My E-mail to calnra:
CAREFUL analysis of my contentions by objective and unbiased Constitutional scholars and legal experts will bear them out. Argument to the contrary is as meaningless, and revealing, as "It depends on what your definition of 'IS' is". No amount of weaseling and distortion can change fact, regardless of the wishes and fantasies of the arguer.
Here are my comments:
The United States Constitution IS the supreme "Law of the Land" including California. In it's Enabling Act, by which it was admitted into the Union , it agreed to accept the U.S. Constitution as it's own, and to honor and abide by it.
Accordingly, as in any other state, violations in which not withstanding , no state law which is in conflict with it is valid, nor is it of any legal standing in any court of law. Enforcement of any law in violation of the Constitution, including of course , the Bill of rights, especially by threat of violence, judicial or financial sanction is a criminal offense "res ipsa loquitur". Further, such enforcement compounds the seriousness of such violation of the Constitution, which is by definition, subversion of it, this an illegal act in and of itself.
Such blatant and overt subversion of the Constitution can be legally construed as treason, in light of the rationalization that subversion of the Constitution is tantamount to overthrowing the legally constituted government by breach of contract, which is exactly what the Constitution is; a contract between the Federal Government and the admitted states of the Union. Breach of contract by either party, according to law, invalidates the contract, hence dissolves the Union. Such act as violates the Constitution, and as a result , legally dissolves the Union can only be legally construed as overthrowing the government of the United states by dissolution. Any and All participants of such action can legally, according to law, be considered as conspirators in treason, and prosecuted as such. This may seem tenuous initially, and our arrogant elected officials may scoff, but these arguments are rational , and legally justifiable, absent federal court case precedent, which can also be declared invalid if in contravention to the Constitution. In other words, disdain of this position can be exceedingly precarious for any and every elected and appointed official, fraught with the most serious of consequences.
Elected officials take an oath of office. Part of that oath is to uphold and defend the Constitution. That includes bearing the responsibility for appointed officials who may violate the law in performance of their duties , or privately, so-called "laws" prohibiting prosecution of "officials in performance of their duties" notwithstanding. In complicity, whether willingly or knowingly or not, such violation by appointed officials is also borne by their appointing elected officials who have accordingly violated their oath of office, invalidating any such office held. Thus any illegal action they or their appointees initiate while illegally holding office is in the eyes of the law, a crime, and they are subject to prosecution . Since most politicians are law school graduates, whether members of the Bar or not, and most appointed supervisory personnel are highly educated , they are legally considered "professionals", and may be held personally responsible for violation of any laws. Further, it is an accepted rule of law, no matter how ludicrous, that "ignorance of the law is no defense ". In crimes perpetrated by officeholders, it is not necessary to prove intent to succeed in prosecution. Mere violation of the law, especially by someone who SHOULD know better, by perversion or subversion of the charged responsibility of such office is sufficient to obtain a guilty verdict.
Careful study of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers , the Anti-Federalist Papers, and court cases involving the "2nd Amendment " (sic) will reveal that it's intent is to proscribe government from certain illegal attempts to deny God-given, or natural if you will, rights of every human being. It is clear to even the most strident opponent of it that the Bill of rights is exclusively addressed to government, and carefully specifies limitations on the powers delegated to it by the people. Nowhere in it is there reference to any restriction of the people, but only government. And every single right referred to in it is exclusively reserved for the individual, not collectively. Court cases have already confirmed this unquestionably , and analysis of cases tried will bear this out irrefutably. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there a qualifier. No justification for exception to it is provided regardless of any attempted rhetoric alleging necessity "for the better good", "for safety", "for the children, or any of the other emotional excuses already used to subvert it in furtherance of special interest groups, and/or self-appointed intellectual elitist arbiters of "what;s right", or "what we need". The fact is that note of need or justification of exemption "To save even one life" is conspicuously absent , despite the misrepresentation by corrupt politicians currying favor with the uninformed and undereducated citizens in desperate scouring for votes . THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS SUBJECT TO NEITHER RE-DEFINITION NOR NEGOTIATION . Further, an "Amendment" in conflict with the core and well spelled out intentions of the Founding Fathers regarding the constitution, is invalid and of no legal standing, argument to the contrary notwithstanding.
