Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

For the Oklahoma legislature

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    Coby’s buddy is now a member of the OK legislature. After Coby showed him that OK law provides that driver’s licenses are for those using the highways in
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 2, 2007

      Coby’s buddy is now a member of the OK legislature. After Coby showed him that OK law provides that driver’s licenses are for those using the highways in commerce he told Coby that he would get him 5 minutes to speak to the legislature. If I had that same 5 minutes, here is what I might say:


      In the United States Supreme Court’s decision of Evans v. Gore Chief Justice Taney’s response to a new statute that taxed federal judges salaries is recounted:


      [37]     No attempt was made to tax the compensation of federal judges prior to 1862. A statute of that year, c. 119, § 86, 12 Stat. 472, with its amendments, subjected the salaries of all civil officers of the United States to an income tax of three per cent. and was construed by the revenue officers as including the compensation of the President and the judges. Chief Justice Taney, the head of the judiciary, wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury a letter of protest (157 U.S. 701), based on the prohibition we are considering, and in the course of the letter said:


      [38]     "The act in question, as you interpret it, diminishes the compensation of every judge three per cent, and if it can be diminished to that extent by the name of a tax, it may in the same way be reduced from time to time at the pleasure of the legislature.


      [39]     "The Judiciary is one of the three great departments of the government, created and established by the Constitution. Its duties and powers are specifically set forth, and are of a character that requires it to be perfectly independent of the two other departments, and in order to place it beyond the reach and above even the suspicion of any such influence, the power to reduce their compensation is expressly withheld from Congress, and excepted from their powers of legislation.


      [40]     "Language could not be more plain than that used in the Constitution. It is moreover one of its most important and essential provisions. For the articles which limit the powers of the legislative and executive branches of the government, and those which provide safeguards for the protection of the citizen in his person and property, would be of little value without a judiciary to uphold and maintain them, which was free from every influence, direct or indirect, that might by possibility in times of political excitement warp their judgments.


      [41]     "Upon these grounds I regard an act of Congress retaining in the Treasury a portion of the compensation of the judges, as unconstitutional and void."


      [42]     The collection of the tax proceeded, and, at the suggestion of the Chief Justice, this court ordered his protest spread on its records. In 1869 the Secretary of the Treasury referred the question to the Attorney General (Judge Hoar) and that officer rendered an opinion in substantial accord with Chief Justice Taney's protest, and also advised that the tax on the President's compensation was likewise invalid. 13 Ops. Atty. Gen. 161. The tax on the compensation of the President and the judges was then discontinued, and the amounts theretofore collected were all refunded, -- a part through administrative channels and a part through the action of the Court of Claims and ensuing appropriations by Congress. Wayne v. United States , 26 Ct. Clms. 274; c. 311, 27 Stat. 306. Thus the Secretary of the Treasury, the accounting officers, the Court of Claims and Congress accepted and gave effect to the view expressed by the Attorney General. In the Income Tax Act of 1894, c. 349, § 27, et seq., 28 Stat. 509, nothing was said about the compensation of the judges; but Mr. Justice Field regarded it as included and gave that as one reason for joining in the decision holding the act unconstitutional.


      The Supreme Court decision of New York Times v. Sullivan recounts President Jefferson’s reaction to an act passed during those times called the “Sedition Act;” he said in a letter:


      "I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the sedition law, because I considered, and now consider, that law to be a nullity, as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image."


      What I am showing you here are two examples where the majority of legislatures failed to notice that the law they passed was unconstitutional.


      Chief Justice Taney wrote in Scott v. Sandford, a case overturned by the 13th & 14th Amendment, respecting your powers as legislatures:


      [273]    But the power of Congress over the person or property of a citizen can never be a mere discretionary power under our Constitution and form of Government. The powers of the Government and the rights and privileges of the citizen are regulated and plainly defined by the Constitution itself. And when the Territory becomes a part of the United States , the Federal Government enters into possession in the character impressed upon it by those who created it. It enters upon it with its powers over the citizen strictly defined, and limited by the Constitution, from which it derives its own existence and by virtue of which alone it continues to exist and act as a Government and sovereignty. It has no power of any kind beyond it, and it cannot, when it enters a Territory of the United States , put off its character and assume discretionary or despotic powers which the Constitution has denied to it. It cannot create for itself a new character separated from the citizens of the United States and the duties it owes them under the provisions of the Constitution. The Territory being a part of the United States , the Government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out, and the Federal Government can exercise no power over his person or property beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.


