Skip to main content

Featured

The Golden Verses Of The Stoic

Seneca and Epictetus refer to the Golden Verses of Pythagoras , which happens to provide a good framework for developing a daily routine, bookended by morning and evening contemplative practices. Zeno of Citium , who founded Stoicism in 301 BC, expressed his doctrines in notoriously terse arguments and concise maxims.  However, Chrysippus, the third head of the Stoic school, wrote over 700 books fleshing these ideas out and adding complex arguments to support them. 

Missouri Is More Interesting than I Believed
Except for the stupid people.

City officials in St. Charles, Missouri seek to invalidate the decision of three out of four residents who voted to ban red light cameras.
St Charles courthouse. Three towns in Missouri joined together to sue the the residents of St. Charles who voted to ban red light cameras. St. Peters, Lake Saint Louis and O'Fallon are asking a county circuit court judge to overturn the charter amendment banning automated enforcement adopted in November with the support of 73 percent of voters. City leaders argue that the 69,469 residents who voted for the measure had no business limiting the right of local politicians to use automated ticketing machines.
"The charter amendment invades the legislative jurisdiction of cities in contravention of state policy, and conflicts with the authority specifically delegated to cities by the state to address their specific needs including traffic and enforcement of traffic regulations," attorney Matthew J. Fairless wrote in the cities' complaint.
The suit alleges the charter amendment will result in "a loss of revenue" and, therefore, each of the cities has standing to sue. The cities also argue that the Missouri General Assembly gave each city government "exclusive control over all streets, alleys, avenues and public highways within the limits of such city" so that the people who live in the county have no say in the decisions made by political leaders.
"The charter amendment is void, invalid and/or unconstitutional because it purports to exercise power and authority over rules of the road and the regulation of traffic on streets within the cities located within the county, including specifically interfering with the exclusive authority of the city of O'Fallon, the city of Lake Saint Louis and the city of St. Peters over the regulation of traffic on their respective streets, and no authority exists for the county to exercise such power and authority and such powers and authority rests in the state and has been delegated to municipalities for streets within their boundaries," Fairless wrote...
Report on 4 KMOV

Report on theNewspaper.com


The State Supreme Court is currently playing with this silliness and entertaining the arguments. I'm glad they feel that it is amusing for them. Fact is, and I'm sure they know this much better than I ever will, --- the claim is invalid. The Exclusive right doesn't exist --  there isn't an argument here.
Constitution - Bill of Rights -- State of Missouri
Section 1. Source of political power—origin, basis and aim of  government.—That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

What bothers me here is that courts rely on, and make decisions on precedent. In fact they rely on precedent more than they rely on laws. Precedent is what they use to "interpret" the law.  This court, in their (?) curiosity(?) -- and I can see their interest, I really can. How many times are you going to get to hear a bid for dictatorship in a democracy?

And, quite frankly, Missouri's Constitution, from what I've glanced over so far, doesn't look written that strongly. By Comparison, this is Washington State's

SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

SECTION 8 IRREVOCABLE PRIVILEGE, FRANCHISE OR IMMUNITY PROHIBITED. No law granting irrevocably any privilege, franchise or immunity, shall be passed by the legislature.


Then in the next part on legislative authority...

SECTION 1 LEGISLATIVE POWERS, WHERE VESTED. The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shall be called the legislature of the state of Washington, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature.

So, we're fairly covered. It did take us three go's to get the Freedom of Religion bit right, and to be fair, we were able learn from the mistakes of many States before us -- as well as being a territory for a long time. You should see the pile of territorial documents we have. We ... experimented. We were the first to give women the vote. Yep. And ... we took it back not very long after that as well -- lied to do it too. One of those back room deals with a judge, a lawyer, some desperate looking men and a governor. *sigh* Not our best hour.

Back to Missouri, who didn't take moments like this very seriously it seems -- and still don't. Again, already the Supreme Court of Missouri has set the precedent. That's a done deal. They have set the path that members of the legislative body, if they don't like the way the voters decided an issue, can approach the court, with a claim of damage, and file suit to have the voter's decision reversed.

It doesn't matter what the court decides from this point, that is now a precedent. Any lawyer of any real skill is going to be able to use that in Missouri from now until the end-of-days. And trust me, there are 100s of Missouri lawyers, and several in the employment of places like ALEC who are watching this case with extreme interest -- it's open season on the people at this point.

Well, maybe not quite open season. As I read further into the Missouri document... they have some interesting sections.

Section 3. Powers of the people over internal affairs, constitution and form of government.— That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

Well... we don't have one of those. *envious*

Kind of like a gov-reset button. The exercise of visualizing how that would actually be played out is mentally engaging as well.


Section 4. Independence of Missourisubmission of certain amendments to Constitution of the United States.—That Missouri is a free and independent state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States; that all proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States qualifying or affecting the individual liberties of the people or which in any wise may impair the right of local self-government belonging to the people of this state, should be submitted to conventions of the people.

Nice follow up for Section 3. A perfect way of saying -- just in case you have any doubt, We the People, the citizen's, the voters of Missouri have only one real law we acknowledge, and that is the US Constitution, State Legislative measures are merely for convenience. AND if the Feds pass an amendment to the Constitution of the US which says differently - - we reserve the right to not accept that amendment in our state. 

So, I take it back. They have a strong protection there, and more aggressive than Washington State's... definitely. I don't know if we could get away with walking in, abolishing the Constitution, the House and then starting again.

