Tag Archives: Article 2 Section 1 of California Constitution

Question & Answer on Federal Civil Rights Claims against State Courts, Judges, & Lawyers

Question on Facebook from the Distinguished Doctor William Todd Overcash,  M.D., in Ocala and Oklawaha, Florida:
I have a question. Who would feel safe and believe they would get a fair treatment when the Chief Judge of the Florida 5th Circuit removes members of the courts ethics committee and then assigns non qualified members and incites referral of your attorney for disbarment/sanctions 3 days after your legal team files a federal lawsuit against 7 Judges and 20 State Agencies. Be the way, the previous committee 5 months earlier had cleared your attorney.

Answer from a Madman who has been studying this question for 30 years:
Who would feel safe and belief he would get fair treatment when he enters a Dragon’s Cave for the purpose of reclaiming some or all of the gold the Dragon has accumulated by killing people over the years? Whenever you invade a Monster’s lair, you pretty much have to accept that you’ll only be leaving there one of two ways:

One way is carrying the Dragon’s head after decapitating him. The other way is when the Dragon throws out whatever’s left after he’s eaten. Fairness and safety are not rights afforded to Rebels who rise up in insurrections against Monsters or against Monstrous Tyranny.

The Federal Civil Rights laws are written so that you can only invoke Federal supervision over State Courts when individual rights are systematically deprived according to a system of racial discrimination. That MAY or may NOT have been Congress’ “original intent” in enacting 28 USC 1443 and 42 USC 1981 and 1985-1986, but it is how the Supreme Court of the United States and all inferior Federal (and most state) Courts have interpreted these otherwise majestic statutes: they are basically race-based “affirmative action” programs.

So, unless you are willing to take on the question of whether you are the victim of reverse racial discrimination, you cannot enter the Dragon’s lair and expect to come out in very good shape. It may as well be said publicly: RACE defines the struggle for American (and world) CIVIL RIGHTS.

That’s why “Black Lives Matter” is the pre-eminent radical movement of 2016. That’s why non-white immigration is the biggest issue in Europe and one of the biggest issues in the USA. That’s why Donald Trump has such a strong (even if possibly misguided) support among the Far Right/Alt Right “14/88” crowd.

If you think it is a monstrous thing to allocate fundamental rights according to race and only adjudicate claims based on race, then you think that U.S. Civil Rights is Monstrous, and when you attack these questions, you are entering the Monster’s Home…..

If you disagree with the current structure and allocation of Civil Rights and the powers to enforce them under U.S. and International Law, then you need to enter the Political Fray and try to change the law by engaging in and exercising whatever political processes may be available under the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. Or indeed, as Donald Trump made waives for saying earlier this week, however indirectly and obliquely, by engaging in and exercising whatever rights and political processes may be available to you under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or, perhaps Article I, Section 2 of the Texas Bill of Rights:

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

Article 2, Section 1 of the California Constitution is similar but in no way as absolutely or powerfully phrased:

SECTION 1. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

It is significant and worth noting that “protection and security” are among the purposes of government included in the California constitution but omitted from the Texas Constitution.  Providing “protection and security” has always been one of the mottos and gangster watchwords of oppressive government….

But also note that, apart from whatever may be inferred from the language of the First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, no such express and explicit “right to alter, reform, or abolish…government” is clearly articulated within the United States Constitution, or the Constitution of the State of Florida.