Keeping an eye on Congress

FrontMike Lee Christmas Card 20100001

InsideInside0001

I think somebody loves the founding documents a little too much. If you can’t read the text, it says:

Merry Christmas

May the blessings of this season include the promotion of liberty,

the protection of life, and the pursuit of happiness.

Advertisements

Comments on: "Senator-Elect Mike Lee’s Christmas Card" (1)

  1. Michael Hernan said:

    Senator Mike lee,
    Dear Sir, your post election speech had me convinved. having carried a banner for DDE in his .52 Phoenix Union High School appearance My enthusiasm was relativiely unsohisticated, but I’ve had no regrets.

    Your talk could have been th result of reading my constitutional mind and for thios reson alone I have to say something that I thought was impossible for me to declare. “You, Senator Lee, arer my main and only conmstitutional man and I for one will be ever present to provide all I ahve to offer, which is pretty much restricted to advice, free and unsolicted.

    May I offer this brief description of massive constitutional viol;ations of specific sonstitutional clauses. Art. 1 Section 9.3 and 10.1 both manmdate that neither Congress or the states shall pass any bill of attainder. To my undersatanding a bill of attainder is a law that targets an identifiable group for punishment without benefit of a trial. People possessing of consuming any controlled substance is the identifiable group where mere membershipm targets the idl for punishment without benefit of a trial.
    The law is cloaked in the form of a compelling state interest that is measured by looking at whether the measn slought to protect the public satisfies furthering the compelling state interest that with rfespect to the war on drugs is complete prohibition from consuming controlled substances.

    The compelling state interest has effectively replaced any concept of compelling constitutional interest.

    Art Vi provides in part that all state and US judges, legislators and public officers “shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this constitution”. This mandate is much more than extracting ‘promises to support the constitutiona’. The constitution mandates a 24/7 duty to support the constitution which is not subject to variation pursuant to a judge’s ‘discretion’ or similar silliness. The mandate of duty is meaningless unless there is some provision to manage violations of the duty. For US judges, supreme and lesser judges “shall hold their office during good behavior;” So much for the fiction that US judges are appointed for life. As the paradigm of judicial review is locked into the ‘compelling state interest’ this state of affairs needs serious adjusting.

    From your speech that convinced me to dsesignate you as that single individual that I have exclusively vested power to govern me pursuant to constitutional principles of government where marbury is a good description, flawless as much as I can tell.

    This massive divergeance from Constitutional Principles of Government is cloaked in the so-called “compelling state interest” where the harm sought to be protected against is validated on whether the means used to satisfy the compelling state interest.

    I am not in your cockpit and I cannot tell or even hint what you should do with respect to this “alert”, but something must be done.

    You cannot fail me or your duty to which you are bound. I do not expect complete agreement re constitutional matters but we both know what is common bullshit and what is good bullshit. Honesty will, in my humble opinion drive you in the correct path. The constitution is to easy to read and understand and my mother, having taught me to read to such a level that I do not require a Supreme Court panel to tell me what the words of the Constitution mean , it is a matter of res ipsa loquitor.

    Sincerely,
    Michael Hernan

    BTW I have a Petition for writ of habeas Corpus now in a state of an applied special appeal where the petition challenges the constituional suffciiency of the state and US controlled substance laws – Hernan v Arizona Court of Appeals Division I, no case number assigned to date.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: