Dateline Missoula March 3, 2010.
A street kid, Jacob Wilson, Age 20, currently attending the University of Montana for Sociology was out and about the bars on Higgins Street Monday evening, and came upon 3 big University sports players surrounding and harassing a smaller weaker guy. Being the good samaritan type, he immediately interposed himself in the intense situation and proceeded to talk to them for 45 minutes until 5 police arrived.
One of the policemen took him aside and badgered him with threatening body and voice behaviors. The kid was really scared. The policeman wanted to find out if this kid knew the identities of the participants of the situation, but the kid didn't. Then, the policeman switched tactics and because they were outside a bar, demanded that the kid take a "breathalyzer test." When the kid "no", because he hadn't had antyhing to drink, the policeman said that it was to bad "the city hadn't given him the power to write the kid a $300 ticket for refusing." But, he brightened, I can give you a ticket for Minor in Possession (M.I.P.), instead. So he gave the kid the ticket. The kid had nothing in his possession and was taken before a City Judge, where he pleaded "not guilty with Jury Trial." The judge released him on his own recognizance.
I talked to the kid yesterday and he was very upset and didn't know what he was going to do. The criminal M.I.P. offense carries a fine but no jail time, so he is S.O.L. getting a state public defender. I suggested he go to legal aid and ask for their help. I will try to keep you informed as his "case" progresses.
Dateline March 22, 2010...
The City of Missoula will take up legislation on this date to Consider an ordinance amending Missoula Municipal Code Title 10, entitled
"Vehicles and Traffic," by adding Chapter 56 entitled "Refusal to submit to alcohol
and/or drug tests" and enacting sections 10.56.010 through 10.56.030.
Passing this ordinance will allow City police to give a $300 ticket to "anyone" refusing alcohol and/or drug tests demanded by the police. This ordinance will violate Our Right to Privacy (Art. ll - Section Sec. 10, MT Const.); Our Individual Dignity (Art. ll - Section Sec. 4, MT Const.); Our Individual Dignity (Art. ll - Section Sec. 4, MT Const.); as well as other Rights Unemnumerated (Art. ll - Section Sec. 34, MT Const.).
So why is the Missoula City Council doing this instead of exploring programs to help their constituents with alcohol dependency? Alcohol is a Drug — the most commonly used and widely abused psychoactive drug in the world. It is completely legal and easily and readily available and alcohol is a disease — a chronic, progressive, fatal disease if not treated. And, Every year, more money is spent promoting the use of alcohol than any other product. So why isn't Our City Council doing more to combat the effects of alcoholism?
One answer is to look at ALL the revenue that various levels of government receive from the sale and promotion of alcohol and related products. Now, go ahead and ask yourself and ask your City Councilors, what will this new $300 ticket do to combat alcoholism? If the City Council is so concerned, why don't they just ban the sale and/or consumption of alcohol in the City? It is a Dangerous Drug after all.
As always, Think about it and I’d like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Please feel free to ask your City Councilor, County Commissioner for their stand on this important issue.
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
Showing posts with label Enumerated and Unenumerated Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Enumerated and Unenumerated Rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The Political Reality of Montana Jurisprudence in 2010.
In appealing my District Court Case DV 09-320, now before the Montana Supreme Court (DA 09-0675), I find the political reality of equal access in Montana Jurisprudence to be lacking.
I feel like Don Quixote tilting at Montana windmills. The political reality OF 2010 is that “indignant” individuals in Montana and the U.S. cannot expect or find legal Counsel for Civil complaints involving Guaranteed Fundamental Rights.
In Montana, this Catch-22 political reality is reflected in A Catch as Catch Can, or less formally, Willy Nilly Public Defender System ("the Montana Public Defender Act § 47 MCA"), defined and developed out of a necessity to defend individuals accused of crimes against the State. (Art. II - § 24. Rights of the accused. Montana Constitution). However, in common law as well as enumerated law, defending individuals is only half of our "equal protection of the laws" (see Section 4. Individual dignity. Montana Constitution) The other half is defending Our Montana Constitution and Our Fundamental Rights.
Whether political expediency, indifference, or simply a lack of understanding regarding the basic necessity of “equal access” and “equal protection” to Montana’s Court system, the 1972 Montana Constitutional Delegates couldn’t muster the needed votes to include and insure legal Counsel for ALL in Montana, especially the poor in Montana Civil Jurisprudence.
