How to Arrest a State Legislature in 6 Easy Steps

Self ^ | 27APR11 | Self

[OneWingedShark]

How to Arrest a State Legislature in 6 Easy Steps

1. First, read your State Constitution; you’ll find out a lot about how your State is supposed to work… like the valid method for revising or amending that State’s Constitution.
2. Next, look up a few state statutes which contradict what is found in your Constitution; gun laws are a very fertile area for finding these contradictions, though they are by no means exclusive. (If your State’s Constitution has a Bill of Rights, that is also a good place to look as they are most often written in absolute terms.)
   Example:
   New Mexico State Constitution, Article 2, Section 11 [Freedom of religion.]
   Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.
3. Once you have found a law which is contrary to the State Constitution, test it to see if it is actively enforced, this is required because of the law cited in the next step; you may do this by actively defying the law, or by raising the question to law enforcement officials.
           Be on the lookout for phrases like “state statutes can restrict what the Constitution says” and similarly phrased statements; that means you’ve hit pay-dirt.
4. Now that you have found a state statute which will be upheld by armed people, we look at the US Code, specifically Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, § 241; it reads as follows:
   If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
    
   If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
    
   They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
   a. Note that it says if two or more persons, this is utterly unqualified and must therefore include a legislature.
   b. Note also that the persons charged with upholding this state statute are armed and will routinely intimidate people (why do people get nervous when a police car follows them for a conspicuous distance, it is simply anticipation of this intimidation).
   c. The passage of any law which “restricts” some right guaranteed in the State Constitution is, by definition, the oppression of that right.
5. Now here you might be saying “Wait a second! That section 241 deals with the United States Constitution, not State Constitutions!” and you are right, except that there is a portion of the United States Constitution which is being violated:
   a. The Fourteenth Amendment, the first section reads:
   All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
   i. The relevant part says: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
   ii. Any law which alters a state Constitution, or how that State Constitution is applied, prior to officially amending/revising the State Constitution is violating the due process of the law.
   b. Example:
   South Dakota State Constitution, Article 6, Sec. 24. – Right to bear arms.
   The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

   Violations:
   i. SDCL 23-7-44 – Possession of pistols by minors prohibited.
   ii. SDCL 22-14-9 – Carrying pistol or revolver without a permit.
   iii. SDCL 22-14-23 – Possession in county courthouse.
   

6. Find police officers and a prosecutor willing to uphold the Constitution.

[OneWingedShark]

What'd you think?

[OneWingedShark]

I thought you guys might like to read it.
Sorry for the formatting, it’s poorer than I would have liked.

[Gil4]

You lost me on step 6.

Actually, you lost me before that. “If two or more persons conspire to injure, etc.,... in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” That sounds like it would have to a right secured in the U.S. Constitution or a federal law to be covered by this provision.

Armchair lawyering usually turns out poorly, which is partially a condemnation of our bloated system and partially evidence that people often see what they want to see in the law. (I’m guilty too.)

But really, step 6 is a show-stopper.

[YHAOS]

"Find police officers and a prosecutor willing to uphold the Constitution."

Good luck on that one.

[knarf]

To be read later

[phockthis]

sfl

[Gilbo_3]

just needs a little polish, a few willing people with damn good lawyers on retainer, and balls...

findin the cops and prosecuters will be a stretch tho...

[Still Thinking]

Sounds easy till you get to step 6, then takes a hard turn into impossible. “Send lawyers, guns and money”. Repeat.

[OneWingedShark]

So then you’re saying that the 14th Amendment’s restriction on States from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” is not being violated when state lawmakers pass State Statutes which a) contradict the State Constitution, and b) are enforced, with full force and authority of the law, to the point where their implementation is in-practice an amendment/revision of the State Constitution?

[OneWingedShark]

The last step was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek/sarcastic comment on how law-abiding our “law enforcement” is.

[marktwain]

Find police officers and a prosecutor willing to uphold the Constitution.

You left out a judge. Other than that it is a wonderful example of sarcasm.

Finding police officer, prosecutors, and a judge willing to uphold the Constitution *should* be child's play. Finding exceptions to that criteria *should* be difficult.

It shows how far the cancer has eaten that the above statement is exactly reversed in practice, through the simple expedient of the MSM redefining commonly used words so that they mean precisely opposite of what was commonly understood only a few generations ago.

[Tainan]

Polish it up a bit. Maybe run it by a willing "legal" counsel or two for fine tuning. And I'd say you have a very powerful document to make available for downloading and printing out.

I can see thousands of these passed out on the steps of State legislatures and even on Capitol Hill.

Looks like it could get some real legs if done up right. Good thinkin'

[LonePalm]

This looks like a fun but ultimately fruitless exercise.

#6 it the hard one.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[Gil4]

It seems doubtful that US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, § 241 would apply to a violation of a state law or constitution.

It also seems unlikely that the 14th ammendment would change that, since the standard SCOTUS interprtation of it is “it means whatever the hell we want it to mean at any given time”** and I doubt they will want it to mean what you want it to mean.

** - Same as the rest of the Constitution

[OneWingedShark]

You hit on something that REALLY disturbs me; the USSC is the head of the most lawless of the three branches: the Judiciary.

I do not say this lightly; but consider how many judges think of themselves as god-kings and wrap themselves up in precedence, rather than what the law ACTUALLY says, expecting all lesser beings [mere mortals] to bow and swoon and revere their pronouncements as utterly infallible! {Which is laughable on its face considering how many overturnings of rulings there are...}

One of the best/worst examples is the 2005 Kelo v. New London decision. In this case the city (New London) argued that the *projected* tax-revenue [increase] of using eminent domain to seize Kelo’s property and turn it over to a private developer... and they won!

Consider the ramifications of this: the IMAGINARY “we think” is valid & satisfactory justification for the taking of someone’s property. THERE ARE NOW NO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS!

[OneWingedShark]

I can’t believe I forgot to ping you. / *Ping*

[Dead Corpse]

Better late to the party than to never be invited at all. Thanks... ;-)

[Dead Corpse]

Add in a 5aiii section. Article 6, Paragraph 2.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Judges in every State shall be bound thereby. Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

If your judge in part 6 fails to do their job, their are in violation as well.

Grand Jury may be the only other way to do this short of an armed uprising.

[OneWingedShark]

Ah, good catch!
Thank you.

[SaraJohnson]

So then you’re saying that the 14th Amendment’s restriction on States from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” is not being violated when state lawmakers pass State Statutes which a) contradict the State Constitution, and b) are enforced, with full force and authority of the law, to the point where their implementation is in-practice an amendment/revision of the State Constitution?

---

Although you are correct in the plain reading of the constitution, you would not only need a prosecutor and police who support the constitution, you would need a series of judges all the way to the Supremes who support the constitution. You don't have that by a long shot. The judges of this country are as corrupt as the “citizens of the world” who run this country.

What would you do with the corrupt judges who go to work every day with the idea that they rule the country however they want to and have progressed beyond the constitution, if based on nothing else but the unconstitutional decisions made by other judges over the decades.