Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by chariot13, Dec 26, 2012.
He should be arrested---the same as you or I would be. Prosecuted----same as you or I would be.
Convicted if guilty--same as you or I would be. Then Sentenced---same as you or I would be.
Is the law just? Nope. But giving some talking head special treatment is not just either. The
lamestream media elite will pull their collective heads out and take notice when it's one of their
own run afoul of one of our screwed up gun laws.
Thats what you don't get. I don't have a problem with anyone breaking unjust laws. Every day of the week Every second of the day. Break em all till they correct their clusterfvck. Even sum sh1t bag like this guy.
This story is about Washington DC and DC laws. Like it or not, because of this one fact, this law is not unjust. It's very constitutional as a matter of fact and here's why (with case law). Most people have never been exposed to the legal reality that there are literally three forms of citizenship under the Constitution. There are State Citizens and there are two types of federal citizens (Washington DC citizens and territorial citizens). Legally speaking, each of these forms of citizenship are distinct creatures in the law and their relationship to the Constitution comes from different parts of the Constitution.
The Constitution is a contract and the parties who signed that contract were State Citizens, via their agents...the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The Constitution contract was created by and for the benefit of those who were parties to it (as most contracts are). Washington DC is a patch of land that was eternally surrendered over to the federal government by Maryland and Virginia, for the purpose of giving the new (at that time) federal government property that it could exist on autonomously and provide for its own needs. This was authorized by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, which says:
“The Congress shall have Power… to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”
See Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35; 2000:
"The Maryland citizenship of the District of Columbia's inhabitants was extinguished upon the completion of the transfer of the seat of the national government to the territory of the District of Columbia."
See also Banner v. United States of America, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1; 2004
"The residents of the District of Columbia (District) are treated under the Constitution as a distinct class that is not comparable to any other group of citizens. As consistently held by the United States Supreme Court, the District is constitutionally distinct from the states, and, unlike either the States or Territories, the District is truly sui generis in our governmental structure. When Congress legislates for the District, therefore, the differing treatment is the consequence not of legislative determinations but of constitutional distinctions and a court is without authority to scrutinize those distinctions to determine whether they are irrational, compelling, or anything in between."
Washington DC "citizens" do not have legal standing to vote for representatives, but they still get taxed, because of the federal nature of their legal identity as "citizens". It might not sound fair, but as seen above, it's a result of the Constitution at work and all they have to do is.....MOVE..... 5 miles in one direction or another to again become a State Citizen with full bloom eligibility for Constitutional protections and rights. Until they do, the ONLY rights they have are those that Congress legislatively provides for them and only so much as Congress decides in the exercise of its discretion. See the final words in the opinion of Adams v. Clinton where the court sympathizes with DC citizens' complaints over not getting to vote, but still maintain their ruling against the DC citizens:
"Like our predecessors, we are not blind to the inequity of the situation plaintiffs seek to change. But longstanding judicial precedent, as well as the Constitution's text and history, persuade us that this court lacks authority to grant plaintiffs the relief they seek. If they are to obtain it, they must plead their cause in other venues."
This same "problem" exists for territorial citizens too. But territorial citizens at least have the hope of becoming State Citizens one day when their territory gets admitted into the Union. DC citizens are eternally shackled with this problem though so long as they call DC home. Read the following Supreme Court cites from a string of cases called the "Insular Cases":
See De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1; 21 S. Ct. 743; 45 L. Ed. 1041; 1901
“But whatever be the source of this power, its uninterrupted exercise by Congress for a century, and the repeated declarations of the court, have settled the law that the right to acquire territory involves the right to govern and dispose of it. Congress has full and complete legislative authority over the people of the territories and all the departments of the territorial governments. It may do for the territories what the people, under the Constitution of the United States, may do for the states. It is an authority which arises, not necessarily from the territorial clause of the Constitution, but from the necessities of the case, and from the inability of the states to act upon the subject. Under this power Congress may deal with territory acquired by treaty; may administer its government as it does that of the District of Columbia; it may organize a local territorial government; it may admit it as a state upon an equality with other States; it may sell its public lands to individual citizens or may donate them as homesteads to actual settlers. In short, when once acquired by treaty, it belongs to the United States, and is subject to the disposition of Congress.”
