U.S. Supreme Court
OWEN v. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, 445 U.S. 622 (1980)
445 U.S. 622
OWEN v. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Argued January 8, 1980.
Decided April 16, 1980.
A municipality has no immunity from liability under 1983 flowing from its constitutional violations and may not assert the good faith of its officers as a defense to such liability. Pp. 635-658.
While reading the above, Owen v. City of Independence, I ran across a footnote that I found particularly interesting.
The footnote indicates that all public servants, elected or appointed, are liable for error when violating a citizens rights under Federal Law. Here, in Footnote 25, we have a unique opinion that makes even LEGISLATORS liable.
[Footnote 25] See, e. g., Globe 305 (remarks of Rep. Arthur) (“But if the Legislature enacts a law, if the Governor enforces it, if the judge upon the bench renders a judgment, if the sheriff levy an execution, execute a writ, serve a summons, or make an arrest, all acting under a solemn, official oath, [445 U.S. 622, 644] though as pure in duty as a saint and as immaculate as a seraph, for a mere error in judgment, they are liable. . .”); id., at 385 (remarks of Rep. Lewis); Globe App. 217 (remarks of Sen. Thurman).
Do you see it? “But if the Legislature enacts a law…” and all that follows… “THEY ARE LIABLE.”
Here is a remedy for every bad law, every encroachment made and liberty stolen. If we hold them liable for what they have done and seek restitution … we may be able to roll back their ever advancing infringement on our rights which are guaranteed by the Supreme Law of the Land: The Constitution.
The public servants that believe they have immunity because they are following some “law” or “regulation” need to be put on notice that there is no such immunity for their error. This can be an important part of our arsenal in the protection of our Liberty. But I believe this process would hinge on specific use of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It would be essential to include all pertinent writings regarding the intent of the founders for the particular right protected in order to establish without doubt that the Federally Protected Right has been violated.
Can State Representatives be held liable for violation of rights protected under Federal Law (the Constitution)? Why not? Could we not hold all responsible and file claim seeking remedy? Could a single case filed against a State Representative result in a recall with a special election? The possibilities are endless.
It is my belief that this could be a greater weapon when used LOCALLY to keep city, town and county public servants in line with the Constitution. As this remedy may be applied much easier locally and as it gains momentum it can then be applied to State officials. But this can be used immediately and effectively in all situations involving Law Enforcement Officers.
Your comments and ideas are appreciated.
As some people like to believe there is a “debate” about gun control, I refuse to accept that point of view. There is no “debate.” There is only the attempt to steal yet another Liberty from the People. The “debate” was settled long ago when the 2nd Amendment was written. It appears there wasn’t much to debate on this particular Liberty as the protection of Liberty is at the heart of the 2nd Amendment.
In my state, Indiana, we have “open carry.” Not many seem to know this fact. If you have a gun permit then you can legally carry your gun on your person.
With the threat of our right to bear arms being stolen by the muddle brained in D.C., my county has taken the necessary steps to insure this Liberty by passing the “2nd Amendment Preservation Act” which says all federal gun control measures should be considered null and void in the County. (Ind. County fights federal gun control)
To add to this, the Indiana Senate has now made it legal to own a “switch blade.” No joke. See it here.
And lastly, here is a picture of Feinstein, who seeks to destroy our Liberty and who has a concealed carry permit, demonstrating her poor understanding of gun safety while holding a gun she would like to see banned for everyone EXCEPT government officials.
Note the placement of her finger ON the trigger. There is no doubt that she needs a course in gun safety.
Yes, I did say that government officials would be EXEMPT from this gun control legislation. This shouldn’t surprise anyone as our government officials are also exempt from Obamacare. It appears that what is good for The People is not good enough for our public servants. (Hmm, it makes you wonder what they really think their status is, doesn’t it?) You can find more information in THIS article.
As many of us can clearly see, there is an attempt by government officials to find that one issue that will cause the people to revolt. Yes, they would like for us to fire the first shot. It is my opinion that will not be the case. They will fire first and then deny it, although unsuccessfully.
In any event, there is a great change coming to this country. It will be divided as the States resume their status as Sovereign entities, leaving the failed union to flounder in its own mess. We may even see a new union formed based upon the old but leaving no doubt about the limits placed upon any “representative” government such as D.C. was initially meant to be.
The question is: would forming a New Union be the best option? And if so, why would the States have to wait to take such action?
We are at the threshold of a fundamental evolutionary change for mankind. As the articles, movies and pictures posted here have demonstrated, we have been moving towards a one world governing body referred to as The New World Order. There is a solution to the many problems our world faces. Please take the time to view this movie which addresses each of these problems individually, laying out the entire insidious plan for world domination and then reveals the solutions we can implement to change that direction and put an end to the machinations that would steal our Liberty and even our very lives.
