehemently criticize "The Insular Cases," : as they are called, of which Downes v. Bidwell : is the most notorious. Here is a tight : paraphrase of the Downes Doctrine: : "The Constitution of the United States, : as such, does not extend beyond the limits : of the states which are united by and under : it." [paraphrase] : Later, Hooven & Allison v. Evatt expanded this : doctrine as follows: : "The guarantees of the Constitution extend : to the federal zone, ONLY as Congress : makes those guarantees applicable, : by statutes." [paraphrase] : A very good example of such a discretionary : extension is P.L. 93-579, which carefully : defines "individual" to mean a federal citizen : or resident alien. Citizens of the several : states of the Union are conspicuously absent, : because privacy is already their fundamental : Right, under the state and federal constitutions, : and such a fundamental Right is already : guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and needs : no federal or state legislation to activate it. : I hope this helps. : Sincerely yours, : /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, Federal Witness, : and Private Attorney General : Sincerely yours, : /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, Federal Witness, : and Private Attorney General

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: