June 11th, Friday; A slower, relaxed morning, more news on Reagan. NPR said, “Today we will honor the passing of a great communicator, Ray Charles!” Someone in the long line in Washington was interviewed, and quipped, “Isn’t this the Ray Charles funeral?” Made some phone calls. I took a walk around, and read on page 9 of the NY Times that Jason West finally got a judge who declared the licensing laws unconstitutional. Then caught a mid day train. The train was very crowded! I wrote out an outline for a new publication series The Stupidity Report, a periodical based on a mock investigation into the possibility of a new terrorist threat, the “stupidity virus” that makes you do stupid things. This will be a vehicle for investigating unusually foolish political agendas that lead to injustice and violence without being threatening or depressing about it. I learned today that Dick Cheney dropped out of Yale not once but twice. He voted against a house resolution to support the release of Nelson Mandella. He avoided Vietnam with student deferments. When they were eliminated, his wife had a baby 9 months and two days later. My son called; he’s going to a leadership conference in the Midwest, and is conducting a seminar on Native American leadership and spirituality, and wanted me to send him the words to Micmac traditional songs. I did, but it took a while to find them.
I had gotten an email from New Paltz’ beleagured mayor Jason West on Wednesday, just now received. He is interested in going on my tour perhaps. I had said, “Maybe you and I should go on a “don’t let the bastards get you down” world tour.” He said, “Yeah, and let’s bring David Rovics.” (a friend of his in New Paltz).
I wrote the following letter to him back in March, concerning constitutionality. By coincidence, the next day after he sent the email, (concerning the tour) New Paltz judge Jonathan Katz threw out Williams’ 24 misdemeanor charges against West. Williams is appealing the ruling in county court. (link to http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com. The Journal stated, (June 16) “West has maintained his marriages upheld constitutional law. That trumps the licensing provisions of state Domestic Relations Law, West’s lawyers have argued in court.”
To: Jason West
From: Evan Pritchard
I have been following your legal reformation campaign closely and with great interest. I am not a lawyer, but I thought I’d pass on a few notes that you might find interesting. You and your legal council can decide if they are relevant to your case.
In 1803, there was a ruling which stated that “All laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Therefore if Spitzer thinks the marriage licensing ban on gays might be unconstitutional, he should at least mention that it might be null and void.)
It may have been part of the following: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights, it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never passed.” Norton vs Shelby Co. 118 US 425, p. 442. (I believe this was the 1803 case above)
Further, The Bar Association, to which Williams and Spitzer belong, was chartered on November 21st, 1876 in Albany, New York and was written into the New York State Constitution a year later “to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, and the Constitution of the State of New York.” It seems to us lay people, from the previous statements, that the duty to defend the constitution overrides the duty to defend the law.
But what is the process by which one challenges a law in order to defend the constitution? It never happens by itself. Usually there is a case that comes to court, and that case generally has a defendant and a plaintiff. Then the constitutionality is discussed in fair and open debate by all involved. According to the original plan as I understand it, juries played a major role in deciding the merits of a standing law. One of the main original duties of a jury was to determine whether or not a law was just. This is rarely mentioned today.
John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, said in 1789; “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
Samuel Chase, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, said in 1796; “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”
Harlan F. Stone, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1941, said, “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.”
So it seems to me that when these state officials say “Let’s prosecute the marriage license issue now and let Spitzer worry about the constitution later,” they have it backwards. Constitutionality seems to be a first line of defense, not the last. That determination has always sat with the people themselves, under the guidance of the Judicial system, judging by the above statements.
President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States in his inauguration ceremony. Yet now he wants to use the power of Amendment as a way of reducing and eliminating the existing rights of gay people in San Francisco and Massachusetts, and New Paltz, based on religious concepts of marriage. However, marriage predates Christianity and even Judaism, and takes many forms throughout the world. To rewrite the constitution based on one religion over another (and in this case one sect of Christianity over another, for example Unitarianism is opposed to this amendment) clearly would erase the barrier between Church and State, which was guaranteed to English people in the Magna Carta and guaranteed to the colonies even under the tyranny of King George III. To un-separate them would take lawmaking back a thousand years, back to an age of holy wars and feudalism that makes most historians shudder to recall.
