Footnotes Vol. 4, The Kiss of Judice (Completed)

Note: With the later footnotes, the reader will see that the background is in red and the hyperlinks don’t appear unless one places the cursor over the spot where the hyperlink would appear. Sorry. We will see if that can be corrected.

[1] ⊗ Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, http://www.answers.com/topic/martin-v-hunter-s-lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), http://laws.findlaw.com/us/14/304.html

2 “When a suit is brought and determined in a court which has no jurisdiction, then it is said to be coram non judice, and the judgment is void.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th 305.

3 The work is now on the internet @ http://www.answers.com/library/US%20Supreme%20Court.

4 Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism, Part Third, Lines 309-310.

5 To be more precise—the General Welfare Clause does confer the taxing power, but taxes are subject to the clause’s limitations on that power, i.e., that the tax revenues be used only for enumerated purposes. For details, see Vol. 3, §11.

6 Source: http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm

7 Source: http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/006-constitution.html

8 Source: http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/007-amendments.html

9 http://www.answers.com/topic/contract-clause—Douglas W. Kmiec

10 http://www.answers.com/topic/contract-clause

11 http://www.answers.com/topic/contract-clause

12 Bills of Attainder: Mr. Justice Story: [A]n act passed by the legislature, convicting a person of some crime, for which it inflicts upon him, without any trial, the punishment of death. If it inflicts a milder punishment, it is usually called a bill of pains and penalties. St. Familiar Exposition §225 @ http://www.archive.org/stream/afamiliarexposi03storgoog/afamiliarexposi03storgoog_djvu.txt

13 Ex Post Facto Laws: Mr. Justice Story: [L]aws made after the act is done. In a general sense, all retrospective laws are ex post facto; but the phrase is here used to designate laws to punish, as public offences, acts, which, at the time when they were done, were lawful, or were not public crimes, or, if crimes, which were not liable to so severe a punishment. St. Familiar Exposition §226 @ http://www.archive.org/stream/afamiliarexposi03storgoog/afamiliarexposi03storgoog_djvu.txt.

Coroner: Justice Story’s definition limiting the term ex post facto to criminal laws is too narrow. Taken literally, the term applies to all retroactive laws. And Mr. Madison speaking at the Convention seemed to agree. Answering Mr. Wilson’s statement, “The answer to these objections is that retrospective interferences only are to be prohibited”, Madison said, “Is not that already done by the prohibition of ex post facto laws, which will oblige the Judges to declare [contract] interferences null & void.” http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1786&chapter=96099&layout=html#a_2149153

14 Federalist № 44 @ http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm

15 http://www.answers.com/topic/contract-clause

16 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911). 3 vols. Accessed from http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/1785 on 2012-11-14

Tuesday August 28. 1787— In Convention

Mr King moved to add, in the words used in the Ordinance of Congs establishing new States, a prohibition on the States to interfere in private contracts.

Mr. Govr. Morris. This would be going too far. There are a thousand laws relating to bringing actions — limitations of actions & which affect contracts— The Judicial power of the U— S— will be a protection in cases within their jurisdiction; and within the State itself a majority must rule, whatever may be the mischief done among themselves.

Mr. Sherman. Why then prohibit bills of credit?

Mr. Wilson was in favor of Mr. King’s motion.

Mr. Madison admitted that inconveniences might arise from such a prohibition but thought on the whole it would be overbalanced by the utility of it. He conceived however that a negative on the State laws could alone secure the effect. Evasions might and would be devised by the ingenuity of the Legislatures—

Col: Mason. This is carrying the restraint too far. Cases will happen that can not be foreseen, where some kind of interference will be proper, & essential— He mentioned the case of limiting the period for bringing actions on open account — that of bonds after a certain lapse of time, — asking whether it was proper to tie the hands of the States from making provision in such cases?

Mr. Wilson. The answer to these objections is that retrospective interferences only are to be prohibited.

Mr. Madison. Is not that already done by the prohibition of ex post facto laws, which will oblige the Judges to declare such interferences null & void.

Mr. Rutlidge moved instead of Mr. King’s Motion to insert — “nor pass bills of attainder nor retrospective* laws” on which motion

N. H. ay— Ct. no. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Virga. no. N— C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [Ayes — 7; noes — 3.]

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1786&chapter=96099&layout=html#a_2149153

17 http://www.answers.com/topic/contract-clause

18 http://www.answers.com/topic/fletcher-v-peck; 6 Cranch (10 U.S.) 87 (1810), argued 15 Feb. 1810, decided 16 March 1810 by vote of 4 to 1; Marshall for the Court, Johnson dissenting in part; Cushing and Chase not participating. Bibliography: C. Peter Magrath, Yazoo: Law and Politics in the New Republic (1966)—Sandra F. Van Burkleo. 10 U.S. (6 Cr.) 87 (1810).

19 http://www.answers.com/topic/fletcher-v-peck#ixzz2Bx1Uskzm

20 http://www.answers.com/topic/fletcher-v-peck#ixzz2Bx1Uskzm

21 http://www.answers.com/topic/fletcher-v-peck#ixzz2Bx1Uskzm

22 McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 4 Wheat. 316 316 (1819) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/case.html

23 See Vol. 3, §13.5

24  http://www.answers.com/topic/contract-clause

25 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 122 (1819), ⊗ argued 8 Feb. 1819, decided 17 Feb. 1819 by vote of 7 to 0; Marshall for the Court. http://www.answers.com/topic/sturges-v-crowninshield-1—Peter J. Coleman. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/122/

26 http://www.answers.com/topic/sturges-v-crowninshield-1#ixzz2C1OyWUGo

27 http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa32.htm

28 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/case.html  http://www.answers.com/topic/sturges-v-crowninshield-1#ixzz2C1OyWUGo

29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward

30 http://www.answers.com/topic/contract-clause

31 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 518 (1819), ⊗ argued 10–12 Mar. 1818, decided 2 Feb. 1819 by vote of 5 to 1; Marshall for the Court, Washington and Story concurring separately, Duvall in dissent without opinion. http://www.answers.com/topic/dartmouth-college-v-woodward.  Bibliography: G. Edward White, History of the Supreme Court of the United States, vols. 3–4, The Marshall Court and Cultural Change, 1815–35 (1988)—Alfred S. Konefsky. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/518/case.html

32 http://www.answers.com/topic/dartmouth-college-v-woodward

33 See Vol. 1, §2:10201.

34 http://www.answers.com/topic/sturges-v-crowninshield-1#ixzz2C1OyWUGo

35 12 Wheat. (25 U.S.) 213 (1827), argued 18–20 Jan. 1827, decided 19 Feb. 1827 by vote of 4 to 3; majority justices by seriatim opinions, Marshall, Story, and Duvall in dissent.—Richard E. Ellis http://www.answers.com/topic/ogden-v-saunders http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/25/213/

36 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/25/213/

37 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/25/213/

38 http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1786&chapter=96099&layout=html#a_2149153

39 An ex post facto law is a “law passed after the occurrence of a fact or commission of an act, which retrospectively changes the legal consequences or relations of such fact or deed.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. at 520. The definition suggests that all ex post facto laws, civil or criminal, are barred. But in Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. (3 U.S.) 386, 390 (1798) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/3/386.html, the supreme court held (wrongly) the provision doesn’t apply to civil statutes.