      [279]    The powers over person and property of which we speak are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied, and they are forbidden to exercise them. And this prohibition is not confined to the States, but the words are general, and extend to the whole territory over which the Constitution gives it power to legislate, including those portions of it remaining under Territorial Government, as well as that covered by States. It is a total absence of power everywhere within the dominion of the United States, and places the citizens of a Territory, so far as these rights are concerned, on the same footing with citizens of the States, and guards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the General Government might attempt under the plea of implied or incidental powers. And if Congress itself cannot do this -- if it is beyond the powers conferred on the Federal Government -- it will be admitted, we presume, that it could not authorize a Territorial Government to exercise them. It could confer no power on any local Government established by its authority to violate the provisions of the Constitution.


      You as legislatures have all taken oaths to uphold the federal and state constitutions. It has been said that state constitutions generally provide greater protections than the federal constitution. When Justice Taney says that the constitutions, “…guards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the General Government might attempt…” he appears to be predicting that it is very likely that you, here, as legislatures, and those who preceded you, will attempt to make inroads that erode away the people’s rights by way of the laws you make while either ignoring or being ignorant of both the constitutions and the people’s enumerated and unenumerated rights. While the Bill of Rights for Oklahoma is fairly extensive, it does not cover all of the people’s rights. Justice Arthur Goldberg put it in the famous privacy case of Griswold v. Connecticut , which involved a state statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives said about those unenumerated rights:


      The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments....


      To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment....


      Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.


      Here is what I am asking. I am asking that each and every one of you, as legislatures, upon your oaths, read the federal and state constitutions from top to bottom. Not only read them, but make them an object of your study. I am asking each of you individually, to take it upon yourselves to learn about the people’s unenumerated rights and become a vociferous defender of them just like Chief Justice Taney and President Jefferson aforementioned. I am asking you to look at the laws that have already been passed in previous sessions and evaluate them through your new found knowledge and if need be repeal them. And I am asking you to start with driver’s license laws… 


      As I see it, here is where Coby would cross over to what he has to say about drivers licenses…J

      PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c. 

      For mailing:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115,  Greeley , CO   80634  







      To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:

      From: coby wells [mailto:cbwells2004@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:51 PM
      To: legalbear7
      Subject: Re: Your best friend??




      legalbear7 < bear@... > wrote:

      Coby: What are you asking me to do? All my thoughts respecting travel
      have centered on being a Doer of the Word and the actions I have
      taken in that regard spring from that. Bear

      > OK bear this is coby .My best friend from high school is state rep
      in oklahoma over tranportation.He has agreed to meet me in two days
      at the capital to go over driver license requirment.You know I cant
      spell and are not good with words but I have got his attention and I
      need some help I know the laws I just do not have the skills to put
      it all on the table so it sounds good if you can help me all will be
      condidered good and taken care of come on please dont let this one go.
      > please coby
      > Legalbear wrote:
      > "public men, are, as it were, public property,"
      and "discussion cannot be denied and the right, as well as the duty,
      of criticism must not be stifled." Beauharnais v. Illinois , 343 U.S.
      250, 263-264, and n. 18
      > So, since they are public property and we want to see their oath
      in case we want to criticize it, they should show it to us. J We
      certainly do not want to be stifled in our criticism!
      > Come to think of it, IRS agents are public property as well. Why
      should they be allowed to conceal their identities to keep us from
      criticizing them?
      > [37] The general proposition that freedom of expression upon
      public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been
      settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard, we have
      said, "was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for
      the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the
      people." Roth v. United States , 354 U.S. 476, 484. "The maintenance
      of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that
      government may be responsive to the will of the people and that
      changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to
      the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our
      constitutional system." Stromberg v. California , 283 U.S. 359,
      369. "It is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although
      not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions,"
      Bridges v. California , 314 U.S. 252, 270, and this opportunity is to
      be afforded for "vigorous advocacy" no less than "abstract
      > discussion." N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429. The
      First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand, "presupposes that right
      conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of
      tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many
      this is, and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our
      all." United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (D.C. S.
      D. N. Y. 1943). Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in
      Whitney v. California , 274 U.S. 357, 375-376, gave the principle its
      classic formulation:
      > [38] "Those who won our independence believed . . . that
      public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a
      fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the
      risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that
      order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its
      infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and
      imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds
      hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety
      lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and
      proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is
      good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public
      discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of
      force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of
      governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free
      speech and assembly should be guaranteed."
      > Earlier, in a debate in the House of Representatives, Madison had
      said: "If we advert to the nature of Republican Government, we shall
      find that the censorial power is in the people over the Government,
      and not in the Government over the people."
      > I'm finding these quotes in NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN, 84 S.
      Ct. 710, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 03/09/1964)
      > PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c.
      > For mailing: Excellence Unlimited , 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115,
      Greeley , CO 80634
      > www.irs-armory.com
      > www.irslienthumper.com
      > www.legalbears.com
      > www.legalresearchvideo.com
      > www.cantheydothat.com
      > To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
      > tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > ---------------------------------
      > Never miss an email again!
      > Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it



      Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.