DON’T TRAEAD ON ME — Sheriff Richard Mack

Richard Mack / Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (06/27/1997) ([521 U.S. 898, 912] We have held, however, that state leglislatures are not subject to federal direction. New York v. United States, 303 U.S. 144 (1992).5 … [521 U.S. 898, 918] It is incontestible that the Constitution established a system of “dual sovereignty.” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991); Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458 (1990). Although the States surrendered many of their powers to [521 U.S. 898, 919] the new Federal Government, they retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,” The Federalist No. 39, at 245 (J. Madison). This is reflected throughout the Constitution’s text, Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76 (1869); Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869), including (to mention only a few examples) the prohibition on any involuntary reduction or combination of a State’s territory, Art. IV, § 3; the Judicial Power Clause, Art. III, § 2, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. IV, § 2, which speak of the “Citizens” of the States; the amendment provision, Article V, which requires the votes of three-fourths of the States to amend the Constitution; and the Guarantee Clause, Art. IV, § 4, which “presupposes the continued existence of the states and … those means and instrumentalities which are the creation of their sovereign and reserved rights,” Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U. S. 405, 414-415 (1938). … [521 U.S. 898, 921] This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in anyone branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” … [521 U.S. 898, 935] We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-bycase weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.); http://supreme.justia.com/us/521/898/case.html

Beyond the control of the state. Cf. Corporate state, De facto state; Political subdivision of the United States; State in the union; This State as opposed to The State;

Citizens Savings and Loan v. Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 655, 662 (1874) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/87/655.html  aff’d. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 536, 4 S.Ct. 111 (1884) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/110/516.html  (It must be conceded that there are such rights in every free government beyond the control of the state.);

Cf. Adair v. U.S., 208 U.S. 161, 28 S.Ct. 277 (1908) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/208/161.html Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, 43 S.Ct. 394 (1923) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/261/525.html ; Public Licenses and Private Rights, 33 OLR Fn. 20 (Barnett, 1953); Taxing the Exercise of Natural Rights (Harvard Legal Essays, Maguire, 273, 322, 1934); Law on taxes on the income of natural persons – in force from 01.01.2007: http://elvada.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46:taxes-2008&catid=9:all-articles&Itemid=15

U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 172, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965) (There is a higher loyalty than loyalty to this country, loyalty to God.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/380/163.html