Also, see Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244; 21 S. Ct. 770; 45 L. Ed. 1088; 1901
“There is a provision that ‘new States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.’ These words, of course, carry the Constitution with them, but nothing is said regarding the acquisition of new territories or the extension of the Constitution over them. The liberality of Congress in legislating the Constitution into all our contiguous territories has undoubtedly fostered the impression that it went there by its own force, but there is nothing in the Constitution itself, and little in the interpretation put upon it, to confirm that impression”
In summary, as a State Citizen, don't let yourself be sucked in emotionally to coming to the defense of rights for people who are not intended to be the beneficiaries of automatic constitutional protections and privileges. The lesson from these cases is that you can be a "citizen of the United States" and still be ineligible for full constitutional benefits.
Fascinating read. Thanks for posting.
My public school education didn't get this indepth.
Thank you for recognizing the public education connection. One of my goals in posting the information I do is to show we Citizens types how intellectually compromised our public schools have made us on matters of the Constitution(s) (both federal and State Constitutions) and laws. I mean no derision or condescension by my posts, but I'm concerned that people might be taking it that way because the information I tend to share often puts a kabosh on a lot of conventional wisdoms...wisdoms we inherit as "graduates" of our public schools. So thanks for the feedback.
Since you mentioned your public school experience, I'm curious to know if you went to school in Oregon? Can you tally up an approximate on how much class time you spent studying the Constitution? My education is entirely from Oregon's public schools (up to a Bachelors Degree) and I know for sure I didn't get much exposure to the US Constitution, and absolutely no exposure to the Oregon Constitution or laws.
Guessing that your experience is probably pretty similar to mine though, what does that mean when we live in a nation whose utter foundation is "the rule of law", and also that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and that "knowledge is power". If "knowledge is power", it seems pretty clear that public schools are dragging their feet about empowering us to make informed decisions about the law, or even politics, by infecting our minds with a lack knowledge about the Constitution(s) and laws that apply to us? If we are intellectually dis-empowered by lack of this knowledge, it goes without saying that we are simply more vulnerable to exploitation by having our uninformed presumptions, emotions, biases, pride, etc. taken advantage of.
One of the things I've been trying to raise awareness of on this site, is that Oregon "law" literally requires public schools to provide a "course of instruction"....on the US Constitution....for a MINIMUM of 5 years. I know this is another post that's a little on the long'ish side but I put a good amount of effort into this issue on the thread I started, called " 'Licensing' of rights". Mostly on page 2, post #35. Below is a part of that post if you want to check it out.
"Here's the FACTS about our public schools in Oregon....FACTS that I didn't know about until a few years ago....FACTS that I'm guessing most Citizens still don't know about, including yourself. I am not trying to talk down to anyone here. I am just trying share information with my rights-loving community, so they can benefit from it and use it to make more informed decisions or build more informed perspectives. It is true that Oregon "...law..." does require a minimum of 5 years of "courses" that are for studying the Constitution, and the same requirement applies for "courses" on US History. See ORS 336.057:
"336.057 Courses in Constitution and history of United States. In all public schools courses of instruction shall be given in the Constitution of the United States and in the history of the United States. These courses shall:
(1) Begin not later than the opening of the eighth grade and shall continue in grades 9 through 12.
(2) Be required in all public universities listed in ORS 352.002, except the Oregon Health and Science University, and in all state and local institutions that provide education for patients or inmates to an extent to be determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. [Formerly 336.230; 1977 c.226 §1; 1999 c.1023 §1; 2011 c.637 §114]"
Regarding the State Constitution and laws, see ORS 336.067:
"336.067 Topics given special emphasis in instruction. (1) In public schools special emphasis shall be given to instruction in:
(a) Honesty, morality, courtesy, obedience to law, respect for the national flag, the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oregon, respect for parents and the home, the dignity and necessity of honest labor and other lessons that tend to promote and develop an upright and desirable citizenry.