40 http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-river-bridge-v-warren-bridge; 36 U.S. 420 (1837) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/36/420/; argued 7–11 Mar. 1831, reargued 19–26 Jan. 1837, decided 12 Feb. 1837 by vote of 4 to 3; Taney for the Court, McLean, Story, and Thompson in dissent. Bibliography: Stanley I. Kutler, Privilege and Creative Destruction: The Charles River Bridge Case (1971)Elizabeth B. Monroe

41 http://www.answers.com/topic/federalism

42 From the syllabus ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/36/420/case.html

43  http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-river-bridge-v-warren-bridge

44 http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-river-bridge-v-warren-bridge

 

45 http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-river-bridge-v-warren-bridge

46 The Massachusetts Constitution, Chapter V. Section I has what appears to be the original charter:

“The University at Cambridge, and Encouragement of Literature, etc. Section I. The University.

Art. I.–Whereas our wise and pious ancestors, so early as the year one thousand six hundred and thirty six, laid the foundation of Harvard-College, in which University many persons of great eminence have, by the blessing of GOD, been initiated in those arts and sciences, which qualified them for public employments, both in Church and State: And whereas the encouragement of Arts and Sciences, and all good literature, tends to the honor of God, the advantage of the christian religion, and the great benefit of this, and the other United States of America–It is declared, That the PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD-COLLEGE, in their corporate capacity, and their successors in that capacity, their officers and servants, shall have, hold, use, exercise and enjoy, all the powers, authorities, rights, liberties, privileges, immunities and franchises, which they now have, or are entitled to have, hold, use, exercise and enjoy: And the same are hereby ratified and confirmed unto them, the said President and Fellows of Harvard-College, and to their successors, and to their officers and servants, respectively, forever.” http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s6.html

47 http://www.answers.com/topic/west-river-bridge-co-v-dix

48 6 How. (47 U.S.) 507 (1848), ⊗argued 5–7 Jan. 1848, decided 31 Jan. 1848 by vote of 7 to 1; Daniel for the Court, McLean and Woodbury concurring, Wayne in dissent, McKinley not participating.—James W. Ely, Jr. See also Property Rights.

49 American Heritage Dictionary http://www.answers.com/topic/eminent-domain

50 http://www.answers.com/topic/federalism

  1. [1] 49 U.S. 569 (1850) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/49/569/
  2. [1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/49/569/
  3. [1] http://www.answers.com/topic/contract-clause
  4. 54.    [1] Stone v. Mississippi,101 U.S. 814 (1880), ⊗ argued 4–5 Mar. 1880, decided 10 May 1880 by vote of 8 to 0; Waite for the Court; Hunt not participating.—Douglas Kmiec

http://www.answers.com/topic/stone-v-mississippi http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/814/

  1. [1] http://www.answers.com/topic/stone-v-mississippi
  2. [1] http://www.answers.com/topic/stone-v-mississippi
  3. [1] See Vol. 3, §16.332 Definition of privileges and immunities
  4. [1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/814/case.html
  5. [1] http://www.answers.com/topic/police-power
  6. [1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/348/26/case.html

Oxford Companion: 348 U.S. 26 (1954), argued 19 Oct. 1954, decided 22 Nov. 1954 by vote of 9 to 0; Douglas for the Court. A Washington, D.C., urban renewal statute allowed the city to condemn land and sell it to private developers, who would redevelop it according to the renewal plan. The plan included not only slum eradication but also beautification projects. A landowner challenged the statute, mainly on the ground that, under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the condemnation was not “for public use.” The owner argued unsuccessfully that there was no public use because the land was to be sold to a private developer and for the purpose of beautification. The Supreme Court upheld the statute.

The decision is important in two ways. First, it established that aesthetics are a legitimate public purpose, for which government may regulate and condemn land. This principle has encouraged increased governmental intervention to achieve aesthetic and environmental goals. Second, Berman made clear that the phrase “public use” in the Takings Clause did not mean that land condemned had to remain in government ownership or be used physically by the public. The Court seemed to hold that eminent domain might be used to advance any goal that government could pursue under any of its powers. Subsequent decisions have confirmed this broad understanding of Berman. Thus, under the Takings Clause, “public use” means only public purpose.

See also Property Rights; Public Use Doctrine.—William B. Stoebuckhttp://www.answers.com/topic/berman-v-parker

Coroner: Berman and subsequent cases, in typical supreme court fashion, eviscerated the takings clause of the 5th which applied in the case as the matter arose in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

  1. [1] http://www.answers.com/topic/contract-clause
  2. [1] Home Bldg. & L. Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 483 (1934) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/290/398.html

290 U.S. 398 (1934), argued 8 and 9 Nov. 1933, decided 8 June 1934 by vote of 5 to 4; Hughes for the Court, Sutherland, Butler, McReynolds, and Van Devanter in dissent.

http://www.answers.com/topic/home-building-and-loan-association-v-blaisdellJohn W. Johnson

  1. [1] Home Bldg. & L. Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 483 (1934) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/290/398.html
  2. [1] ⊗ http://www.answers.com/topic/home-building-and-loan-association-v-blaisdell
  3. [1] ⊗ http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-river-bridge-v-warren-bridge
  4. [1] Full name: The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution. Prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Editor-in-Chief: Kenneth R. Thomas. Managing Editor: Larry M. Eig. Editor Emeritus: Johnny H. Killian. Includes 2010 Supplement: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 29, 2010.

