Pat, I am OK. You are OK.
Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law
1585 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02138
Re: The TOOOOOOOO often overlooked last clause of the First Amendment.
Dear Professor Bowie,
The assertion of "American[1] Exceptionalism" is corrupting the United States. In 1776 when Thomas Jefferson asserted:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'
for the "Declaration of the thirteen united States" they were exceptional in a world dominated by hereditary monarchies.
They risked their fortunes and invested 25,000 American military deaths to that end. In 1789 they finalized the Constitution for the United States to sustain that end.
Since then they have been failing MISERABLY: The issue of slavery was notably and too conveniently IGNORED.
For the last 250 years "We the People" have been claiming exceptionalism. But since the end of the revolutionary war, it has been failing at every turn. The too many "banana republics" that attempted to, word for word, utilize the 4,000 words of the Constitution for the United States, with its unfettered "Commander in Chief of the Army" are proof.
Today 237 years after we established the Constitution for the United States, we are just learning in Venezuela of the flaw that ruined most if not all the banana republics.
The United States has been exceptional for 250 years, but not because of the founders, not because of the people, not because of the constitution, not because of the bright shining city on the hill.
The United States is exceptional in the world today, because We the People are the spoiled rich kids that inherited THE HILL, the last undeveloped fertile-crescent-like[2] continent on the planet.
The TOOOOOOOO often overlooked last clause of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The last clause of the First Amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
When the founding fathers created the last clause of the First Amendment they knew that it would be needed and they KNEW that it would need to be constitutionally protected! That held fast, for almost 100 years, through the Civil war. And then TWO despotic UNCONSTITUTIONAL judge-made-laws within 3 years:
Ø Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (decided April 15, 1869) sophistry in response to the criminal liability in The Civil Rights Act of 1866 passed in to law April 9, 1866 and then..
Ø Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (decided April 8, 1872) sophistry in response to civil liability in the Civil Rights Act of 1871 passed into law April 20, 1871 are the origins of unconstitutional "immunity" in the American Justice system.
Now I would have probably given the ability to make judge-made-law to James Madison (Federalist Paper #47), Alexander Hamilton (Federalist Papers #78, #79 and #81), or even John Marshall (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)). But the founding father had the good sense to NOT create the concept of judge-made-law in the 4,000 words of their of their original or the now amended Constitution of the United States.
Justice Thurgood Marshall said it best,
"To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible." Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 362 (1983)
The supreme Court's[3] sophistry[4] a.k.a. "judge-made-law" tells us, "We the People" sub silentio[5] traded the "King can do no WRONG" for the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[6] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor[7], the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[8], the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant, conscientiously stupid actions of "all persons (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[9] the actions of federal, state, local, and regional legislators[10] and now PRESIDENTS[11] acting under color of law to render absolute corruption of inalienable constitutional rights.
If there is anything further, please let me know.
"Time is of the essence"
Thank you in advance.
David G. Jeep
enlcosure
cc: www.DGJeep.com
file
[1] It should be noted that the Constitution for the United States use the proper name "United States" 52 times, only twice does it included the optional descriptive prepositional phrase "of America." Trump asserts he wants to "make America great again" (M.A.G.A.). There are too many ethnically America brown skinned people in the American Hemisphere for Donald Trump's taste.
[2] The Fertile Crescent and nearby areas had 32 species of (original) grains growing wild…. The Fertile Crescent was similarly blessed with a greater variety of edible wild legumes… All of the wild ancestors of the world's most important domestic animals -- sheep, goat, cow, pig and horse -- originated in the Fertile Crescent … Civilization arose in the Fertile Crescent…" "GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL The Fates of Human Societies" By Jared Diamond
[3] Article III of the US Constitution posits a "supreme Court" among the many courts NOT a Supreme Court outside of the many. ALL Article III Judicial power REQUIRES the assent of an instant jury.
[4] Sophistry(?) is a logical fallacy that involves the use of deceptive, superficial arguments.
[5] sub silentio is a Latin phrase that means "under silence" or "in silence". It's often used in legal contexts to describe something that's implied but not explicitly stated. For example, a court might overrule a case's holding sub silentio without explicitly stating that it's doing so. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 362
[6] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)
[7] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
[8] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[9] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[10] Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138
Thanks in advance...
"Agere sequitur esse" ('action follows being')
David G. Jeep, Federal Inmate #36072-044 (formerly)
www.DGJeep.com - Dave@DGJeep.com - David.G.Jeep@Gmail.com
Mobile (314) 514-5228 leave message
David G. Jeep
1531 Pine St Apt #512
St. Louis, MO 63103-2548
No comments:
Post a Comment