Dave Miner
Re: * State vs. federal: Whose law prevails?
Tue Aug 26 00:08:15 2003
64.140.159.226

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: * State vs. federal: Whose law prevails?
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:23:26 -0400
From: "Dave Miner" To: "APFN" APFN@apfn.org

Thank you for the article you forwarded, State vs federal law. It was well-written, and clearly stated the author's opinions and views.

But it was like so many other excellent Patriot articles that also clearly stated the authors' opinions and views.

First, these articles overlook the fact that to win against these renegade judges, YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST be able to quote US Supreme Court findings that agree with the Patriot views.

Second, there are very few attorneys that would willingly press Constitutional points because they all know they will face additional resistance the next time they are before that same judge. Few attorneys are beneficial in our fight against renegade judges.

But there are some excellent cases and a very few excellent attorneys to use as ammunition to win against these legal renegades.

I would like to submit an article I recently completed that addresses these issues, and provides specific legal ammunition to fight and win these legal battles.

Please feel free to distribute a link to the attached article, which sits on my website.

http://www.FreedomSite.net/fedjuris.htm

Yours in Freedom,

Dave Miner
http://www.FreedomSite.net
------------------------------

Federal Jurisdiction

What Powers does the Federal Government have within the Several States?

By David L. Miner





Jurisdiction – A government’s general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory. [Black’s law Dictionary, Second pocket Edition]

The concept of jurisdiction is often one involving great confusion on the part of the American people. But it is always a matter of presumption on the part of the federal government. Meaning, in today’s America, that Congress and the President make the assumption that they have the jurisdiction to do what they want when they want within the several States. No thought is given to the Constitution and the limitations it places on the central government because any discussion of these limitations would reduce or eliminate the power circles created by these offices and the people in them. In other words, the federal government is committed to continuing its pursuit of more and more power, regardless of the Constitution.

In this document, we will address the concept of jurisdiction and the limits implied and stated by that concept. We will discuss the US Supreme Court’s determinations as they relate to Constitutional limitations. We will also address what We The People can do.

To properly understand jurisdiction, we must first properly understand the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution was a contract created between the States and the People. Because of the near-totalitarian controls over the "colonies" that had just been overthrown in the Revolution, both the People and their leaders were very concerned about the nature of this new central government and what its limits should be. So the people and their leaders, both were Parties to this contract, were concerned about two primary problems. First, both Parties were concerned about giving up or losing certain rights and powers that each currently possessed. Second, both Parties were concerned about the central government remaining under control and not becoming so powerful that it saw itself as being in control of the People or the States. In other words, both the People and the States were very concerned that the central government would be granted only certain powers, and that both the People and the States would be able to retain their liberty and their sovereignty.

These concerns were written into a contract that seemed to protect the rights and powers of the States and the People, while at the same time delegated certain powers to a central government. That contract created the central government. It was called the Constitution for the United States.

This Constitution gave no rights to anyone – no rights were granted to the States, to the People and especially not to the central government. All rights were viewed as being given to the People by the Creator, so the People didn’t need the central government to grant them anything. Further, since the States existed as sovereign entities before the Constitution was written, the central government created by that Constitution could not grant anything to the States.

The Constitution did, on the other hand, grant certain responsibilities to the central government. These responsibilities were spelled out clearly in the Sections and paragraphs of the Constitution. Further, as in all contract law, it was clearly understood by all involved that the Constitution delegated to the central government only those powers that were specifically listed. This legal doctrine was spelled out more clearly when the States and the People voted to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. The Tenth Article in the Bill of Rights specifically clarified that any power not explicitly granted to the central government was explicitly withheld from the central government.

This, the Founding Fathers hoped, rendered clear and immutable the issue of federal jurisdiction. Alas, it did not. But we digress.

When the Constitution granted powers and responsibilities to the central government, jurisdiction over those issues was also granted. For example, Article One of the Constitution defined, described and limited the Congress. There is a long list of specific responsibilities assigned to the Congress, and then there is a specific clause at the end of Article One that stated:

"…And to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof." (Article I, Section 8, last paragraph of that Section)

So Congress is defined, described, assigned responsibilities, and then given the authority to pass any laws necessary to carrying out its responsibilities. This seems simple enough, right?

Yet a careful reading of the Constitution would show that there is absolutely no responsibility given to Congress that required the Congress to operate within the Several States. Let me repeat that. Article I Section 8 lists all the responsibilities given to Congress, and absolutely no responsibilities delegated to Congress required them to operate within the States, or gave it power that would penetrate the States. The obvious exception to the above statement is the issue that Congress uses to usurp power and encroach into the States. Let’s talk about that exception.

Actually, there are two exceptions to the limits placed on Congress. The first exception gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce between the States.

The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes…" Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
MORE HERE:
http://www.freedomsite.net/fedjuris.htm