« Burns Oregon | Main | Private Attorney General COMMENTS on past and present U.S. Supreme Court "robes" + futility of recent speculation »

NOTICE OF INTENT: Guarantee Clause is a Justiciable Cause of Action at the Oregon Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court

(1)  People of Douglas County ex rel. Larry Saccato
petition the Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon
for review en banc:  all amendments to Oregon State's
Constitution were never deemed "Republican in Form"
by the Congress of the United States, as expressly

(2)  People of Douglas County ex rel. Larry Saccato
petition the Oregon State Supreme Court for
review of State ex rel. Smith v. Hitt, with emphasis
on the Guarantee Clause violations:  further research
indicates that all amendments to the State Constitutions
for all 50 States were never deemed "Republican in Form"
by the Congress of the United States;

(3)  steps (1) and (2) above set the stage for an appeal
to the Supreme Court of the United States, to adjudicate
and enforce the Guarantee Clause throughout all 50 States:
and but not any Federal Enclaves, Territories or Possessions:
upon appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court,
the People of the United States of America also
petition the high Court for leave to intervene in
State ex rel. Smith v. Hitt using evidence that
American governments have devolved into an
oligarchy actively suppressing basic principles
of democratic governance.
Further reading:

     Speaking through  Justice O'Connor, the Supreme Court of the
United States  ("U.S. Supreme Court") has raised without deciding
the possibility that the Guarantee Clause is justiciable and is a
constraint upon Congress' power to regulate the activities of the
several states.    See New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408,
2432-2433 (1992);  Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 463 (1991).
     These opinions  draw support  from a  powerful argument  for
utilizing  the Guarantee Clause as a judicially enforceable limit
on federal  power.   See Merritt, "The Guarantee Clause and State
Autonomy: Federalism for a Third Century," 88 Columbia Law Review
1 (1988).   The  restriction  that Citizens  of  Minnesota  state
cannot vote unless they  also declare,  under penalty of perjury,
that they are federal citizens, is a justiciable violation of the
Guarantee Clause ("4:4").  See also Supremacy Clause.
     Congress should be barred permanently from admitting any new
 states into  the Union,  and from  ignoring amendments  to  their
 constitutions,  if said constitutions exhibit such a restriction.
 Moreover, unconstitutionality dates from the moment of enactment,
 not from the first decision so branding the act.  See 16 Am. Jur.
 2d, Sec. 177, p. 568;  Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137,
 174-176 (1803);   Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966);
 Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 at 442 (1886).







Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;
Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),
Federal Civil False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.

http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved (cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)

January 30, 2016 | Permalink