Last modified: October 23, 2012 http://law.onecle.com/constitution/

  1. [1] G. Eliot
  2. [1] ⊗ http://www.answers.com/topic/home-building-and-loan-association-v-blaisdell
  3. [1] http://www.answers.com/topic/contract-clause
  4. [1] ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/1/
  5. [1] —Twelfth Night
  6. [1] —As You Like It
  7. [1] 480 U.S. 470 (1987), argued ⊗ 10 Nov. 1986, decided 9 Mar. 1987 by vote of 5 to 4; Stevens for the Court, Rehnquist in dissent. http://www.answers.com/topic/keystone-bituminous-coal-association-v-debenedictis See also Eminent Domain; Property Rights; Takings Clause—Eric T. Freyfogle
  8. [1] http://www.answers.com/topic/contract-clause
  9. [1] ⊗ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/470/case.html  http://www.answers.com/topic/keystone-bituminous-coal-association-v-debenedictis
  10. [1] ⊗ http://www.answers.com/topic/keystone-bituminous-coal-association-v-debenedictis
  11. [1] 260 U.S. 393 (1922), ⊗ argued 14 Nov. 1922, decided 11 Dec. 1922 by vote of 8 to 1; Holmes for the Court, Brandeis in dissent. http://www.answers.com/topic/pennsylvania-coal-co-v-mahon See also Property Rights—William B. Stoebuck http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/260/393/
  12. [1] As to the 14th Amendment “incorporation” cases, see Vol. 3, §16.3411: “The Bill of Rights: Reconstructed by the supreme court’s incorporation doctrine” and §17.2232, “The incorporation debacle: Barron v. Baltimore and federalism trashed piecemeal”.

The illicit incorporation occurred first in Chicago, B. & Q. R.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/166/226/case.html,

Oxford Companion: [A]rgued 6, 9 Nov. 1896, decided 1 Mar. 1897 by vote of 7 to 1; Harlan for the Court, Brewer in dissent, Fuller not participating.

In this case the Court unanimously held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause compelled the states to award just compensation when it took private property for public use. (Justice Brewer concurred on this point while dissenting from other parts of the judgment.) The case, which came to the Court as an appeal from a ruling of the Illinois Supreme Court upholding a jury award of one dollar when a street was opened across a railroad track, was among the earliest instances in which the Court applied the due process concept to protect substantive property rights. It was an important step in the Court’s development of due process limits on state control of economic liberties. Yet Chicago B. & Q. R.R. v. Chicago remains good law despite its relation to the doctrine of laissez‐faire constitutionalism. In contemporary constitutional law, the case stands as an early example of the doctrine that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights (see Incorporation Doctrine). In a dissenting opinion, Justice David J. Brewer agreed that the Due Process Clause required the states to pay compensation when private property was taken, but argued that the jury verdict provided only nominal, rather than just, compensation to the railroad. See also Due Process, Substantive; Just Compensation; Property Rights; Takings Clause—Stephen A. Siegel

  1. [1] Per the syllabus, http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/260/393/case.html
  2. [1] 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518, 629 (1819) ⊗
  3. [1] 125 U.S. 190 (1888)
  4. [1] Othello
  5. [1] 188 U.S. 14 (1903) ⊗
  6. [1] Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary, 4th Ed.
  7. [1] The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution. http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/60-obligation-of-contracts.html et seq.
  8. [1] Article 4, §1
  9. [1] http://www.answers.com/topic/full-faith-and-credit See also Federalism.—Thomas O. Sargentich
  10. [1] See Chicago & Alton R.R. v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 119 U.S. 615, 622 (1887) ⊗ (statutes); and Smithsonian Institution v. St. John, 214 U.S. 19 (1909) ⊗ (state constitutional provision) “Our precedent differentiates the credit owed to laws (legislative measures and common law) and to judgments.” Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222, 232 (1998), quoted in Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488, 494 (2003) ⊗.
  11. [1] Black’s Law Dictionary (1910), p. 999 @ http://books.google.com/books?id=R2c8AAAAIAAJ&dq=
  12. [1] Black’s Law Dictionary (1910), p. 669 @ http://books.google.com/books?id=R2c8AAAAIAAJ&dq=
  13. [1] 28 USC § 1738 – State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit. The remainder of the current version deals with effects, a subject to be explored next.
  14. [1] http://www.answers.com/topic/full-faith-and-credit See also Federalism.—Thomas O. Sargentich
  15. [1] http://www.answers.com/topic/full-faith-and-credit
  16. [1] http://www.answers.com/topic/full-faith-and-credit
  17. [1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/11/481/
  18. [1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/16/234/
  19. [1] See Vol. 3, §16.34121 on the requisites of due process.
  20. [1]Here arises a fascinating question: does the rule require the supreme court, in reviewing a state court decision, to give full effect to that decision?
  21. [1] http://www.answers.com/topic/full-faith-and-credit

100.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/305/165/

101.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/340/411/

102.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/full-faith-and-credit

103.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/full-faith-and-credit

104.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/full-faith-and-credit

105.[1] Coroner: The revision in full reads:

“The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.

Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.” 28 U.S.C. §1738

  1. [1] http://tinyurl.com/muwnxgl. Conflicts of Law: International And Interstate: Selected Essays by Kurt H. Nadelmann (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1972) 216-17.

107.[1] Sutherland, Statutory Construction, 4th Ed., Callaghan & Company, Wilmette, Ill. (1984) Vol. 2A, §45.12.

108.[1]See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdity_doctrine#cite_note-15

109.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/188/14/ (1903) ⊗

110.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/188/14/ (1903) ⊗

111.[1] And, lest the point be overlooked, the Andrews court rightly said, “The Constitution of the United States confers no power whatever upon the government of the United States to regulate marriage or its dissolution in the states.” That ought to put an end to any thought of a federal action, including federal court action, redefining marriage so as to permit homosexual “marriage”.

112.[1] 28 U.S.C. § 1738;  http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/28/V/115/1738

113.[1] http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm#article5

114.[1] I would be remiss here if I omitted reference to Windsor v. United States (2013) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf. In his opinion for the court (striking provision of Defense of Marriage Act denying federal benefits for same sex couples), Justice Kennedy relied on Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/497/ which was but another fabrication of the Warren Court:  Kennedy said: “The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. * * * While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved.”

All fiction.

The DOMA provision denying full faith and credit for same sex marriages still stands as of this writing. In view of Windsor, the provision hangs by a very slender thread.

115.[1] And it is only a matter of time before the anvil will drop: a ruling that private discrimination against homosexuals, married or not, violates federal or state civil rights laws.

116.[1] “Inkblot” was a term coined by Judge Bork. The term does not fit, as we shall see ahead. [He] testified during his Senate confirmation hearings: “I do not think you can use the Ninth Amendment unless you know something of what it means. For example, if you had an amendment that says ‘Congress shall make no’ and then there is an inkblot, and you cannot read the rest of it, and that is the only copy you have, I do not think the court can make up what might be under the inkblot.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-ix-to-the-u-s-constitution#ixzz2cQm9trVR

117.[1] Writings of James Madison, G. Hunt Ed., Philadelphia (1904) 271-73 @ http://www.constitution.org/jm/17881017_bor.htm See also St. Commentaries §1898 @ http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm

118.[1] Jefferson presented Madison with the argument that a bill of rights would afford a legal check which it puts in the hands of the judiciary.” See http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s49.html

119.[1] 1 Annals of Congress 439 (1789); http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llac/001/0200/02270449.tif

120.[1] “Limited Government and Individual Liberty: The Ninth Amendments Forgotten Lessons”, The Bill of Rights, Original Meaning and Current Understanding, p. 419 @ http://tinyurl.com/426hssz

121.[1] United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, (1947). http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/75.html

122.[1] St. Commentaries §1898 @ http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm.

