Thursday, October 23, 2008

Michigan violates law

Here are two cases that explain the purpose of Government. In the first one, City of Dallas v. Mitchell, it talks about how the Constitution only protects the God Given Rights of the people. The only restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen are for the preservation of public health, safety, and morals.

So how is it that my not willingly volunteering to give the state of Michigan my Social Security Number on my Drivers License pose any threat to public health, safety, or morals?

After all, I am 58 years old. My children are grown and on their own. Being well past child bearing years it isn't likely that I will ever be a dead beat parent that needs to be hunted down for child support.

I did try to renew my drivers license this past April by mail. I received a letter back from Anne Corgan, Director Legal and Regulatory Services Administration, Michigan Department of State. Here's what she said in part.

"As you may know, the Department of State filed a lawsuit challenging the federal law that requires the Department (notice what she is saying, requires the Department) to collect social security numbers on dirver's license applications. Unfortunaltely, the United States District Court dismissed our complaint. Therefore, the Department does not have a choice in this matter. If we do not collect social security numbers, the State will lose nearly $1 billion in federal child support collection money."

So, rather then only demanding that all child support payees provide their number, the state decides every person must provide despite federal privacy laws.

5 USCS §552a

Disclosure of social scurity number. Act Dec. 31, 1974, P. L. 93-579, §7, 88 Stat. 1909, provided:

"(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security number.

So, the state's refusal to renew my state drivers license is based on the Federal funding. It was the state that entered into this contract, not me. The state of Michigan, Terri Land our Secretary of state, and our state Legislators along with the Governor are now breaking one Federal Law in order to collect Federal Funding from another Federal Law. To me this constitutes a violation of their oath of office.

City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, 945-46 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1922):

“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 125 (1866):

“This nation, as experience has proved, cannot always remain at peace, and has no right to expect that it will always have wise and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution.Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if this right is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. If our fathers had failed to provide for just such a contingency, they would have been false to the trust reposed in them. They knew — the history of the world told them — the nation they were founding, be its existence short or long, would be involved in war; how often or how long continued, human foresight could not tell; and that unlimited power, wherever lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen. For this, and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.”

No comments: