Saturday, December 12, 2009

Is Michigan's New Smoking Ban Constitutional???

I came across two articles this morning by the same writer, J Gillman, both on the new Smoking Ban. House Bill 4377 (Prohibit allowing restaurant or private workplace smoking)

Private workplace smoking? Does this mean that I can't smoke here in my little office at home if I want to? It is where I work. Just because I don't get paid to report on my blog doesn't mean it isn't work. It takes up a good portion of my time every day. It's in my home on my PRIVATE PROPERTY. Can this new law dictate to me?

The answer is that this NEW LAW is VOID on it's face. It is out of reach of the legislators to even debate let alone legislate it. But, none the less, it will be enforced until someone decides to challenge it in court. The only way to do this is to violate it, get caught, (it's called civil disobedience) and ask for a jury trial.

Mr. Gillman's outrage is the number of Republican Legislators who voted for this very un-Constitutional Bill. He even put together a chart so all of you will know who to vote out of office. But don't stop with just the RINO Republicans, go after the Democrats who voted for this, after all, if it's un-Constitutional, it's UN-CONSTITUTIONAL. Right?

Mr. Gillman writes:

Why is it always the WRONG 5%?

The concept of private property is something the founders of this country believed in deeply. The most basic ownership being your person, yourself, your physical being. To serve that self you have ownership of other things; the clothes you wear, the tools you use, the property on which you stand.

That very basic understanding indeed, a basic agreement as provided for by our maker.

But apparently some folks didn't learn the basics. And now, we witness even more interference in the private affairs of our state's constituents, and arguably another nail in the coffin for Michigan business owners rights.

The Republicans however, will at least have held the banner as ..well "Republicans." Those who would uphold the law, protect the constitution, serve our steadfast beliefs that our founding document is the law of the land. It is unwavering and protects us against government usurpation of power, or perhaps even of our self interest. FULL STORY


Michigan Taxes Too Much
Michigan burdens its Taxpayers as well as other Michigan Issues, Satire, and Commentary

By jgillman, on December 11th, 2009

And I am not talking about the Democrats on the “YES” list.. I am talking about Republicans.. So Called Republicans.. RINO. The Dems don’t get a pass, its just they probably could care less what this conservative Republican thinks. Its enough for me to note the lack of a sense of liberty in most who carry the most appropriate logo of the Jackass for their flag bearing. FULL STORY

Now, how would one know if something passed by the legislator is un-constitutional or not. I guess you would have had to read the Michigan Constitution starting from the very beginning, when Michigan stopped being a Territory and became a State in 1835. You can find this on the Legislature web site under Historical Documents, or just click on the link below.

In convention, begun at the city of Detroit, on the second Monday of May, in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty five:


We, the PEOPLE of the territory of Michigan, as established by the Act of Congress of the Eleventh day of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and five, in conformity to the fifth article of the ordinance providing for the government of the territory of the United States, North West of the River Ohio, believing that the time has arrived when our present political condition ought to cease, and the right of self-government be asserted; and availing ourselves of that provision of the aforesaid ordinance of the congress of the United States of the thirteenth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and the acts of congress passed in accordance therewith, which entitle us to admission into the Union, upon a condition which has been fulfilled, do, by our delegates in convention assembled, mutually agree to form ourselves into a free and independent state, by the style and title of "The State of Michigan," and do ordain and establish the following constitution for the government of the same.

Are you reading this Preamble? We The People of Michigan mutually agree to form ourselves into a FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATE? And assert our RIGHT OF SELF-GOVERNMENT?

Now what most people will tell you is "I have rights". Great, what are they? Your legislators just took some of those Rights away, didn't they? Maybe not. You see, in the 1835 Constitution of Michigan, your RIGHTS are spelled out, in plain english, and no one can take these away, not matter how many times they amend our State Constitution, these Rights are set in stone.

The 1835 Michigan Bill of Rights states:

Acts void.

21. All acts of the legislature contrary to this or any other article of this Constitution shall be void.

I know, your going to tell me that you looked for this in the 1963 amended Constitution, Article I, Declaration of Rights and this clause isn't there. BUT, what is in the 1963 Declaration of Rights, (which by the way means the same thing as Bill of Rights) is this:

§ 23 Enumeration of rights not to deny others.

Sec. 23.
The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now, what does the Courts have to say about these Rights of Ours that are Self-Evident?

"As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident' — that is so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement — 'that all men are endowed' — not by edicts of Emperors, or decrees of Parliament, or acts of Congress, but 'by their Creator with certain inalienable rights' — that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime — 'and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these' — not grant them but secure them — 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'
Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 756, 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884) J. Fields concurring
"His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken away from him by due process of law and in accordance with the Constitution."
Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, 47 1905
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. " (emphasis added)
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)(Opinion, J. Jackson)
So, if Article I § I of the Michigan Constitution and Bill of Rights (both 1835 and 1963) is correct, then:

Political power.

First. All political power is inherent in the people.

And this is carried over from:

Northwest Ordinance (1787)

Section 14.

"Art. 2. The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of

… representation of the people in the legislature…"

"Art. 3. "… their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed"

The bottom line is, are you going to accept that the legislators of the state of Michigan have overstepped their authority to legislate 2009 House Bill 4377 (Prohibit allowing restaurant or private workplace smoking ):?

Or will you learn how to Nullify a UN-CONSTITUTIONAL Law and put the Politicians back in their place?

by Russ Emal at

Is it true or false that when you sit on a jury, you may vote on the verdict according to your own conscience? “True,” you say, but then why do most judges tell you that you may consider “only the facts” and that you are not to let your conscience, opinion of the law, or the motives of the defendant affect your decision?

In a trial by jury, the judge’s job is to referee the trial and provide neutral legal advice to the jury, beginning with a full and truthful explanation of a juror’s rights and responsibilities. FULL STORY


R. George Dunn said...

Wow, great Blogg!

Here is an Amen!

Jack Hoogendyk on the Smoking Ban agrees:

Rose said...

Thank You George. I know there are some subjects we disagree on, but I think over all, we agree on most things.

R. George Dunn said...

The first and foremost is our Constitution. Have you seen this group? They have established a network for vetting candidates who claim to be for small government. Their questionaire is completely constitutional and to pass, one must know the Constitution and be a Federlist. There is a murmur of it becoming the vetting branch of the tea party movement.
The name is the Independence Caucus:

Amend The said...

To respond your question on the smoking ban Rose-the short answer would be no. It is not constitutional. It is an invasion of big government that is imposing its will on private business owners RIGHT to chose, and imposing the will of the state (health care and pharmaceutical industries who have made BILLIONS) on the people. Economics and my own eyes have proven, to me, theses bans do not work. I only have to travel to Ohio or Ontario to see the effects. (Windsor, ON's bars were crushed by it). The state has taken it being a public health issue right out of the equation (casinos exempt), so what is it then. It certainly can't be the will of the people, we weren't asked. Great blog by the way. :-)

Rose said...

Thank you for taking the time to comment Amend. I think that we all need to send Lansing a message "INSTRUCTING" them to repeal and make void what they don't have the authority to dictate.

Big Gay Al said...

I don't smoke. Never have. But, I think this law is wrong. It's just one more intrusion into our lives that the government thinks they have a right to tell us how to live.

However, I do think that restaurants that have separate areas for smokers and non-smokers need to work hard at keeping the non-smoking area, smoke free. Too often, I've been in a place that had very little real separation between the 2 areas.

In any event, I hope this law gets repealed, or else there's no telling how far the gov't will go, when it comes to intruding on our private lives.