123.[1]  Oxford Companion @ http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-ix-to-the-u-s-constitution

124.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/323/18/

125.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/roe-v-wade; http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/. For a full discussion of Roe and its illegitimate “progeny”, see §21.

126.[1] Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/footnote-four-1#ixzz2cQs4DyOJ

127.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/griswold-connecticuthttp://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/

128.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/griswold-connecticuthttp://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/

129.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/318/44/

130.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/497/

131.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/meyer-v-nebraska; http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/262/390/

132.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/pierce-v-society-of-sisters; http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/510/

133.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/skinner-v-oklahoma; http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/

134.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/rochin-v-california; http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/165/

135.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/aptheker-v-secretary-of-state; http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/378/500/

136.[1] Vol. 3, §16.34

137.[1] See Vol. 3, §16.35

138.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/griswold-connecticut#ixzz2aHSFfMBZ

139.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/bowers-v-hardwick; http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/186/

140.[1] Oxford Companion @ http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-ix-to-the-u-s-constitution

141.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/

142.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/lawrence-v-texas; http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/

143.[1] Oxford Companion @ http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-ix-to-the-u-s-constitution

144.[1] Ahead we will quote his sweet mystery of life passage in another case.

145.[1] Oxford Companion @ http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-ix-to-the-u-s-constitution

146.[1] Oxford Companion @ http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-ix-to-the-u-s-constitution

Bibliography: Randy E. Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (2004). Calvin R. Massey, Silent Rights: The Ninth Amendment and the Constitution’s Unenumerated Rights (1995)—Randy E. Barnett

147.[1] http://www.angelfire.com/ny/YouthGroup1/i2hadlove.html

148.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath.

149.[1] See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath _modern.html.

150.[1] http://blog.prolifewisconsin.org/2013/07/18/pope-condemns-abortion-in-1588/

151.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/abortion

152.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/griswold-connecticut; http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/

153.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/roe-v-wade#ixzz2bgFmOHBn http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/

154.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/roe-v-wade http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/

155.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/

156.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/

157.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/roe-v-wade

158.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/490/

159.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/webster-v-reproductive-health-services

160.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/akron-v-akron-center-for-reproductive-health-inc ; http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/462/416/ (1983)

161.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/747/case.html  http://www.answers.com/topic/thornburgh-v-american-college-of-obstetricians-and-gynecologists

162.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/akron-v-akron-center-for-reproductive-health-inc

163.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/

164.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/

165.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/

166.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/914/

167.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/323/214/case.html http://www.answers.com/topic/korematsu-v-united-states (1944)

168.[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/case.html http://www.answers.com/topic/dred-scott-case (1857)

169.[1] Only seven years later, however, the Supreme Court decided Gonzales v. Carhart, http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/550/05-380/  (2007) which, while not formally overruling Stenberg, appeared to signal a change in how the Court would analyze limitations on abortion procedures. Of perhaps the greatest significance is that Gonzales was the first case in which the Court upheld a statutory prohibition on a particular method of abortion. In Gonzales, the Court, by a 5-4 vote, upheld a federal criminal statute that prohibited an overt act to “kill” a fetus where it had been intentionally “deliver[ed] . . . [so that] in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.” The Court distinguished this federal statute from the Nebraska statute that it had struck down in Stenberg, holding that the federal statute applied only to the intentional performance of the less-common “intact dilation and excavation.” The Court found that the federal statute was not unconstitutionally vague because it provided “anatomical landmarks” that provided doctors with a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct it prohibited. Further, the scienter requirement (that delivery of the fetus to these landmarks before fetal demise be intentional) was found to alleviate vagueness concerns. http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/31-abortion.html

170.[1] The Association of Pro-Life Physicians, 5063 Dresden Court Zanesville, Ohio  43701. Am Fam Physician. 2000 Feb 15;61(4):1080-1088. http://www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm

 

171.[1] Moore & Persaud, The Developing Human, p.310; Nilsson & Hamberger, A Child is Born, p.86; Rugh & Shettles, From Conception to Birth, p.217.

172.[1] Dr. H. Hamlin, Life or Death by EEG, JAMA, Oct.12, 1964, p.113.

 

173.[1] Some 56 million in the U.S. alone since Roe.

174.[1] http://www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm

175.[1] http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

That’s the same essay we quoted in its entirety above in this section.

176.[1] http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron%20Paul-Abortion%20and%20Liberty.pdf

177.[1] http://www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm

The relative rarity of maternal death from ectopic pregancies is confirmed by other sources: Here is part of a paper by JOSIE L. TENORE, M.D., S.M., Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois (Am Fam Physician. 2000 Feb 15;61(4):1080-1088) .

“The case-fatality rate has declined from 35.5 maternal deaths per 10,000 ectopic pregnancies in 1970 to only 3.8 maternal deaths per 10,000 ectopic pregnancies in 1989. Even though overall survival has increased, the risk of death associated with ectopic pregnancy remains higher among black and other non-white minority women.* * *

To date, at least 14 studies have documented that 68 to 77 percent of ectopic pregnancies resolve without intervention. Unfortunately, no markers clearly identify which subset of patients has self-limited disease. One retrospective chart review of 236 ectopic pregnancies was unable to identify any parameters that were specifically associated with tubal rupture. Nonetheless, expectant management may be an option for the patient with a small ectopic pregnancy (less than 3.5 cm in greatest dimension) and low, declining β-hCG values who is willing and able to comply with close follow-up.” http://www.aafp.org/afp/2000/0215/p1080.html

The paper continues with statistics on maternal mortality rates:

“In 2007, the latest year for which data are available, the maternal mortality rate was 12.7 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared to a low of 6.6 per 100,000 in 1987. This represents a total of 548 women who died due to maternal causes in 2007. http://mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa11/hstat/hsi/pages/208mm.html

The death of a woman during pregnancy, at delivery, or soon after delivery is a tragedy for her family and for society as a whole. Sadly, about 650 women die each year in the United States as a result of pregnancy or delivery complications.”http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/MaternalInfantHealth/Pregnancy-relatedMortality.htm

178.[1] Found in the United States Statutes at Large, p. 1 @ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=124

179.[1] For lack of time, I avoid the question as it applies to federal military bases or installations within the borders of states.