For More Information:
So, it’s “anyone but Mitt”, eh? Let’s look at what we got: Gingrich as “frontrunner”? Considering his comparison to Cain, with all his personal problems – which forced Cain to bow out – how can Newt hold on to this sudden surge in the polls? With two affairs and failed marriages it’s hard to believe that people are going to give Newt a pass on this when Cain could not get one … regardless of the fact that the Mainstream media seems to be doing just that.
The comparison between Gingrich and Romney holds no stark contrast. It’s more like looking at twins considering they are both huge Flip Floppers !! Since all the information regarding Romney’s flips have come out he’s declined heavily in the polls. And Newt should meet the same fate as the information regarding his flip flops becomes more widely known. That is being helped by Ron Pauls new “attack” ad. Which seems a bit out of character for the Congressman but understandable when taking into account Newts machinations to keep Ron Paul from winning election to Congress when Paul had decided to return to the political arena. What is disturbing about Newts flip flops compared to Mitt’s is that the flips are much more recent.
As I watched the news today with all the talk about where Cain’s supporters were going to go – particularly in light of the “anyone but Mitt” condition – I heard Santorums name mentioned. Not one mention of the only other candidate with double digits in the polls: Ron Paul. Rick Santorum tied with Michelle Bachman at 6% whereas Ron Paul took 2nd with 16%. The talking heads went on and on about how Cains supporters were looking for someone that wasn’t “main stream” and didn’t fit the “status quo”, someone “outside the box”. And there were, of course, the many mentions of the “Tea Party” as has become common these days.
The media states that Herman Cains supporters do not want “more of the same”. Romney represents that “same ol’ song and dance” that has been strangling them for decades. At first, Gingrich seemed like a good alternative. But after being reminded of Newts true stance on many of the important issues he falls far short of being someone “outside the box” and resonates a tune more akin the “status quo”. Even Rick Santorum falls into that niche very nicely.
“What about the lovely Michelle Bachman?”, you inquire? It’s nothing personal … but I think her shrill and whiny voice is the biggest turn off. It’s hard to fathom this woman as a strong leader. As someone that will do what must be done to protect the borders and the security of the nation. As easy going as Ron Paul demonstrates himself to be, you might be inclined to think the same of him. Have no fear in this regard. Even though the MSM reiterates the same old accusation of Paul being an isolationist – which is far from the truth – there is no need to fear that, as President, Ron Paul would be too timid to take necessary military action. He was, after all, a military man. (Note: Paul is supported by more military personnel than all other candidates COMBINED.)
So, where are all the Cain supporters going to go? Isn’t it obvious? They are jumping on the Ron Paul bandwagon. Congressman Paul has been an “outsider” his entire political career. The Congressman has never wavered in his position on the issues for the last 30 plus years and has demonstrated that not only in speech but by his record. This is a man of integrity. And that resonates well with Cains supporters and all self proclaimed Tea Party activists (which were born from Congressman Pauls 2008 Presidential bid).
Will Iowa and other early primary voting states hold a surprise for the GOP and the nation? Will we see an end to the Gingrich surge and a rise of the “Limited Government” Libertarian Congressman from Texas? All signs seem to point in that direction.
You can find out more about the organizations behind this video at: www.georgeoughttohelp.com
May 19, 2010
There is a certain segment of the patriot community that consistently harps the chorus that we cannot change our system of government because the system is not the original intention of the founders of this free Republic. They chant that the system was hi-jacked and changed. My personal argument against their despairing outlook is that if the system were hi-jacked once it can be hi-jacked again … by us.
Of course, this is met with more despairing arguments such as the systems use of fraud during the election cycle and the vast amounts of money used to target the millions of malleable Americans which, even though disgusted and angry with the current state of affairs, are still unaware of the cold hard facts, the cause of these problems and the undeniable solutions.
As these disenchanted patriots move further away from the problems we face by disassociating themselves with the current form of government by use of various “paytriot” processes, there are many of us that have put on our gloves and jumped into the ring.
Through organizations like The Bill of Rights Defense Committee, The Tenth Amendment Center and the Tea Party we have been making excellent strides. These victories are not only becoming numerous but as visible as highlighted text. The writing is on the wall for the “establishment”.
Note the recent victories at the ballot box during this primary cycle:
Good Bye Arlen Specter! The fourth Democrat to lose a high profile race. And this loss comes in spite of his attempt to ride the Obama wave of popularity by changing parties in order to retain power.
