Posted on 09/20/2003 4:34:53 PM PDT by JOHN W K
American Constitutional Research Service
State officials flout Constitution and S.C.
Well it’s finally happened! The peoples’ employees at Florida’s Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco have engaged in what amounts to be conspiracy, extortion, and a violation of Sec. 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law. See: Landlords Extinguish Smoke-Friendly Restaurant But don’t mention that to Division spokeswoman Meg Shannon, who said "It was a simple housekeeping matter" when the Division threatened a truck stop plaza co-owner, Tony Singh, with a revocation of its beer and wine license___ not because he was breaking the law in his convenience store located within the plaza, but because the owners of Grandma’s Kitchen, who is a tenant of Tony Singh and rents space within the plaza, refused to stop customers from smoking within their business establishment and comply with Florida‘s smoking ban adopted by a voter initiative titled “Amendment 6”.
Florida’s Department of Health cited the owners of Grandma’s Kitchen in July for violating the ban, giving them 30 days to comply. But the owners, a patriotic couple, refused to comply with the threat and so, state enforcers, perhaps because a constitutional challenge was being prepare to fight the smoking ban and citation in court, decided to extort their landlord into evicting Grandma’s Kitchen from the plaza instead of taking legal action against the owners of Grandma’s Kitchen via our legal system, which would have resulted in the state having to defend the states authority to enforce a statewide smoking ban adopted by voter initiative!
Talk about tyrants in government…now they have even found a way to deny one’s day in court to those accused.
The truth of the matter is, this case is not about smoking as such, but rather, the very structure of our system of government; it is about the constitutional legitimacy of regulation of individual liberty and privately owned businesses and property by a factious group of voters!
The truth is, contrary to what most American people may think, the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly addressed attempts by voters attempting to use their vote to alter fundamental and constitutionally protected rights of others. In such cases, the high Court has repeatedly struck these attempts down as being unconstitutional!
For example: the Court clearly stated:
“A citizen's constitutional rights can hardly be infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it be…” See LUCAS v. COLORADO GEN. ASSEMBLY, 377 U.S. 713 (1964)
Likewise, and only a few years ago, the Court in ROMER v. EVANS,__U.S.__(1996)affirmed that a constitutionally protected and fundamental right could not be voted away by a statewide referendum which was there referred to as “Amendment 2”.
In addition, also see ADAMS v. TANNER , 244 U.S. 590 (1917), striking down a voter initiative affecting a privately owned business because it unduly restricted individual liberty, and,
See TRUAX v. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33 (1915) involving the regulation of business in Arizona by voter initiative which was struck down because of its “invalidity under the 14th Amendment!”
In spite of what the Court has repeatedly held regarding voter initiatives which attempt to infringe upon fundamental and constitutionally protected rights of individuals, our folks over at Florida’s Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco seem to be ignoring the Courts mandate and have engaged in a conspiracy and extortion to carry out a depravation of rights under color of law…the rights deprived are those associated with property ownership, liberty, and the federal guarantee to a “Republican Form of Government.”
If indeed there is to be regulation of privately owned property and the liberty of individuals, for “the health and safety of the people,” that regulation, by our federal Constitution, is forbidden to be consummated, approved and invoked via a factious group of voters, which Article 4, Section 4 of the federal Constitution was specifically intended to prevent and is documented as such in Federalist Paper No. 10!
It is a known fact that socialists, and others who hate individual liberty and the owning of property and businesses by individuals, have always loved direct democracy by which it allows them to “legally” vote away their neighbors rights associated with property ownership, and even vote away the property itself if enough votes can be mustered.
But in our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government”, the evil nature of direct democracy has been addressed by the Founding Fathers by the protection afforded in Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a factious group of voters to alter or abridge rights associated with property ownership and other unalienable rights___ rights which Meg Shannon, believes may be eliminated as a “… a simple housekeeping matter…”
John William Kurowski, Founder
American Constitutional Research Service
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness."___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas
[Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.