Dear Editor and Readers,

Mr. Morris is quite right. Private means "not under government control". City governments are chartered corporations, that may only regulate other artificial "persons" but cannot regulate human beings or their property. Everything they do is to generate revenue no matter how they may disguise it, and every rule/regulation applied to people or their private property, including their rights, is unconstitutional.

Ten to one that not one official of the city understands freedom, the Declaration of Independence and the reasons for separating from King George's tyranny, not do they have a modem of understanding of the Constitution, that it limits government, or that our rights are inherent and unalienable, which places them supreme to government and the vote.

What they believe, and they hire law enforcers to force compliance to unconstitutional de facto laws which are actually administrative regulations placed on artificial entities usually indicated as "persons" in statutes and ordinances, is that they are the rulers of the people. And, it simply isn't so.

Their control over the people comes from armed force and other forms of coercion, which is to say they use terrorism to force compliance.

BTW, freedom or liberty also means "not under government control." How can we people be under their control when government was created primarily to protect the rights of the people and to regulate public property, which means property owned jointly by the people. This includes streets, parks, public buildings, such as City Hall, libraries, and the like but never privately owned property.

There are only thousands of court opinions (decisions) that support this and absolutely opine that government cannot regulate private property or private people. Just one, Hale v Henkel has been cited in nearly 400 Supreme and District court cases, and cited in a plethora (hundreds in this case) of lower court decisions.

Ed Lewis
elewis@shighway.com