Subsequently, they stopped short by requiring that Montana ONLY provide legal Counsel for Criminal Defendants in our 1972 Constitution. They also foresaw that they could not and should not limit the possession of ONLY those Montana’s Constitutional Rights Enumerated, and that we the people recognize the possession also of “Unenumerated Rights” “(w)hich shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by the people.” (Art. II - § 34. Fundamental Rights. Montana Constitution)
From these “Unenumerated Rights” the Court has a vested self-interest in ensuring "equal access" to trained Counsel in Montana Jurisprudence for ALL the poor, yet as we see, in the instant Civil case, this is NOT the political reality to date.
There are many issues and problems that Montana Courts are not addressing and We the People of Montana, need to Insure an open, honest and forthright Court for our own Fundamental Rights Protection as well as that of our Constitution.
As always, Think about it and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Feel free to ask your elected officials.
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
I feel like Don Quixote tilting at Montana windmills. The political reality OF 2010 is that “indignant” individuals in Montana and the U.S. cannot expect or find legal Counsel for Civil complaints involving Guaranteed Fundamental Rights.
In Montana, this Catch-22 political reality is reflected in A Catch as Catch Can, or less formally, Willy Nilly Public Defender System ("the Montana Public Defender Act § 47 MCA"), defined and developed out of a necessity to defend individuals accused of crimes against the State. (Art. II - § 24. Rights of the accused. Montana Constitution). However, in common law as well as enumerated law, defending individuals is only half of our "equal protection of the laws" (see Section 4. Individual dignity. Montana Constitution) The other half is defending Our Montana Constitution and Our Fundamental Rights.
Whether political expediency, indifference, or simply a lack of understanding regarding the basic necessity of “equal access” and “equal protection” to Montana’s Court system, the 1972 Montana Constitutional Delegates couldn’t muster the needed votes to include and insure legal Counsel for ALL in Montana, especially the poor in Montana Civil Jurisprudence.
Subsequently, they stopped short by requiring that Montana ONLY provide legal Counsel for Criminal Defendants in our 1972 Constitution. They also foresaw that they could not and should not limit the possession of ONLY those Montana’s Constitutional Rights Enumerated, and that we the people recognize the possession also of “Unenumerated Rights” “(w)hich shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by the people.” (Art. II - § 34. Fundamental Rights. Montana Constitution)
From these “Unenumerated Rights” the Court has a vested self-interest in ensuring "equal access" to trained Counsel in Montana Jurisprudence for ALL the poor, yet as we see, in the instant Civil case, this is NOT the political reality to date.
There are many issues and problems that Montana Courts are not addressing and We the People of Montana, need to Insure an open, honest and forthright Court for our own Fundamental Rights Protection as well as that of our Constitution.
As always, Think about it and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Feel free to ask your elected officials.
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Re: Further on Violation of our Right to Privacy, Missoula, MT
Dear Missoula Mayor and Missoula City Council,
Under the Montana Constitution, your electorate, have a Right to Know, that their elected and employed representatives are living up to their Oaths of Office.
Consequently, below are some additional questions for you ...
By-the-Way, Please don't accept any other person's interpretation of the Montana Constitution (it is your Oath after all)...
What exactly to each of you, does your Oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of Montana mean to you?
In each of your deliberations and actions as an elected or employed representative of Missoula, do you perform an extra-ordinary duty of care, i.e. actively championing and guarding our Constitution and keeping it safe from attack or harm?
In regards to the aforementioned business license background checks in the City of Missoula, What Compelling State Interest have you shown to negate these people's Constitutional Right to Privacy (Article ll - Section 10)?
What probable cause (in each case) did you have to search these people's backgrounds (Due Process of Law & Article ll - Section 11. Searches and seizures)?
Who was involved in creating, instituting and carrying out these ongoing background checks? Who had access to this information.
Who were the people, who had to endure these infringements?
These are just a few of the questions. I have for now. Please answer them forthrightly ...
"The human race is unimportant. It is the self that must not be betrayed."
"I suppose one could say that Hitler didn't betray himself."
"You are right. He did not. But, millions of Germans did betray their selves. That was the tragedy. Not that one man had the courage to be evil. But that millions had not the courage to be good." from The Magus, John Fowles
As always, Think about it and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Please feel free to ask your City Councilor or Your City Attorney or Your City Employee (this could also apply to County or State) ...
thanks,
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
Under the Montana Constitution, your electorate, have a Right to Know, that their elected and employed representatives are living up to their Oaths of Office.
