Constitution binds D.C.

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

Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on April 28, 1998 at 09:50:37:

In Reply to: Re: Constitution binds D.C. posted by Common Right Group on April 07, 1998 at 03:12:38:

: : 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

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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