Hello Rand Paul! And he is just one of many constitutionalist “Statesmen” that have joined the fray. A sound victory with more than 60% of the vote spells trouble for the status quo. The fact that Obama and his left leaning policies are not so well loved in Kentucky would make it appear to be an insurmountable task to stop Dr. Pauls march to the Senate.
As intended, there will be sweeping changes in the bodies that occupy both Houses… regardless of the money or fraud the “old guard” devotes to their efforts to retain the status quo. The “Obama” factor has become a liability as his popularity may not even be close to the numbers promoted by his adoring, boot licking media mouth pieces.
All the good news from the primary elections is just a small part of the battle. States are beginning to find their spine and are ready to stand on their own, making the hard choices and accepting the responsibility to deal with the burden and problems characteristic of those choices. Many local communities, Counties and States have passed legislation barring the enforcement of the Patriot Act, any amendments thereof and certain Executive Orders.
The ongoing efforts of the several states flexing their muscle include not only the “10th Amendment” legislation being passed in State Houses but also legislation designed to nullify the usurpation of State power by the federal government. Current nullification efforts include: Firearms Freedom Act, Medical Marijuana Laws, REAL ID, Health Care Freedom Act, Bring the Guard Home, Constitutional Tender, Cap and Trade, Federal Tax Funds Act, Sheriffs First Legislation, Federal Gun Laws, and Regulation of Intrastate Commerce.
The battle for Freedom and visible change in the political landscape continue in spite of the efforts of certain groups to bolster their numbers with insistent argument that participation in the “system” is futile. History is being made and these people will never be able to say they were a part of it. While others take to the work they stand on the sidelines believing the fairy tale that “if” they could swell their numbers they “might” be able to “apply pressure” that would bring about the desired change. (Note to those that have made this argument: After reading your argument here, doesn’t it sound a bit foolish?)
Personally, I believe these groups to be dead on regarding specific issues but totally disagree that participation in efforts to retake the government are futile. It is my belief that if the States really want to demonstrate the true extent of their power they should deny the Federal Government one of these powers. That power would be the right to issue a Passport. By reclaiming this specific right the States would be making the strongest demonstration of their Sovereignty that could possibly be made. And for those of you that do not believe the several states have the right to issue Passports I would say to you that you are ignorant of the form of government we live under. When I see a serious effort to promote the reclaiming of this rightful power by the several states begin in earnest… I will be one of the first on board.
But Please … don’t ever tell me that participation in these efforts to retake our government are an effort in futility. Join us. Fight the Good Fight.
by Michael Boldin
When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law or regulation, it is passing legally-binding legislation that makes the federal act in question void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
Current nullification efforts around the U.S. have states passing laws that effectively defy federal laws and regulations on firearms, marijuana, identification cards and more. In 2010, we expect to see similar legislation in response to Health Care, No Child Left Behind, Federalization of the Guard and more.
The most asked question is – once such a law is passed, what next?
In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.
Nullification in the Bluegrass State?
By Michael Boldin
View all 3 articles by Michael Boldin
Kentucky Joins Movement to Resist Abuses of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment
In states around the country, there’s a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution — the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment. Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.
The latest to join the FFA movement? Kentucky. Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to “Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law”
While the FFA’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government. The bills in state houses contain language such as the following:
“federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in [this state] and remains in [state]. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”
Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.
The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.
A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
Supporters say the growth of such a movement is long overdue.
“For far too long elected officials and unelected bureaucrats at the federal level have passively forgotten or actively neglected the Tenth Amendment that guarantees rights not enumerated in the Constitution be left to the individual states,” said Minnesota State Rep. Tom Emmer, who introduced an FFA in his state. “The willful disregard of the Tenth Amendment in relation to a citizen’s right to bear arms isn’t the only constitutional infringement that we should be worried about, but it is one that has been singled out by the new administration.”
“Enough is enough,” urged Tennessee State Senator Mae Beavers. “Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.”
In October, the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Missoula, MT to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).
“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” explained MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. It’s time for Montana and her sister states to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the Legislature and Governor have done and we are doing with this lawsuit. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”
Even the most ardent supporters suggest that the real test will come if the federal courts rule against the FFA. Will they give up at that point, or will they follow in the footsteps of medical marijuana activists around the country?
The latter faced down nearly the entire federal apparatus — federal agencies who didn’t recognize state law, countless federal raids and arrests, and a Supreme Court that ruled against their cause in 2005. Even with such stacked odds, they persisted in their state-level efforts, and today, enough states have medical marijuana laws that the federal government is unable (or unwilling) to oppose them.
Only time will tell if gun rights activists have the same courage.
Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.