|
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177
late 2d, Sec 256
{CASE} 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256 (?): "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality
dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it."
... you are talking about “states rights” aren’t you. Yes I am, these rights were secured
for us by our founding fathers and they are still right there in the Constitution. They are the rights reserved to the
people in the 9th amendment and the powers reserved to the states and the people in the10th amendment. All powers rest
with the states and or the people except those specific functions and duties that were delegated to the US Congress in Article
I, Section 8 of the Constitution. We just need to prompt the states to exercise those rights. The states must
tell the Federal Government to cease and desist when it oversteps its Constitutional boundaries. The states must resist
the Federal Government’s intrusion into our state institutions. For too long the states have been sacrificing
our liberties by accepting program payments with “unconstitutional strings” attached. This must stop.
I am not just referring to “un-funded mandates” but all unconstitutional requirements imposed by the US
Congress or its agencies upon the states. By not rejecting “funded” yet unconstitutional Federal programs
it is as if we have allowed the Federal Government to pay us “Tokens for Trespass” and commit “Highway Robbery”
at the same time....
Catherine Hanaway, current speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives and Republican candidate for Secretary
of State, recently made a campaign stop in my hometown of Dexter. In an interview with our local newspaper, Hanaway
took the opportunity to explain her priorities, if elected SOS. Ms Hanaway told the newspaper that a key part of her
platform has to do with the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), a 64-page piece of work by the US Congress to. …provide
assistance with the administration of (what the act describes as) federal elections. An earlier newspaper article reported
that Hanaway was appointed to a 37 member advisory board, created under HAVA to provide advice to the Federal Election Assistance
Commission. A 37-member board can be expected to accumulate a lot of information and dole out a lot of advice.
Since I wasn’t invited to join her in her campaign swing through Missouri I would appreciate it if someone would pass
the following message along to Ms. Hanaway:
Dear Catherine,
I have some information and advice to share with you and it doesn’t require a bureaucratic 37-member board.
1st the information: Catherine, there are no federal elections. There are only state elections.
Elections conducted by each of the 50 sovereign states, including your home state of Missouri, to fill various offices to
represent the states at the federal level. We, in Missouri, elect Missourians to represent us in the US Congress and
we elect Missouri Electors to vote to choose the President and Vice President of these United States. No federal elections.
None. Not one.
2nd the advice: Catherine we don’t need the previously existing Federal Election Commission or the newly created
Federal Election Assistance Commission, including its 37 member advisory board, nor do we need any of the various unconstitutional
federal election laws; and, we certainly don’t need the increasing prospects of additional intermeddling in our state
elections by the federal judiciary. What we need are good Missouri election procedures for our sovereign state.
If they are currently deficient – fix them. If they aren’t broken – (here you can use our good ole
county adage) - don’t fix them. We also need officers of our state to use the powers, reserved to Missouri in
the US Constitution, to resist the federal governments intrusion into our state election process.
Finally, Catherine, as you are probably aware the Missouri Republican Party Platform reads in part: WE BELIEVE
the role of the federal government should be “to ensure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense and
to promote the general welfare” Therefore, WE SUPPORT the efforts of the Republican Congress and President Bush to return
power to the states, as provided in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
If this is really the action plan and intent of Missouri Republicans - as we still say in Missouri – Catherine
‘SHOW ME’. Better still I think Missourians should show you and elect Donna Ivanovich, Constitution Party
Candidate, as Secretary of State. Donna will give MEANING to Missouri’s sovereign election laws – not just
give ADVICE to a federal agency.
Bruce Hillis “The Sovereignty Advocate”
http://www.brucehillis.org/index.php?page=views#3r
Very interesting reading...
As every schoolchild learns, our Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty between the States and the Federal
Government. This Court also has recognized this fundamental principle. In Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458 (1990), "[w]e beg[a]n with the axiom that, under our federal system, the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that
of the Federal Government, subject only to limitations imposed by the Supremacy Clause." Over 120 years ago, the Court described
the constitutional scheme of dual sovereigns:
"`[T]he people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential
to separate and independent existence," . . . "[W]ithout the States in union, there could be no such political body as the
United States." Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their
union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance
of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the
maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed
of indestructible States." Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869), quoting Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76 (1869).
The Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers. "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." U.S.