(b) Respect for all humans, regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, religion, age, sex or disability.
(c) Acknowledgment of the dignity and worth of individuals and groups and their participative roles in society.
(d) Humane treatment of animals.
(e) The effects of tobacco, alcohol, drugs and controlled substances upon the human system.
(2) The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall prepare an outline with suggestions that will best accomplish the purpose of this section, and shall incorporate the outline in the courses of study for all public schools. [Formerly 336.240; 1975 c.531 §1; 1979 c.744 §13; 1993 c.45 §75; 2005 c.209 §22]"
So if 336.067 literally requires "special emphasis" to be placed on instruction in subject areas that "promote and develop an upright and desirable citizenry", subject areas like the federal and State Constitutions and obedience to laws, then what does logic say about the fact that, in practice, our public schools come nowhere near these standards for the 336.057 federal Constitution studies and utterly fail the 336.067 standards with regard to the State Constitution and laws?
Pure logic says that since those who carry out education laws are presumed to be informed about and trained to properly carry them out according to legislative intent, then the fact that they aren't says that curriculum planners are in effect preventing or opposing the promotion and development of an upright and desirable citizenry. And when we look around us, the decline of our society bears the evidence of this influence by our public schools. People are afraid to think they can know what the law means. They constantly say things like "I'm not a lawyer", as if that's an excuse to not be curious about the law or to pre-emptively disqualify themselves from opening up a law book.
Willful disinterest in reading the law is willful contempt for your own interests. In a world, where the Constitution and the laws were a fundamental, prioritized part of core public education curriculum, this attitude could only be blamed on the one holding it. But in a world where decades of young impressionable minds have shared a common experience that places such a low priority on these subjects, is it any a wonder that so many of us find it so easy to flippantly dismiss the charging of "license" fees as a condition to enjoyment of a right? It's called social engineering and we would be fools to think our society is immune from the influence of people who have studied psychology and human behavior enough to know that they can use government to suit their own interests if they exploit our intellectual defenselessness by manipulating our emotions and biases and pride.
One of the things that a lot of conservative types like to rattle their sabers about these days is the encroachment of socialism and socialistic sympathies. That sentiment is pretty commonplace, especially with the current "president". But there is a 1976 Oregon case called Wilson v. Chancellor that dealt with Citizens in Molalla suing the school board for allowing a socialist to be invited as a guest speaker for a high school function. Based on Judge Burns' words below, in his opinion of Wilson v. Chancellor (418 F. Supp. 1358; 1976), it appears that his faith in the dutiful carrying out of ORS 336.057-067 by public schools was "ill-founded" and a little premature:
"And I do not malign the defendant board members. Their position is sensitive, at once both a challenge and an opportunity. They serve a community in which many persons equate Communism with violence, deception, and imperialism. Yet violence, deception and imperialism have occurred under many flags and in the name of many creeds....... It seems these same residents fear that young Molallans will become young Marxists and Maoists, virtually overnight. Because Oregon law, ORS 336.057-067, requires the schools to specially emphasize our form of government, respect for the flag, and obedience to our laws, this fear seems ill-founded. Moreover, today's high school students are surprisingly sophisticated, intelligent, and discerning. They are far from easy prey for even the most forcefully expressed, cogent, and persuasive words."
In his preceding words in the opinion, he said:
"Political subjects invariably will arise during the course of study required in Oregon schools by Oregon law. ORS 336.057 requires public and private schools to give instruction in the constitution of the United States for a minimum of five years. ORS 336.067 requires 'special emphasis' on instruction in obedience to law, respect for the flag, and the federal and state constitutions, and "other lessons which tend to promote and develop an upright and desirable citizenry' "
Separate names with a comma.