Consequently, below are some additional questions for you ...
By-the-Way, Please don't accept any other person's interpretation of the Montana Constitution (it is your Oath after all)...
What exactly to each of you, does your Oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of Montana mean to you?
In each of your deliberations and actions as an elected or employed representative of Missoula, do you perform an extra-ordinary duty of care, i.e. actively championing and guarding our Constitution and keeping it safe from attack or harm?
In regards to the aforementioned business license background checks in the City of Missoula, What Compelling State Interest have you shown to negate these people's Constitutional Right to Privacy (Article ll - Section 10)?
What probable cause (in each case) did you have to search these people's backgrounds (Due Process of Law & Article ll - Section 11. Searches and seizures)?
Who was involved in creating, instituting and carrying out these ongoing background checks? Who had access to this information.
Who were the people, who had to endure these infringements?
These are just a few of the questions. I have for now. Please answer them forthrightly ...
"The human race is unimportant. It is the self that must not be betrayed."
"I suppose one could say that Hitler didn't betray himself."
"You are right. He did not. But, millions of Germans did betray their selves. That was the tragedy. Not that one man had the courage to be evil. But that millions had not the courage to be good." from The Magus, John Fowles
As always, Think about it and I'd like to encourage your comments about this important topic. Please feel free to ask your City Councilor or Your City Attorney or Your City Employee (this could also apply to County or State) ...
thanks,
Rick Gold
Missoula, MT
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The U.S., Montana and Equal Protection under the Law
The U.S. Constitution guarantees in the 14th Amendment, Section 1 that, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And;
In Montana, our Constitution guarantees in Article ll – Section 4. Individual dignity. The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas.
So,
What exactly, does equal protection of the laws mean in and for Montana? The Montana Supreme Court has held that:
"The principal purpose of the Equal Protection Clause, Article II, Section 4, of the Montana Constitution, is to ensure that persons who are citizens are not subject to arbitrary and discriminatory state action." Davis v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 282 Mont. 233, 240, 937 P.2d 27, 31 (1997) "[A] party claiming violation of the right to equal protection must first demonstrate that the law at issue discriminates by impermissibly classifying individuals and treating them differently based on that classification. Once the classification has been identified and it has been established that members of the different classes are similarly situated, we determine the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply." State v. Ellis, 2007 MT 210, ¶ 20, 339 Mont. 14, ¶ 20, 167 P.3d 896, ¶ 20. We apply strict scrutiny to laws which affect "fundamental rights, intermediate scrutiny for laws conferred by the Montana Constitution but not found in the Declaration of Rights, or rational basis if neither strict scrutiny nor intermediate scrutiny applies." Ellis, ¶ 11.
Yet, in their three narrow applications of equal rights thus far classified, the Supreme Court of Montana, has yet to "unambiguously erase their desires" (see Judge Neill below) concerning the self-executing, self-administering and self-fulfilling Rights of the inviolability of human dignity as well as our Fundamental Rights, our Enumerated Inalienable Rights and our UnEnumerated Rights.
Montana District Judge Kenneth R. Neill was on the right track in a ruling April 15, 2009, when stated in his opinion, “assistance of counsel is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Montana constitutions.” And that a change in (Montana) state law, effective in 2006, “unambiguously erased the judge’s desires in the matter of appointing a public defender.” Read the Great Falls Tribune story here … http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009904220314
So, Judge Neill who has sworn the same oath of office as our Supreme Court Justices are required to swear before entering into office in Montana: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Montana, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity (so help me God)." Article III - Section 3, Montana Constitution
In protecting and defending, Judge Neill applied the broadest application for a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Montana constitutions by removing himself and his desires in favor of insuring a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Montana constitutions.
And so, this is the fourth (and easiest) application of an equal protection under the Law, one of a Justice sworn to support, protect and defend the constitution removing oneself and ones desires in favor of insuring a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Montana constitutions.
Think about it ….As always, please let me have your comments on this important topic, thanks!
And;
In Montana, our Constitution guarantees in Article ll – Section 4. Individual dignity. The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas.