Const., Amdt. 10. The States thus retain substantial sovereign authority under our constitutional system. As James Madison
put it:
Page 501 U.S. 452, 458
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain
in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. . . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the
objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal
order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison).
This federalist structure of joint sovereigns preserves to the people numerous advantages. It assures a decentralized
government that will be more sensitive to the diverse needs of a heterogeneous society; it increases opportunity for citizen
involvement in democratic processes; it allows for more innovation and experimentation in government; and it makes government
more responsive by putting the States in competition for a mobile citizenry. See generally McConnell, Federalism: Evaluating
the Founders' Design, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1484, 1491-1511 (1987); Merritt, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy: Federalism
for a Third Century, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 3-10 (1988).
Perhaps the principal benefit of the federalist system is a check on abuses of government power. "The "constitutionally
mandated balance of power" between the States and the Federal Government was adopted by the Framers to ensure the protection
of "our fundamental liberties.'" Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985), quoting Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528, 572 (1985) (Powell, J., dissenting). Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate Branches of the Federal Government
serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one Branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and
the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front. Alexander Hamilton explained to the people
of New York, perhaps optimistically, that the new federalist system would
Page 501 U.S. 452, 459
suppress completely "the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny":
"[I]n a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power
being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check usurpations of the state
governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into
either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other
as the instrument of redress." The Federalist No. 28, pp. 180-181 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
James Madison made much the same point:
"In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government;
and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound
republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion
allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.
The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." Id., No. 51,
p. 323.
One fairly can dispute whether our federalist system has been quite as successful in checking government abuse
as Hamilton promised, but there is no doubt about the design. If this "double security" is to be effective, there must be
a proper balance between the States and the Federal Government. These twin powers will act as mutual restraints only if both
are credible. In the tension between federal and state power lies the promise of liberty.
Page 501 U.S. 452, 460
The Federal Government holds a decided advantage in this delicate balance: the Supremacy Clause. U.S. Const., Art. VI.
As long as it is acting within the powers granted it under the Constitution, Congress may impose its will on the States. Congress
may legislate in areas traditionally regulated by the States. This is an extraordinary power in a federalist system. It is
a power that we must assume Congress does not exercise lightly...
http://www.justia.us/us/501/452/case.html
Limited Federal Government
The Constitution is a limiting document and
The federal government is limited by the Constitution
The Court even quoted The Federalist Papers #51 (in footnote #30):
“The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving
to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments
of the others.” ...
In The Federalist Papers No. 45, James Madison instructs of the role of the federal government thusly:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are
to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects,
as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects
which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order,
improvement, and prosperity of the state.”
(http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu185.htm#Federalist45,powers,hu185)
The Supreme Court has ruled on the limiting nature of the Constitution. In Pollard v. Hagan (44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845)),
the U.S Supreme Court declared: "[B]ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction,
sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted
... Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to
the common law."
http://www.uhuh.com/laws/fedjuris.htm
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/44/212.html
In Alden et al. v. Maine (98-436, 1999) the Supreme Court admonishes: "The Constitution, after all, treats the powers of
the States differently from the powers of the Federal Government. As we explained in Hall: 'In view of the Tenth Amendment's
reminder that powers not delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the States or to
the people,' the existence of express limitations on state sovereignty may equally imply that caution should be exercised
before concluding that unstated limitations on state power were intended by the Framers." . . .
"The Federal Government, by contrast, 'can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the constitution, and the powers
actually granted must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessary implication."
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-436.ZS.html
What else is kept secret?
Photographs kept secretly hidden in newpaper's offices for decades finally released.
Feb. 27, 2006,
7:50AM
Birmingham News publishes newly found civil rights era photos
Associated Press
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- Dozens of never before released photos from the civil rights era
came to light this weekend after an intern discovered them buried in an equipment closet at the Birmingham News.
The photos had been in a box marked: "Keep. Do Not Sell." But at the time they were taken, the
newspaper didn't want to draw attention to the racial discord of the 1950s and 1960s, news photographers from the period said.
"The editors thought if you didn't publish it, much of this would go away," said Ed Jones, 81,
a photographer at The News from 1942 to 1987. "Associated Press kept on wanting pictures, and The News would be slow on letting
them have them, so they flooded the town with photographers."
On Sunday, the photos finally went to print in a special eight-page section called "Unseen. Unforgotten."
Others are on the newspaper's Web site at www.al.com/unseen ...
More ...
|