180.[1] http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm

181.[1] U.S. Const., Article 10,  as applicable to states. Virtually identical in verbiage is Article 9 which applies as against the federal government. “No Bill of Attainder . . .  shall be passed.”

182.[1] 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965). http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/437/

183.[1] William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, p. 166.

184.[1]  The Washington Post of March 28, 2013 reported, “Abortion is allowed in all states at up to 5 weeks.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/28/the-landscape-of-abortion-bans-in-one-must-see-map/

185.[1] The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, pp. 122-123.

  1. 186.             [1] Article 6. * * *

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.’

187.[1] “The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 U.S. 230, 236; (1900) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/177/230/Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427, 436 (1901) ⊗ @  http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/427/case.html And it is to this end, of course, that summons or equivalent notice is employed.” Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/us/234/385/case.html

188.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html

189.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html

190.[1] Not unlike the statute the court wrote in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/

191.[1] The matter of the Declaration as part of the Constitution is discussed in Vol. 1.

192.[1] See, for example, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) ⊗ (unequal administration of law) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/118/356.html

193.[1] Again, as said above, “It is only ethical to remove the tubal pregnancy if spontaneous resolution does not occur after watchful waiting and if the physician is 100% certain that there are no twins.  At this point, the embryo in the fallopian tube is likely to be dead and, even if not, the death is unavoidable and unintentional, and the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.”

194.[1] Federalist № 81 @ http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa81.htm

195.[1] Federalist № 73 @ http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa73.htm

196.[1] Federalist № 83 @ http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa83.htm

197.[1] Osborn v. Bank of United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 736 (1824) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/22/738/case.html

198.[1] West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 404 (1937) ⊗ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/300/379.html

199.[1] Essays, Of Judicature; I The Works of Francis Bacon, A. Hart, Philadelphia, Pa. (1852), p. 58.

200.[1] “Judicial Verbicide: An Affront to the Constitution”, Modern Age, The First Twenty-Five Years, Panichas, George, Ed., Liberty Press, Indianapolis, Ind. (1988), p. 460, quoting Milton.

201.[1] Federalist № 78.

202.[1] Letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Andrew A. Lipscomb, vol. 15, pp. 331–32 (1903)

203.[1] From Vol. 2, §5

204.[1] Vol. 2, §5

205.[1] The full list is found in Vol. 1, §5

206.[1] From Vol. 3, §16

207.[1] Usually under the due process clause, but also under equal protection.

208.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/gault-in-re, In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/387/1.html

209.[1] Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/263.html

210.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/miranda-v-arizona, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/384/436.html

211.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/mapp-v-ohio, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/367/643.html, http://www.answers.com/topic/wolf-v-colorado, Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/338/25.html

212.[1] Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605 (1972) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/406/605.html

213.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/furman-v-georgia, Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/408/238.html

214.[1] Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/433/584.html

215.[1] Emmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/458/782.html

216.[1] Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/482/496.html

217.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/tinker-v-des-moines-independent-community-school-district, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/393/503.html

218.[1] Papish v. Board of Curators, 410 U.S. 667 (1973) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/667.html

219.[1] Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/452/337.html

220.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/brandenburg-v-ohio, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/395/444.html

221.[1] Wyman v. Bowens, 397 U.S. 49 (1970) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/397/49.html. Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397 (1970) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/397/397.html. Lewis v. Martin, 397 U.S. 552 (1970) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/397/552.html

222.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/reynolds-v-sims, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/377/533.html (and five others decided that day).

223.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/roe-v-wade, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html

224.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/griswold-connecticut, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/381/479.html. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/405/438.html

225.[1] Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/384/214.html; Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/393/23.html; Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/394/814.html

226.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/texas-v-johnson Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/397/

227.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/west-virginia-state-board-of-education-v-barnette, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html

228.[1] Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/383/413.html

229.[1] Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/405/645.html

230.[1] Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/391/68.html. Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164 (1972) ⊗ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/406/164.html

231.[1] Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 486 U.S. 466 (1988) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/486/466.html

232.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/loving-v-virginia, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html; Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/434/374.html

233.[1] Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/455/745.html

234.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/thornhill-v-alabama-1, Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/310/88.html

235.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/new-york-times-co-v-sullivan, New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/376/254.html

236.[1] Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/475/767.html

237.[1] Schneider v. City of Irvington, 308 U.S. 147 (1939) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/308/147.html

238.[1] Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/430/705.html

239.[1] Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/344/183.html

240.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/robinson-v-california, Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/370/660.html

241.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/abington-school-district-v-schempp, Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/374/203.html

242.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/harper-v-virginia-state-board-of-elections-1, Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/383/663.html

243.[1] North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann, 402 U.S. 43 (1971) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/402/43.html

244.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/shapiro-v-thompson, Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/394/618.html

245.[1] Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/391/563.html

246.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/craig-v-boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/429/190.html, Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, 459 U.S. 116 (1982) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/459/116.html

247.[1] Campbell v. John Donnelly & Sons, 453 U.S. 916 (1981) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/453/916.html

248.[1] Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413 (1943) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/318/413.html

249.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/terminiello-v-chicago, Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/337/1.html

250.[1] Erzhozik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 (1975) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/205.html

251.[1] Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/431/494.html

252.[1] Pickett v. Brown, 462 U.S. 1 (1983) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/462/1.html

253.[1] See Vol. 3, §16.341 and §16.3411 for a discussion of the absurd results wrought by the decades long incorporation escape.

254.[1] The Constitution, Analysis and Interpretation, (1982 Ed.) http://law.onecle.com/constitution/018-bill-of-rights.html

255.[1] 391 U.S. 145, 148 (1968) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/145/

256.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/293/245/

257.[1] 310 U.S. 296, 300, 303 (1940) ⊗http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/310/296/

258.[1] 330 U.S. 1, 3, 7, 8 (1947) ⊗http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/330/1/

259.[1] 333 U.S. 203 (1948) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/203/case.html

260.[1] 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/652/case.html

261.[1] 274 U.S. 380 (1927) ⊗  http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/380/;

262.[1] 283 U.S. 359 (1931) ⊗ 283 U. S. 359

263.[1] 283 U.S. 697, 701 (1931) ⊗  http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/697/

264.[1] 299 U.S. 353 (1937) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/299/353/case.html

265.[1] 299 U.S. 364, 365 (1937) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/299/353/case.html

266.[1] 307 U.S. 496 (1939) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/307/496.html

267.[1] 314 U.S. 252 (1941) ⊗ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/314/252.html