So,
What exactly, does equal protection of the laws mean in and for Montana? The Montana Supreme Court has held that:
"The principal purpose of the Equal Protection Clause, Article II, Section 4, of the Montana Constitution, is to ensure that persons who are citizens are not subject to arbitrary and discriminatory state action." Davis v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 282 Mont. 233, 240, 937 P.2d 27, 31 (1997) "[A] party claiming violation of the right to equal protection must first demonstrate that the law at issue discriminates by impermissibly classifying individuals and treating them differently based on that classification. Once the classification has been identified and it has been established that members of the different classes are similarly situated, we determine the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply." State v. Ellis, 2007 MT 210, ¶ 20, 339 Mont. 14, ¶ 20, 167 P.3d 896, ¶ 20. We apply strict scrutiny to laws which affect "fundamental rights, intermediate scrutiny for laws conferred by the Montana Constitution but not found in the Declaration of Rights, or rational basis if neither strict scrutiny nor intermediate scrutiny applies." Ellis, ¶ 11.
Yet, in their three narrow applications of equal rights thus far classified, the Supreme Court of Montana, has yet to "unambiguously erase their desires" (see Judge Neill below) concerning the self-executing, self-administering and self-fulfilling Rights of the inviolability of human dignity as well as our Fundamental Rights, our Enumerated Inalienable Rights and our UnEnumerated Rights.
Montana District Judge Kenneth R. Neill was on the right track in a ruling April 15, 2009, when stated in his opinion, “assistance of counsel is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Montana constitutions.” And that a change in (Montana) state law, effective in 2006, “unambiguously erased the judge’s desires in the matter of appointing a public defender.” Read the Great Falls Tribune story here … http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009904220314
So, Judge Neill who has sworn the same oath of office as our Supreme Court Justices are required to swear before entering into office in Montana: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Montana, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity (so help me God)." Article III - Section 3, Montana Constitution
In protecting and defending, Judge Neill applied the broadest application for a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Montana constitutions by removing himself and his desires in favor of insuring a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Montana constitutions.
And so, this is the fourth (and easiest) application of an equal protection under the Law, one of a Justice sworn to support, protect and defend the constitution removing oneself and ones desires in favor of insuring a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Montana constitutions.
Think about it ….As always, please let me have your comments on this important topic, thanks!
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Administering Right and Justice without sale, denial or dely.
In Montana's Constitution, the people of Montana are ALL guaranteed a very special set of Enumerated Rights, referred to as Inalienable. Inalienable Rights are those Rights of the citizen incapable of being repudiated, taken away or transferred to another.
Article ll - Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.
These Inalienable Rights then are self-executing, self-administering and self-fulfilling.
The people of Montana are ALL guaranteed other special sets of Enumerated Rights. They are Popular sovereignty. Self-government. Individual dignity. Freedom of religion and Assembly. Freedom of speech, expression, and press. Right of participation. Right to Know. Right of privacy. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Right to bear arms. Right of suffrage. Adult rights. Rights of persons not adults. Due process of law. Habeas corpus. Rights of the accused. Self-incrimination and double jeopardy. Trial by jury. Imprisonment for debt. Criminal justice policy -- rights of the convicted. Eminent domain. Etc.
And Unenumerated rights.
These Enumerated and UnEnumerated Rights then are self-executing, self-administering and self-fulfilling.
But how exactly, does a Court or an attorney or an elected public official, who have sworn to protect and defend our Constitution and our Rights, administer Right or Justice when it involves every one's Enumerated and UnEnumerated Rights?
Administer means: "To cause to take, either by openly offering or through deceit; To apportion out, as in administering justice; To manage or supervise the conduct, performance or execution of; to govern or regulate the parameters for the conduct, performance or execution of; to work in an administrative ..." from en.wiktionary.org/wiki/administer
So how many of our Constitutional Rights are being administered, legislated or opinioned away?
And does Article ll - Section 4 of Montana's Constitution: Individual Dignity establish an affirmative obligation of the State to not discriminate in providing its' Public Defender services to ensure equal access to justice to the State's indigent?
Montana State District Judge Kenneth R. Neill (Cascade County) seems to concur. In a ruling April 15, 2009 Judge Neill stated, "assistance of counsel is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Montana constitutions." And that a change in (Montana) state law, effective in 2006, "unambiguously erased the judge's desires in the matter of appointing a public defender." Read the Great Falls Tribune story here ... http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009904220314
"There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has." Griffin v. Illinois, 351 US 12, 19 (1956)
Remember, the Montana Constitution's Section 4. Individual dignity. "The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas."
