Time: Mon Oct 13 20:12:39 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA20874;
Mon, 13 Oct 1997 20:13:19 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:12:57 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: CSA - Federal Judiciary & Supreme Court
The extension of municipal law into the South,
where it never has had any jurisdiction in the
first instance, was not well understood at that
time, I believe. You can blame the Radical
Republicans, for the manifold disasters wrought
by the Reconstruction Acts. Very few people,
then as now, bothered to study this aspect of
the Dred Scott decision. It is STILL the longest
decision in the history of American jurisprudence.
President Johnson's 3-man code consolidation team
actually produced two sets of federal laws:
one for the federal zone, another craftily worded
to appear as if it applied everywhere else.
It did not!
The gentleman asks an excellent question here!
My guess, without knowing more details about
the confederate constitution, was that a severed
South would have confronted, sooner or later,
the inevitable conflict between the central
government, and the member states. What
"exclusive" authorities did that constitution
grant to their central government, if any?
See 1:8:17 in the U.S. Constitution, in pari materia.
Treating the entire nation as a legislative democracy
is, indeed, one primary outcome of applying the so-called
14th amendment to everyone. Witness the juror and
voter registration qualifications in all 50 states,
for the shocking proof! Historical details are
now published in the many pleadings being loaded
into the Supreme Law Library, at the URL just below
my name here. See, in particular, the motions for
leave to file an enlarged brief, in USA v. Gilbertson,
which construct the term "citizen of the United States" [sic]
in 2 state constitutions, one written in 1849, the
other circa 1912. Judge Pablo de la Guerra has made
an immensely important contribution to these constructions,
as civil defendant in People v. de la Guerra.
Said term means "Citizen of ONE OF the States United."
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School
At 12:35 AM 10/13/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Dr. DeRosa
>
>In recent years we have seen the federal judiciary simply begin to
>legislate by decree new and ambiguous aspects of the Constitution, at best.
>At worst simply show a disregard for the Constitution as if it only
>contained the 14th Amendment.
>
>Did our Confederate Statesmen recognise this weakness in the US
>Constitution and make modifications to prevent abuse by the Confederate
>federal judiciary?
>
>Mike Crane
>
>"We could have pursued no other course without dishonour. And as sad as the
>results have been, if it had all to be done over again, we should be
>compelled to act in precisely the same manner."
>
>General Robert E. Lee, C.S.A.
>
>
>
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail