[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: constitution.amendmentxi.html (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In <[email protected]>, on 12/29/97
at 11:21 AM, Jim Choate <[email protected]> said:
>Forwarded message:
>> From: "William H. Geiger III" <[email protected]>
>> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 97 09:17:55 -0600
>> Subject: Re: constitution.amendmentxi.html (fwd)
>> Well you can only sue the state that has caused some form of direct damage
>> against you.
>Really? Where is that in the Constitution? I can't sue a state or the
>federal government on an issue of process or procedure unless I
>*personaly* have been effected? Malarky. The simple fact that I am a
>citizen that *could* be effected is sufficient grounds to file. Especialy
>considering the detailing of authority in the 10th.
>If this were so I would not be able to file against a law regulating, for
>example, a religion unless I happen to be a participant of that religion.
>This is clearly not constitutional since any law threating a single
>religion by extension can and does threaten all religious freedom in the
>country.
>> If both Texas and Alaska are doing somthing Unconstitutional
>> but Texas is the only one who has directly caused damage then you should
>> only be able to sue Texas.
>Why? If both states are participating in an illegal action - such as
>complying with unconstitutional federal regulations - then even a single
>state in which I *don't* reside nor have *ever* been in is a clear threat
>to my constitutional rights. Remember the feds are *required* to
>guarantee a constitutional government in *all* states and that all
>priviliges and immunitites be recognized by those states - irrespective
>of my current geographic location. Now if we accept the argument that the
>14th extends my federal rights to the states then the wrongful action and
>its application is even more clearly relevant. However, the 14th is not
>necessary for this to be the case.
No this flys in the face of 200 yrs of American laws and centuries more of
English law. If your rights have not been infringed then you can't sue. If
the State of Alaska passes a law that christianity is baned unless you are
a citizen of Alaska, and thus your rights have been infringed, you have no
basis to file suit! Now you can fly up to Alaska stay for a few mins and
then file suit as now you have a claim of infringement.
This is no different than if John Doe goes and beats you neighbor with a
baseball bat. You can not file asault charges against him only your
neighbor can.
At the hart of the matter is the theory of decentrialized government and
wether the citizens of one state have the right to force the citizens of
another state to bend to their will. Myself personlly do not want the
people of NY, or TX, dictating to me how I should live in FL any more than
I want the Feds to do so. If you wish to come here and live here then you
should be given an equal voice on how we do things otherwise it's none of
your dam business. This swings both ways. I am sure that you would not
want the people of other states dictating what laws TX must or must not
pass.
>(thankfuly, since one of my claims is that rights are not equivalent to
>priviliges or immunities)
>It is the precedence and not the personal application that is
>unconstitutional.
No what we are getting into is the murky area of "potential to do harm".
>> I think that in the majority of
>> cases one will find that a greviance will be limited to a single state (I
>> think it would be very rare to find a case where all 50 states had
>> directly caused damage against an individule).
>- Illegal taxation and the compliance of the states in turning over money
> illegaly
>- regulation and prohibition of firearms and the states complicancy
> in breaking the 2nd.
>- the provisioning and support of military operations relating to the
> Army and Air Force (which is unconstitutional unless part of the Army
> or Navy) for more than 2 year terms.
>- the failure of the US govt. to train and arm the militia in the several
> states
>- the various federal regulations limiting consensual crimes contrary
> to the letter and spirit of the 9th and 10th.
Well all the above cases seem to be direct grivences against the Federal
Government not the individule States. Now you may have a case for grivence
against TX, you being a citizen of Texas, for complacency in these actions
of the Federal Government but they are really two seperate cases. You have
the greviance against the Fed's for violating the Constution and you have
the greviance against TX for not protecting your rights. Alaska on the
otherhand has no obligation nor right to protect you as you are neither a
citizen or resident of that State and it's powers are limited to it's
boundaries.
>- the abrogation of the states duties as equals to the federal govt.
> and their duties as a part of the checks and balances of the
> Constitution.
Here is where you would have a gerviance against the states. Even so you
would be limited to filing a greviance against the state you were a
citizen and/or resident of.
>And as a matter of course most other issues resting on Constitutional
>jurisdiction involving the willing compliance of state government.
>> An example of this would be back in the 50's with the forced segregation
>> laws. If you were living in Georga and wished to bring suit against the
>> state for violating your rights you would be limited to only suing Georga
>> even though AL,FL,SC,NC,TX,AR, all had the same laws on the books.
>Nobody that I can find has *ever* even tried to do this so how can it be
>undoable? It's a pity there wasn't some young turk back then to give it a
>shot - course there doesn't seem to be any young turks now willing to do
>it either...;(
I was only presenting this as a hypothetical senario. I am unaware of
anyone bringing suit against all 50 states this entire discution is of a
hypothetical nature.
>Now, if I can figure a way around the Supreme Courts 3 year
>requirement...
If we could only find a way to create a county of men rather than a county
of sheeple... :)
- --
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0
Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a-sha1
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000
iQCVAwUBNKfYAY9Co1n+aLhhAQFVUQQAhH7TKEMGH0mJ+fxDslJLSDoESDk3x5AL
4xbUFfvwOmu1xVzMTYIY67Y9gx8DB/LFvsg7E6YWOfw1O+BbvgQozC2jH6SNGV8p
tylNLqu2+11OR7/KvAvt+26B5UUi9XsSa40mRgXZ8rpBYvesuDoQr5Ynnvmogq/S
SYu4tPJfMJ4=
=9CsW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----