Let me remind you that New York is the “Bill of Rights” state, that under Clinton, New York refused to ratify the U.S. Constitution until a Bill of Rights was proposed. Melancthon Smith, Clinton, and others debated this issue from June 17th to July 26th 1788 (with Jay and Hamilton adding a Federalist (compromise between state and government control) view to the discussion) and didn’t give up until such rights were guaranteed, the first of which was “freedom of religion.” If New York had refused to sign, the geographical position of the state would have cut the nation in two and made any further ratification useless. New York did ratify the new constitution on July 26th, 1788, and there is a painting depicting the event in the Poughkeepsie Courthouse across from the Poughkeepsie Journal (which has decided to be anti-gay and anti-West in recent days), and so now we have a bill of rights. It is appropriate that New York defend that Bill of Rights now.
When someone recently said “the Constitution does not mention separation of church and state,” they were deliberately ignoring the obvious fact that the first amendment was brokered as part of the ratification of that Constitution. Amendment One reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The new anti-gay amendment that is being proposed seems radically different from all other amendments in that it removes rights and undermines civil rights, whereas the process of amending was originally intended to protect rights or add new ones. As regards the New York State laws, it is not clear to me that husband and wife denote male and female in all cases, as gay couples use these terms to refer to “breadwinner” and “householder” respectively. If any part of New York state law is deemed unconstitutional by the majority of its citizens, (my own opinion poll is still running about 100% in favor of Jason West) it does seem to me that the only way to test the waters is by either suing the state or having the state sue you. This legal process will also allow laws concerning the adoption of children into “married couples” to be formulated according to the will of the people, which is a different matter. It does not stand that all 1, 249 rights of marriage should be granted to gay married couples, particularly where adoption is concerned. Adoption might be seen by the majority as a privilege, not a right, as perhaps it should be.
I hope this is helpful,
Evan Pritchard
(This pretty much says that constitutionality “trumps” local laws)
New Paltz Deputy Mayor Rebecca Rotzler is expected to certify four gay marriages on Saturday, June 19th.
Here is the email I sent Jason West.
Hi Jason,
It’s great to hear from you. I was in the big city on Friday, but saw a news release on your most recent success in the courts concerning the constitutional issue (on page 9 of the Times). It made my day. Sorry you are still a “wanted man” but you did succeed in creating the correct precedent in this state concerning constitutional rights. Bravo! I hope Warren and John Jay et al were helpful. Who is David Rovics again? By the way I mentioned you in a sermon at a Methodist Church at Glenford, on Mothers Day and a cheer rose up from the congregation!! I was comparing you to the muskrat in the Munsee “Mud-diver” story. It was humorous..I was talking about my conversation with “the young puppeteer in the muskrat play” about Algonquin-locally-directed constitutionality…and that young man…..Jason West…… (ROARS AND CHEERS)….decided to run for mayor of New Paltz…..(more cheers) and won!
The Methodist church is evenly divided on gay marriage, so I think it was a turning point for the congregation to hear such vocal support for your work. The opposition crumbled. Thought you’d enjoy the story. There was more detail to it, I hope to write it up some day and post it.
It would be nice to spend some time talking again. I guess you’ve been busy. EP
I also got an email from Roberto Borrero from Wed. about doing an armchair walking tour of Manhattan at the American Museum of Natural History, during the winter. Of course I agreed. I’d just been talking about how we met at The Belonging To Mother Earth Worldwide Conference of Aboriginal Elders six years ago in Virginia Beach. I also got an email from the people at Tappan Bay, about the NY Times article of April 16th, 2000 on the 3000 year old 900 foot long walls in Tappan Bay. Also a note from Sally Dennison about the new edition of Native New Yorkers. She told me it would come out in the fall. I also picked up a series of emails from super-radical peace activist Johnny Asia, who sent me all kind of links on strange findings from the 9-11 investigations, most notably some evidence showing a “pod” on the bottom of the planes that crashed into the WTC, which are only used to fly by remote control. He sent more evidence that all of the people “on that plane” were either airline personnel or military. Of course, I’m open minded. He also sent links saying that most of the terrorists on those planes are still alive. Again, I’m open minded, but its hard to imagine how this could actually be pulled off. I mean, the guy who said “Let’s Roll” over PA is certainly dead. Of course, the fact is this country “went to war” over the death of those passengers, so its of no small importance. Even if it was really about oil. So if those people are not dead, where are they? Are they with Ronald Reagan in some white room? How does Ronald Reagan know he’s not dead?
MoPress 
Leave a comment