Gramm-Gingrich "National Drug and Crime Emergency Act"  1990

A new bill, HR 4079, co-sponsored by Representative Newt Ginggrich and Senator Phil Gramm, would open the way for American concentration camps to be built, and thereafter permit the state to round up suspected drug users and force them to work without compensation for the state.

Further more I can prove it. Let's get started, shall we? 

<<FAIR TRIAL SECURITY> >

YOU BE THE JUDGE*

That justice may prevail this document has been filed to help people accused of breaking unconstitutional drug laws secure a fair trial. This is a plea to the good sense and faith of the of both the judge and jury in this matter, and a record for posterity. Herein follows proof that the laws in question are unConstitutional.

In fact, the jury has the power to legally nullify the law in any one particular case by simply returning a "not guilty" verdict. "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - John Jay, First Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court 1789. "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard the instructions." - U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972), and see also State of Georgia vs. Brailford, et al 3 Dall, 1, and U.S. vs. Moynihan, 417 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme saw of the land (Article VII), and any statutory law must be in total agreement with the Constitution to be valid. "NO one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16th American Jurisprudence 2nd edition, Sec 177, late 2nd, Sec 256. "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). See also Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491 and Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442

The Controlled Substances Acts (hereinafter the acts) comprise a bill of attainder in violation of Article I Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.

Congress never had the authority to enact prohibition or "drug control" statues unless they were intended to regulate interstate commerce (Article 1, Section 8, clause 3). See also Nigro vs. U.S. 276 U.S. U>S> 322 (1926). It took a Constitutional Amendment (the Eighteenth) to enact alcohol prohibition in 1920. It took a Constitutional Amendment to (the Twenty-First) to repeal the Eighteenth in 1933.

In fact, there has never been a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw drugs and there is nothing in the Constitution that would give our Federal government the power to do so. The Ninth Amendment states that the enumeration of particular Constitutional rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and the Tenth Amendment where all powers that are not delegated in the document are reserved to the states "or to the people." In Griswold v. Conn (1965) 381 U.S. 479 (and see Goldberg's concurring opinion) it is established that the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights secures our unwritten common law rights. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624 the U.S. Supreme Court held that Constitutional Rights can not be voted on.

The acts, in several instances, violate the right of all persons to equal protection of the laws - Article XIV Section 1 of the Bill of Rights. The most trenchant of these of these is that the acts enshrine into federal law the opinions of licensed professionals, i.e., the medical community, and whereas the Constitution says nothing about licenses said federal laws are invalid.

It is said to be unlawful and mala prohibita to possess, manufacture, dispense or even abandon said controlled substances except in the course of recognized and professional medical or research practice as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the basis of the consensus of views of the American medical community - 21 USC 801a, 802(8), 841, 844. This office (formerly Health, Education and Welfare) is also authorized to make grants, and enter in to contracts, for the collection and dissemination of drug abuse education material, and develop and evaluate such programs, and, acting through the National Institute of Mental Health, to serve as a focal point for the collection and dissemination of information relating to drug abuse - US PL 91-513. This substantially prejudices law enforcement philosophy, jurisprudence and legislation.

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is set aside in cases of drug possession by placing the burden of proof upon the defendant who must demonstrate medical permission - 21 USC 885, and section 259(g) of the Executive Law of the State of New York.

Criminal legislation in the field of medicine should apply only to specific instances of individual danger, and then only at the state level. The acts, on the other hand, make the subject of criminal legislation differences of opinion with the consensus of opinion with the American medical community. The acts authorize conviction irrespective of conduct, loss of self-control or finding of scienter endangering or threatening to the public health, safety or morals, and welfare.

Another violation of the right to equal protection is the legal standing of people charged with breaking the law that regulate alcohol and tobacco products. Those whose charges involve Controlled Substances, cultivation of marijuana for personal use, or sale between consenting adults without complaintants, for example, are dealt with much more harshly and severely than merchants who illegally sell tobacco (the number one killer drug) to minors, and alcohol related violations of motor vehicle law.

Another instance where the acts violate equal protection is that the acts, as applied, are racist.

United States Public Law 97-280 "Year of the Bible - Designation" re-affirms the scriptural basis of the of our laws and culture. Many of our common law rights extend back to the Bible. For example in Genesis 1:29 GOD grants us every herb bearing seed.

Provision for the protection of human rights is also made in the Charter of the United Nations; the Chapter I Article 1 (1) respects "the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..." Article 1 (3) promotes the fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion." Article 19 promotes the free exchange of ideas and information. Further the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that participation in the cultural life of the community is a right.

Drug control treaties can not compel the United States to violate the Constitution - -Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 at p. 17 that the U.S. Supreme Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution over a treaty.

While it is clear to some people that the War on Drugs violates Constitutional and human rights, the view of those who are vested with the power to make laws and interpret rights seems to be a foregone conclusion that the drug laws are Constitutional and do not violate those rights. To even bring the topic of rights may harden the resolve of lawmakers and judges because it implies that they have failed to understand the true meaning of the Constitution. I pray that the judge recognizes that I know what risk this argument involves. I pray the jury does too and that they courageously adhere to the natural law of justice - tempered perhaps by the radiant glow of a little kindness, understanding or mercy.

(stamped)   "State of New York County of Albany Clerk's Office.

Office of Albany County Clerk
May 13 1 32 PM '94

I, Thomas G. CLINIGAN, Clerk of the said County, and also Clerk of the Supreme and County Courts, being Courts of Record held therein, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the annexed copy of the Fair Trial Security with the original thereof filed in this office on the 13th day of May, 1994 and that the same is a correct transcript therefrom, and of the whole of the said original. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my name and affixed my official seal, this 13th day of May 1994"