All the more reason the State Supreme Court should have sent these city officials and their lawyer packing without a hearing at all.

The place I believe these city pricks are standing on is in the

Missouri Revised Statutes -- Chapter 71 Provisions Relative to All Cities and Towns which gives the cities a running list of things they can do on their own without having to ask the State if they are allowed to do so. It doesn't meet their "quote" but it is more than enough to back that quote up, and then some. For example, it doesn't take much of an argument to show that the Red Light Cameras are well within the description.  -- but they still have the cart before the horse. This area is to relieve the cities from having to check with the State on every little thing they want to do with the city, and how they want to run their city. It doesn't give them any rights above the voters. Voters are still the one and only real power.

Chapter 01, however has some interesting things to share though.
Something always to keep in mind when you are researching, especially laws and Always constitutional laws, is not to stop searching around just because you found the part that you thought you were looking for -- the part that *cough* fits your particular need at the time. People often do that and wind up in a great deal of trouble. For example, there is a man named James Milgram. He searched the laws regarding doing experiments on humans, and found a "part B" which said he could do what he wanted. In fact it was so surprisingly amenable he commented on it in his experiment paper. Then, later, he wrote another paper on this "part B" and told academia that they had nothing to worry about -- go ahead, jump in, experiment on those kids. Nothing can stop you. You don't even need Parental consent!  Well... If he would have scanned down the page two more sections, he would have found Subpart D - Additional Protections for Children Involved as Subjects in Research  And now he has the FBI looking into his experiments and deciding what they are going to do with him. So, always continue. Check things, and cross check things.

Repealing law repealed, former law not revived, when. 

1.150. When a law repealing a former law, clause or provision is itself repealed, it does not revive the former law, clause or provision, unless it is otherwise expressly provided; nor shall any law repealing any former law, clause or provision abate, annul or in any wise affect any proceedings had or commenced under or by virtue of the law so repealed, but the same is as effectual and shall be proceeded on to final judgment and termination as if the repealing law had not passed, unless it is otherwise expressly provided.

So what we have here, is even if the city pricks win this case and get the law the voters passed, repealed, they still can't use their traffic lights until they are approved again. Which would be more than academically interesting if   THEY HAD A RIGHT TO BE DOING THIS AT ALL!  -- ahem  sorry.

Section 1.050.1 -- has an ad hoc Tribunal law.. interesting.

Section 1.010.1 -- The Reset Button Law. -- *smiling* This is what happens if the citizens of Missouri decide to enact their power of cleaning the slate. First, everything goes to Common Law. And then, The Laws of England are put into effect. Yes, I did say England. That being the country we think of as the UK, but just England, not the others.

1.010. The common law of England and all statutes and acts of parliament made prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, which are not local to that kingdom and not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, or the statute laws in force for the time being, are the rule of action and decision in this state, any custom or usage to the contrary notwithstanding, but no act of the general assembly or law of this state shall be held to be invalid, or limited in its scope or effect by the courts of this state, for the reason that it is in derogation of, or in conflict with, the common law, or with such statutes or acts of parliament; but all acts of the general assembly, or laws, shall be liberally construed, so as to effectuate the true intent and meaning thereof.

Common, then stack on England, but not anything that would go against the US Constitution. That's not bad, really. See, the US Constitution doesn't have things like theft, murder, traffic laws, poker playing laws, drinking laws, laws for running schools or any of that stuff. The day-to-day living laws. The US Constitution is for running a country, not a neighborhood. The Common Law of England does have all of those basic laws, and James I is an interesting choice as well.

James I was a Scot and as King of Scotland he was James IV. He fought with parliament quite a bit, raised a lot of hell, spent a lot of money, but the country ran well under him. He was also very educated, and continued his education to his death bed. He pushed education into the public, banishing falsehoods with science, ignorance with reading and improved discourse with writing. Though he did believe strongly in the Divine Right of Kings, and even wrote a book about it.

Unfortunately his son, Charles, wasn't quite the same fiber. When James died, Charles tried to rule like his father, caused a massive civil war, and was beheaded. So much for the divine rights of kings.


Ordinances to conform to state law. 

71.010. Any municipal corporation in this state, whether under general or special charter, and having authority to pass ordinances regulating subjects, matters and things upon which there is a general law of the state, unless otherwise prescribed or authorized by some special provision of its charter, shall confine and restrict its jurisdiction and the passage of its ordinances to and in conformity with the state law upon the same subject.


Supreme court to promulgate general rules for all courts of the state. 

477.010. The supreme court shall have the power to direct the form of writs and process; and to promulgate general rules for all courts of the state. No such forms or rules shall abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of any litigant nor be contrary to or inconsistent with the laws in force for the time being.

This is what I was looking for. I was told once that every state has this little mention in it's laws, but ... I like to see things, not just hear about them
Nothing contained in this section shall require the Missouri supreme court to accept the certified case.

Supreme Courts do not have to hear a case. This is important. There are way too many people who will keep pushing and pushing... like for example, Congress -- That cost us so much money-- something like $650 Million, all of those attempts at repealing the Health Care... and that is like the low-ball estimate, because it is actually close to impossible to get a real number when asking how much it cost the country to have Congress in session for a day. I can tell you this though, we are not getting our money's worth from this one, or the last, or the one before that.

So, as promised I have the email address for all of the State Reps in Missouri in a CSV file (comma delimited) so you can open it with Excel or just about anything. And here is the article with everyone's name and rank -- all the players in this tragedy.

See you on the other side.