Additionally, but separately, the "militia" clause of the "2nd Amendment" (sic) has already been legally declared to be NOT a reference to an organized state militia, but rather to every able bodied male, and by inference, female. So the defense that the National Guard, which by the way is funded and managed by the Federal government, and subject to call-up by it, cannot legally be considered "the militia" in Constitutional terms.The "militia " is therefore irrefutably each and every individual citizen, NOT any formal organization, whether federal, state or local controlled. As such, they are required by law to provide their own (militarily suitable) arms and muster in defense of the Union, which is established by the Constitution , and therefore an integral part of it, against enemies from without and within. This includes by definition anyone who would dissolve the Union by breach of contract through violation of the Constitution. Case study of this precedental decision is already carried in legal journals in several cases, including ironically, Miller V U.S.
In view of this, and in summation, no new laws may legally be passed "INFRINGING " (look it up!) on the Right To Keep an Bear Arms. Further, existing "laws " that violate this provision of our government must immediately be declared unconstitutional, and these invalidated formally in accordance with the intent and specific wording and terminology of the United States Constitution . Refusal to do so, and/or attempts to resist, dismiss, or evade such responsibility also invalidates the government of the state of California, rendering it a non-entity, and of no legal standing. Absent the immediate conformance with this requirement of law, the state of California has no more legal authority than any man who declares himself "King of California, for words of no legal substance have no legal standing.
In observance of the Law of the Land, and the Enabling Act for admittance of the state of California into the Union, the legislature has no choice but to immediately declare unconstitutional and rescind ALL so-called "laws" referring to weapons of any kind, and establish it's pre-emption over any other governmental agency or political subdivision within the state in this matter. Failure to do so invalidates all government inside the boundaries of the state of California, and deprives the citizenry of the state of the benefits and protection that the state is by intent, obligated to provide, and constitutes rejection of it's responsibility, and accordingly , it's authority. The end result is legal anarchy inside the state of California , and possibly dissolution of the federal government and it's validity and standing.
Now, the legislature has a choice. Either conform to the Constitution, the Law of the Land, or admit to it's dissolution. Such dissolution will leave the citizenry no choice but to temporarily declare an ad hoc government, in which ALL "officials" at every level within the state may be charged with treason, and prosecuted accordingly by such ad hoc government, until a new LEGAL government may be established BY THE PEOPLE, and a rule of law consistent with the Constitution of the United States of America may be enacted.
Careful study of court cases from the time of the Civil Rights movement will bear out many points of this proposition, and will leave no doubt as to it's validity and application to this issue, as will careful analysis and evaluation of other judicial cases and their decision and dispositions similar in nature and relevant to the issue. The legislature of the State of California should be, and needs to be made aware of these facts, even if only to put them on notice that there ARE remedies to their illegal usurpation of power and violation of the Constitution.
George
StarPD
"Molon labe"
----- Original Message ----- From: "calnra" <calnra-owner@listbot.com> To: "List Member" <StarPD@uswest.net> Sent: February 26, 2000 8:59 AM Subject: SB-23/CA-DOJ Arguments pt.1
> calnra - http://www.calnra.org
>
> Folks,
> Here is one mans comment about the Department of Justice's proposed
> regulations for Sb-23. The first hearing has already taken place in
> Sacramento. The last hearing will take place starting at 8:00 am on Monday
> Feb 28 , 300 S Spring Street in downtown L.A. (1/2 mile south of U.S.
> 101). Maybe its time to play hooky from work ?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You want it you get it, just forgive the length of the email. Copy it
> out into your word processor program and go to town in whatever way you see
> fit.
> I'm also thinking that, since I live here in Sacramento, I may invite
> people to send their own arguments and/or notes of support to mine as
> email,
> and I can print out the whole mess and hand-carry that in on Monday. What
> do
> you think? It could save postage (use for 3 more copies of the petition)
> and
> all but eliminates the time crunch many may be feeling.
> OK, here goes: (Snip)