In the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention, Delegate Mrs. Mansfield had these comments regarding Section 4 of the Montana Bill of Rights. "The committee unanimously adopted this section with the intent of providing a constitutional impetus for the eradication of public and private discrimination based on race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas. The provision, quite similar to that of the Puerto Rico declaration of rights, is aimed at prohibiting private as well as public discrimination in civil and political rights....Social origin or condition was included to cover discriminations based on status of income and standard of living."
And also the comment from Delegate Mr. Dahood, "The intent of Section 4 is simply to provide that every individual in the State of Montana, as a citizen of this state, may pursue his inalienable rights without having any shadows cast upon his dignity through unwarranted discrimination...(C)onstitutions are based on the premise that they are presumed to be self-executing, particularly within the Bill of Rights. If the language appears to be prohibitory and mandatory, as this particular section is intended to be, then in that event, the courts in interpreting the particular section are bound by that particular presumption and they must assume, in that situation, that it is self-executing. There was a case in Montana some 60 years ago that involved a provision of our Bill of Rights that had to do with an individual right, and there the Supreme Court said that was self executing and a citizen could enforce it without any type of legislative implementation."
Think about it ….As always, please let me have your comments on this important topic, thanks!
Article ll - Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.
These Inalienable Rights then are self-executing, self-administering and self-fulfilling.
The people of Montana are ALL guaranteed other special sets of Enumerated Rights. They are Popular sovereignty. Self-government. Individual dignity. Freedom of religion and Assembly. Freedom of speech, expression, and press. Right of participation. Right to Know. Right of privacy. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Right to bear arms. Right of suffrage. Adult rights. Rights of persons not adults. Due process of law. Habeas corpus. Rights of the accused. Self-incrimination and double jeopardy. Trial by jury. Imprisonment for debt. Criminal justice policy -- rights of the convicted. Eminent domain. Etc.
And Unenumerated rights.
These Enumerated and UnEnumerated Rights then are self-executing, self-administering and self-fulfilling.
But how exactly, does a Court or an attorney or an elected public official, who have sworn to protect and defend our Constitution and our Rights, administer Right or Justice when it involves every one's Enumerated and UnEnumerated Rights?
Administer means: "To cause to take, either by openly offering or through deceit; To apportion out, as in administering justice; To manage or supervise the conduct, performance or execution of; to govern or regulate the parameters for the conduct, performance or execution of; to work in an administrative ..." from en.wiktionary.org/wiki/administer
So how many of our Constitutional Rights are being administered, legislated or opinioned away?
And does Article ll - Section 4 of Montana's Constitution: Individual Dignity establish an affirmative obligation of the State to not discriminate in providing its' Public Defender services to ensure equal access to justice to the State's indigent?
Montana State District Judge Kenneth R. Neill (Cascade County) seems to concur. In a ruling April 15, 2009 Judge Neill stated, "assistance of counsel is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Montana constitutions." And that a change in (Montana) state law, effective in 2006, "unambiguously erased the judge's desires in the matter of appointing a public defender." Read the Great Falls Tribune story here ... http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009904220314
"There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has." Griffin v. Illinois, 351 US 12, 19 (1956)
Remember, the Montana Constitution's Section 4. Individual dignity. "The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas."
In the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention, Delegate Mrs. Mansfield had these comments regarding Section 4 of the Montana Bill of Rights. "The committee unanimously adopted this section with the intent of providing a constitutional impetus for the eradication of public and private discrimination based on race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas. The provision, quite similar to that of the Puerto Rico declaration of rights, is aimed at prohibiting private as well as public discrimination in civil and political rights....Social origin or condition was included to cover discriminations based on status of income and standard of living."
And also the comment from Delegate Mr. Dahood, "The intent of Section 4 is simply to provide that every individual in the State of Montana, as a citizen of this state, may pursue his inalienable rights without having any shadows cast upon his dignity through unwarranted discrimination...(C)onstitutions are based on the premise that they are presumed to be self-executing, particularly within the Bill of Rights. If the language appears to be prohibitory and mandatory, as this particular section is intended to be, then in that event, the courts in interpreting the particular section are bound by that particular presumption and they must assume, in that situation, that it is self-executing. There was a case in Montana some 60 years ago that involved a provision of our Bill of Rights that had to do with an individual right, and there the Supreme Court said that was self executing and a citizen could enforce it without any type of legislative implementation."
Think about it ….As always, please let me have your comments on this important topic, thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