268.[1] 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html

269.[1] 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/116/252/

270.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/08-1521/ (2010)

271.[1] 338 U.S. 25 (1949) ⊗ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/338/25.html

272.[1] 367 U.S. 643 (1961) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/

273.[1] 395 U.S. 784 (1969) ⊗ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/395/784.htm

274.[1] 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (collateral estoppel) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/397/436.html

275.[1] 378 U.S. 1 (1964) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/378/1/

276.[1] 380 U.S. 609 (1965) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/609/

277.[1] 166 U.S. 226 (1897) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/166/226/

278.[1] 386 U.S. 213 (1967) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/386/213/

279.[1] 333 U.S. 257 (1948) ⊗ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/333/257.html

280.[1] 391 U.S. 145 (1968) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/145/

281.[1] 366 U.S. 717 (1961) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/717/

282.[1] 379 U.S. 466 (1965) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/211/78/case.html

283.[1] 333 U.S. 257 (1948) ⊗ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/333/257.html

284.[1] 380 U.S. 400 (1965) ⊗ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/380/400.html

285.[1] 380 U.S. 415 (1965) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/415/

286.[1] 388 U.S. 14 (1967) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/14/

287.[1] 287 U.S. 45 (1932) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/287/45/case.html

288.[1] 372 U.S. 335 (1963) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/335/

289.[1] 329 U.S. 459 (1947) ⊗ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/329/459.html

290.[1] 370 U.S. 660 (1962) ⊗ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/370/660.html

291.[1] 110 U.S. 516 (1884) ⊗ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/110/516.html

292.[1] 332 U.S. 46, 64–65 (1947) ⊗ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/332/46.html

293.[1] 241 U.S. 211 (1916) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/241/211/

294.[1] 404 U.S. 357, 365 (1971) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/404/357/

295.[1] 401 U.S. 395 (1971) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/395/ (utilizing equal protection to prevent automatic jailing of indigents when others can pay a fine and avoid jail)

296.[1] http://tinyurl.com/3kqc9ot ⊗ discussed in detail in Vol. 2

297.[1] 19 U.S. 264 (1821) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/264/case.html

298.[1] See also Judicial Power and Jurisdiction; Judicial Review.

Bibliography

G. Edward White, History of the Supreme Court of the United States, vols. 3–4, The Marshall Court and Cultural Change, 1815–35 (1988)

299.[1] http://tinyurl.com/3kqc9ot

300.[1] http://tinyurl.com/3kqc9ot

301.[1] Vol. 2, §5.6

302.[1] ⊗ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/124566/Cohens-v-Virginia

303.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/264/case.html

304.[1] 358 U.S. 1 (1958) @ http://supreme.justia.com/us/358/1/case.html

305.[1] 5 U.S. 137 (1803) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html

306.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/case.html

307.[1] http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/27015

308.[1]

309.[1] TJ to Mrs. Abigail Adams (11 Sept. 1804) @  http:/etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm

310.[1] First Things (January 1999), 13–19, http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9901/articles/clinton.html

311.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/case.html

  1. 312.             [1] Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949) ⊗ @

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/337/1/case.html Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, Kadis do not cliam exclusive jurisdiction. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qadi: “The jurisdiction of a qadi was theoretically coextensive with the scope of the law that he applied. That law was fundamentally a law for Muslims, and the internal affairs of the non-Muslim, or dhimmī, communities living within the Islamic state were left under the jurisdictions of those communities. Islamic law governed dhimmīs only with respect to their relations to Muslims and to the Islamic state. In actual practice, however, the jurisdiction of a qadi was hemmed in by what must be regarded as rival jurisdictions, particularly that of the maẓālim court and that of the shurṭah.

313.[1] (1993) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/429/case.html

314.[1] Citing See, e. g., T. Cooley, Law of Torts 408–409 (1880).

315.[1] Citing 500 U. S., at 500 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part)

316.[1] Citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/409/case.html   Cf. Westfall v. Erwin, 484 U. S. 292, 297–298 (1988) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/484/292/case.html   (absolute immunity from state law tort actions available to executive officials only when their conduct is discretionary).

317.[1] By Ramesh Ponnuru http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/220317/pyrrhus-testifies/ramesh-ponnuru

318.[1] Contrary to the article, Casey didn’t change much of anything. It was a reaffirmation of Roe v. Wade. See §21.6

319.[1] Others appeared at the hearings consisting of some 500 pages, but I include here only part of the hearings and introduce only those who appear in this section of the treatise.

The entire transcript may be found @ Day 1, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/ashcroft_hearingtext011601.htm;  and Day 2, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/ashcroft_hearingtext011701.htm

320.[1] See Vol. 1, §2.102 et seq.

321.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiles_in_Courage

322.[1] Veto Message on the Internal Improvements Bill (March 3, 1817) James Madison

“As his last official act as President, Madison vetoes a bill that would provide federal funding for building roads and canals throughout the United States. The President finds no expressed congressional power to fund roads and canals in the Constitution, and he believes that the federal government should not encroach upon matters delegated to state governments.” Here’s part of the veto.

“To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” and which sets apart and pledges funds “for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,” I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.” http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3630

323.[1] “I know a racist when I see one. Senator Ashcroft acts like a racist, walks like a racist, and talks like a racist.” http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/010111.shtml

324.[1] “In limine”: “on or at the threshold; at the very beginning”, Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. at 708.

325.[1] Vol. 1, §2:102 et seq.

326.[1] See §29

327.[1] Maurice Barres

328.[1] Joseph Addison

329.[1] Henry Adams

330.[1] Adlai Stevenson

331.[1] Robert Fuoss (adapted)

332.[1] Richard Armour

333.[1] Lance Morrow

334.[1] Seumas MacManus

335.[1] Oscar Wilde

336.[1] Mark Twain

337.[1] H.L. Mencken

338.[1] Hillaire Belloc

339.[1] Boies Penrose

340.[1] John Kenneth Galbraith

341.[1] 546 N.W.2d 424 (1996).

342.[1] The costs were derived from a chart we prepared and filed at the time the case was pending.

343.[1] On Liberty (1859), Encyclopædia Britannica (Great Books of the Western World), University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill. (1980), Ch. 2.

344.[1] De Tocqueville, Alexis, Democracy in America (1835-39).

345.[1] Section 802.02 (2), Wis. Stats.

346.[1] Dillard, Irving, The Spirit of Liberty, Knopf, New York, N. Y. (1960), p. 288.

347.[1] The brief also gives the complete argument on why the legislation is unconstitutional.

348.[1] Section 809.19, Wis. Stats.

349.[1] Section 809.63, Wis. Stats.

350.[1] Section 809.70-.71, Wis. Stats.

