Private Attorney General's COMMENTS re:seccession: is it unconstitutional as the MSM claims
From: Supreme Law Firm <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM Subject: Private Attorney General's COMMENTS re:seccssion: is it unconstitutional as the MSM claims To: Phil Holtz <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Secession is not unconstitutional, chiefly because it is not expressly prohibited to the States of the Union and the power to prevent secession is not expressly granted to the "United States" (federal government). "We do not make law by force or by fraud." Glass v. The Sloop Betsey Contrast the many other acts which ARE expressly prohibited to the States of the Union: http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1:10:1 (secession is not one of them) The decision in Texas v. White was predicated in large part on the "perpetual" language that is found in the Articles of Confederation: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html "... the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.'" However, when the Framers convened to draft a new Constitution, it is clear from the historical record that they "threw out" those Articles are started fresh. And, by the organic Constitution lawfully ratified on June 21, 1788, the Union was NOT solemnly declared to be perpetual! When the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are construed together, it is quite clear that the absence of any Clause -- expressly prohibiting the States from seceding -- is immensely important: The organic Constitution as lawfully amended is a grant of very limited and enumerated powers. And, the power to prevent any State from seceding is also missing from the enumerated authorities expressly granted to the Federal government by that Constitution. Whether it is presently wise or advisable for any State to secede is a different question entirely, however. What our work has done most recently is to focus the debate on the many differences between a legislative democracy and a Constitutional Republic, and the fraudulent processes by which a "democracy" has slowly overwhelmed the Republic and clearly obstructed the Framers' intent to guarantee a Republican Form of Government to each State: http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#4:4 Because the Guarantee Clause is supreme Law, it carries enormous weight in the context of this entire discussion: http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm#topic-a (discusses violations of the Guarantee Clause in several places) Has the Congress obeyed its obligation to guarantee a Republican Form of Government to the 50 States? Answer: NO!! Here's why: http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/1866cra/ This 1866 Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional because it violated one of the holdings in the Dred Scott decision: http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/dredscot/excerpt1.htm The population of federal citizens is now, legally speaking, an absolute legislative democracy; and the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is correctly understood to mean "subject to the MUNICIPAL jurisdiction of the Congress." http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm#Q6 State Citizens are not "subject to" that municipal jurisdiction, however, because they owe absolutely no political allegiance to the District of Columbia, and are not subject to any municipal laws which apply ONLY to the federal zone (D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Puerto Rico). See also "The Federal Zone" for a thorough discussion of Federal municipal law, with a focus on the municipal nature of subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code: http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/ Accordingly, by intent of the so-called Fourteenth amendment -- which we now know was never lawfully ratified -- federal citizens are SUBJECT TO that municipal jurisdiction EVEN IF they inhabit the 50 States of the Union. There are many, very serious problems that have resulted from this long-standing attempt to "morph" or transform the Republic into a democracy, some of the most serious of which are well documented here: http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/lyon/ Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page) http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy) http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines) http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines) All Rights Reserved without Prejudice ________________________________ From: Phil Holtz <[email protected]> To: PAUL MITCHELL <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:35 PM Subject: Fw: [catapultthenwopolicestatedepopulation] re:seccssion: is it unconstitutional as the MSM claims ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 3:19 PM Subject: [catapultthenwopolicestatedepopulation] re:seccssion: is it unconstitutional as the MSM claims \ Bill, Obviously this SCOTUS decision to strike down the down the 10th Amendment was to justify the Northern aggression Vs the South. Likewise it is just as obvious, it is not based on the written Constitution; it is in fact another example of a corrupt SCOTUS writing new legislation validated by the Might Makes Right "Law of the Jungle" Doctrine. It is in fact, more proof that the Constitution has been trampled to death. Since the SCOTUS decison is the law of the land, not only has the 10th Bill of Rights been made null and void, the Congress is not limited to the powers delegated to it by the Constitution. IS THAT NOT WHAT SCOTUS RULED? Rich Martin ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Bill Walker, FOAVC co-founder" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 4:12 PM Subject: C Rich, It is, according to the Supreme Court and official government documents made prior to the civil war, illegal for a state to leave the union of states. It is not unconstitutional, illegal or otherwise prohibited for a state to withdraw its consent from the form of government created by that union especially if it never consented to that form of government which currently exists. The "form" of government in existence, when every state currently in the Union joined, remains the same; the states', in joining, accepted it. Bill Bill Walker FOAVC Co-Founder http://www.foavc.org/ ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Cc: ArticleV Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 12:12 PM Subject: Fwd: RR: RR Secession: Is it unconstitutial as the MSM claims ? Secession: Is it unconstitutial as the MSM claims ? Since no power to prevent secession was ever delegated to Congress, and since secession is not prohibited to the states, it remains a reserved right of the states under the Tenth Amendment. http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods213.html Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. What does the above mean to you? This is how I read it: The Federal Govt has authority granted it in the Constitution (Article 8), and nothing more e.g., the fedl govt cannot tell states how much to tax or not tax, nor the method to tax state citizens. They cannot prevent or regulate without Constitutional authority. (See below) The rest is the responsibility of the states or We the People. 1sthttp://groups.google.com/group/richsrants/browse_thread/thread/2e8e52bbe7cf30b1 2ndhttp://groups.google.com/group/richsrants/browse_thread/thread/4042764806fb8f7a 3rd http://groups.google.com/group/richsrants/browse_thread/thread/a0f23878012dee8d 4thhttp://groups.google.com/group/richsrants/browse_thread/thread/f3ec871c23ca740b When replying to this message, plz cc: [email protected] to assure prompt reply. TEA Party Nation Top Ten Tips For Getting The Most From Your TPN Membership! http://www.teapartynation.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any more. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_qgVn-Op7Q Mrs. Richard "Peggy" Martin (1935 - 2012) http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dfw/obituary.aspx?n=margaret-irene-martin-peggy&pid=159081400&fhid=12241#fbLoggedOut http://www.legacy.com/guestbook/dfw/guestbook.aspx?n=margaret-martin&pid=159081400&sort=1 <> <> <> -- To join RichsRants, send email to: [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/richsrants?hl=en