351.[1] Subchapter VIII of Chapter 809, Wis. Stats.

352.[1] Section 809.81, Wis. Stats.

353.[1] Section 809.63, Wis. Stats.

354.[1] 59 Wis.2d 391 (1973).

355.[1] 70 Wis.2d 464 (1975).

356.[1] Section 25.2.

357.[1] Blackstone, Commentaries, I, 269, quoted in Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill. (1960) p. 173.

358.[1] Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 629 (1984) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/609/case.html .

359.[1] Federalist № 62.

360.[1] Federalist №. 1.

361.[1] Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, 84 (1909) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/212/78/

362.[1] Ayalti, Hanan J., Yiddish Proverbs, (1949).

363.[1] Colton, Charles Caleb, Lacon (1825).

364.[1] http://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2012/

365.[1] Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 111 (1908) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/211/78/case.html .

366.[1] Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1, 18 (1938) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/304/1/

367.[1] Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/56/case.html (quoting other cases).

368.[1] Saunders v. Shaw, 244 U.S. 317, 319 (1917) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/244/317/

369.[1] In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33 (1967) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/1/case.html

370.[1] Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315 (1950)  ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/339/306/case.html .

371.[1] “The Living Law”, 10 Ill. L. Rev. 461, 470 (1916).

372.[1] Pliska v. City of Stevens Point, 823 F.2d 1168, 1172 (7th Cir. 1987).

373.[1] Section 805.04(1), Wis. Stats.

374.[1] Section 802.02(2), Wis. Stats.

375.[1] Section 801.06, Wis. Stats.

376.[1] 397 U.S. 254, 271 (1970) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/254/case.html

377.[1] Forward to Memorial Issues for Robert H. Jackson, Columbia Law Review (April 1995), p. 436.

378.[1] F.W. Maitland, The Constitutional History of England, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1909), p. 263, quoted in Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill. (1960), p. 249 @ http://tinyurl.com/q56ndvs

379.[1] Sir Edward Coke, The Second Part of Institutes of the Laws of England (1642), (London 1809), p. 47 (quoted in Hayek, ibid. p. 168).

380.[1] I Blackstone, Commentaries, p. 70.

381.[1] Cir. R. 50. A dismissal “with prejudice” is “on the merits”. Phillips v. Shannon, 445 F.2d 460, 462 (7th Cir. 1971).

382.[1] 901 F.2d 624, 626 (7th Cir. 1990); see also Sims v. Lucas, 9 F.3d 1293, 1294 (7th Cir. 1993).

383.[1] 901 F.2d at 626.

384.[1] John Randolph of Roanoke, House of Representatives (1806).

385.[1] Justice Frankfurter dissenting in Caritatovo v. California, 357 U.S. 549, 558 (1958) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/357/549/

386.[1] Hyde v. U.S., 225 U.S. 347, 391 (1912) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/225/347/ .

387.[1] Matter of Findlay, 253 N.Y. 1, 8 (1930).

388.[1] Art. IV, s. 28, Wis. Const.

389.[1] Quoting the celebrated Montiesquieu, Spirit of Laws.

390.[1] Wis. Senate v. Thompson, 144 Wis.2d 429, 436-37 (1987). See also State ex rel. Husting v. Board of State Canvassers, 159 Wis. 216, 224 (1914): “[It is] very important . . . to have an independent authority to determine from the mass of things coming from legislative activity, what is legitimate and what is not . . . .”

391.[1] See IRS Pub. 17 (1993) The pie chart near the end of the Publication shows that approximately 70% of all federal expenditures go for social welfare and other purposes beyond congress’s powers.

392.[1] Bartley v. United States of America, Case No. 95-C-404 (E.D. Wis. 1995).

393.[1] See Federalist № 78.

394.[1] Quoted in Moore, Stephen, “The Unconstitutional Congress”, Policy Review (Spring 1995), p. 25.

395.[1] Id. at 23.

396.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-v-lopez (1995) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/549/case.html

397.[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-v-lopez (1995) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/549/case.html

398.[1] Credit here belongs mainly to Martin L. Gross, The Government Racket—Washington Waste from A to Z, Bantam Books, New York, N.Y. (1992). I am also indebted to Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington, D.C., organization.

399.[1] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/obamas-2012-budget-is-really-really-long/

400.[1] Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464 (1982) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/454/464/case.html  (to compel college to return property transferred to it by federal government for nothing); Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/262/447/case.html  (to enjoin government from spending money under Maternity Act); Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 429 (1952) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/429/case.html  (declaratory judgment action to have state statute requiring Bible reading in schools declared unconstitutional); Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/83/case.html  (declaratory judgment action to block federal government from disbursing funds to religious and sectarian schools).

401.[1] 26 U.S.C. §7421 (a).

402.[1] 396 F. 2d 766 (8th Cir. 1968).

403.[1] 609 F. Supp. 1249 (D. Md. 1985).

404.[1] Id. at 1251.

405.[1] Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 482 (“The crux of the interest at stake, the plaintiffs argue, is found in the Establishment Clause, not in the supposed loss of money as such. As a matter of primary identity, therefore, the plaintiffs are not so much taxpayers as separationists . . . .'”); Frothingham, 262 U.S. at 488 (“remote, fluctuating, and uncertain” injury); Doremus, 342 U.S. at 433 (“indeterminable, remote, uncertain and indirect” injury). Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968), held that taxpayers did have standing and even abandoned the remote, etc., concept. And Clark was a post-Flast case that followed Flast and didn’t rely on the remoteness principle in its holding. 609 F. Supp. at 1250-51.

406.[1] 392 U.S. 83 (1968).

407.[1] There is no good reason why a taxpayer cannot sue to block unconstitutional borrowing, as well as unconstitutional taxing, for the borrowing results in debt, and the debt must at some point along the way be retired with taxes.

408.[1] Flast is another case like Butler—without constitutional warrant. There is no constitutional requirement that a plaintiff rely on some specific limitation on government power to be eligible to sue for a refund. The idea that one must rest his case on a right in the bill of rights, like the 1st Amendment in Flast, has everything upside down; for it ignores the most important limitation on government power to those who formed our government—the doctrine of enumerated power. It’s amazing that the most important limitation on government power is the one held in least regard by our judiciary.

409.[1] In her suit, Mrs. Bartley also relied on the 5th Amendment due process clause as a limitation on the taxing power on the theory that due process requires that congress have valid subject matter jurisdiction, i.e., power to legislate, before it can tax to pay for the legislation. The theory of subject matter jurisdiction is correct, but as we saw in Vol. 1, §3:523, the due process clause has nothing to do with acts of the legislature—only notice and an opportunity to be heard in judicial proceedings.

410.[1] Davis, Administrative Law §26.6, citing a rash of U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

411.[1] 85-2 U.S.T.C. ¶90,020 (1985).

412.[1] 283 U.S. 269 (1931).

413.[1] 605 F. Supp. 28 (1984).

414.[1] 84-1 U.S.T.C. ¶9126 (1983).

415.[1] Heisler v. United States, 463 F. 2d 375 (9th Cir. 1972); Agron v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 325 F. Supp. 487 (1970); and Harkins v. United States, 66-2 U.S.T.C. ¶9543 (1966).

416.[1] Lac Courte Oreilles Band v. United States, 845 F. 2d 139 (7th Cir. 1988).

417.[1] Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed. at 821.

418.[1] The government’s assertions and our responses are taken from the briefs.

419.[1] Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed. at 821.

420.[1] Id. at 207.

421.[1] See p. ____, supra.

422.[1] 262 U.S. 447 (1923).

423.[1] Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 400-01 (1904) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/193/197/case.html .

424.[1] Declaration of Independence.

425.[1] Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co., 276 U.S. 518, 533 (1928) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/276/518/case.html .

426.[1] At the tax commission, there were three rulings I authored. See ¶¶ 203-336 (1992), 203-377 (1992), and 203-397 (1993), CCH Wis. Tax Reptr.

427.[1] Harper v. Virginia Board of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/509/86/case.html

428.[1] William Wrigley, Jr., Co. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 160 Wis.2d 53, 465 N.W.2d 800, 812 (1991); Cleaver v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 158 Wis.2d 734, 463 N.W.2d 349, 352 (1990).

429.[1] Section 227.50(1)(a), Wis. Stats.

430.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case was not shocking. At the time of our filing the court was receiving about 6000 review requests a year and granting less than 2% of them.

431.[1] 391 U.S. 563 (1968) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/563/case.html

432.[1] Id. at 568

433.[1] 710 F.2d 292 (7th Cir. 1983)

434.[1] 967 F.2d 1175 (7th Cir. 1992).

435.[1] Kingsley Books v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436, 447 (1957) (dissenting) ⊗ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/436/ .

436.[1] 429 U.S. 274 (1977) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/429/274/

437.[1] Id. at 283-84.

438.[1] Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/80/335/case.html  quoted in Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, 113 S.Ct. 2167, 124 L.E.2d 391, at n. 10. (1993) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/429/case.html

439.[1] Robinson, James Harvey, The Mind in the Making, Harper & Brothers, New York, N.Y. (1921), p. 41.

440.[1] Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 111 (1908) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/211/78/case.html

441.[1] Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/234/385/case.htm

442.[1] Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/319/case.html

443.[1] Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269 (1970) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/254/case.html

444.[1] Evans v. Cameron, 121 Wis.2d 421, 426 (1985).

445.[1] Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1, 33 (1945) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/325/1/case.html.

446.[1] Eulogy on William Allen; Speeches, Little Brown & Company, Boston, Mass. (1934), p. 53.

447.[1] Restatement 2d, Contracts, §71.

448.[1] In the case, the governor claimed that the pension case ruling was not the cause of my demise; and made no claim that I was discharged for unsatisfactory work.

449.[1] Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (1891).

450.[1] Restatement 2d, Contracts, §71, comment e.

451.[1] Restatement 2d, Contracts, §71.

452.[1] Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/564/case.html.

453.[1] The statement overrules State v. Verage, 177 Wis. 295, 299, 187 N.W. 830, 832 (1922), holding that a public office is a property right.

454.[1] Ancient Law, Henry Holt & Co., New York, N.Y. (1888), pp. 164-65.

455.[1] ⊗ http://www.answers.com/topic/miranda-v-arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/384/436.html

456.[1] ⊗ http://www.answers.com/topic/mapp-v-ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/367/643.html

457.[1]http://www.answers.com/topic/mapp-v-ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/367/643.html

458.[1] People v. Defore , 242 N. Y. 13, 21, 150 N. E. 585, 587 (1926)

459.[1] See Vol. 3, §16.34121.

460.[1] In the late 1980s, I wrote an article for A magazine, “Exclusively Yours” in which I cited the statistics in the text.

461.[1] Fine, Escape of the Guilty (1986) @ http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=0396085903

462.[1] 530 U.S. 428 @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/428/case.html

463.[1] “To stand by things decided.” http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis

464.[1] (1973) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/

465.[1] (1992) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/

466.[1] (1942) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/317/111.html

467.[1] (1936) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/297/1.html

468.[1] (1937) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/301/1.html

469.[1] Vol.1, §§1:001-1:002

470.[1]In limine”: “on or at the threshold; at the very beginning”, Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. at 708.

471.[1] Government by Judiciary, The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., (1977) 1st Ed. pp. 296-97 @ http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=675&Itemid=99999999. (2nd Ed.) Justice Gibson’s statement is found in Eakin v. Raub, 12 S. & R. 330 (Pa. 1825) http://www.enotes.com/american-court-cases/eakin-v-raub.

472.[1] Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. 254.

473.[1] Swift, Jonathan, “A Voyage to the Country of the Houyhnhnms”, pt. 4, ch. 5, Gulliver’s Travels (1726) @ http://books.google.com/books?id=n8oVAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22a+maxim+among+lawyers %22+Swift&source=gbs_navlinks_ at p. 200.

474.[1] 358 U.S. 1 (1958) @ http://supreme.justia.com/us/358/1/case.html

475.[1] §22.6

476.[1] 5 U.S. 137 (1803) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html

477.[1] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/case.html

478.[1] TJ to Mrs. Abigail Adams (11 Sept. 1804) @  http:/etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm

479.[1] Vol. 3, §14

480.[1] 358 U.S. 1 (1958) @ http://supreme.justia.com/us/358/1/case.html; 410 U.S. 113 (1973) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/; 530 U.S. 428 (2000) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/428/case.html

481.[1] Vol. 3, §11.3

482.[1] Vol. 3, §11.8

483.[1] Vol. 3, §12

484.[1] Vol. 3, §13.105

485.[1] Vol. 3, §15

486.[1] Vol. 1, §3:317

487.[1] Vol. 1, §3:318 & Vol. 3,§13

488.[1] Vol. 2, §9.7 & Vol. 3, §12.9

489.[1] Vol. 2, §6.12; see Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/386/case.html. Oxford Companion:  “[H]olding the clause was addressed only to laws imposing retroactive punishment (by creating criminal sanctions for actions that were legal when carried out or increasing the punishment set for a particular offense and applied retrospectively) and thus was inapplicable in civil disputes.” http://www.answers.com/topic/calder-v-bull

490.[1] Vol. 3, §18.8

491.[1] Vol. 3, §14.3217

492.[1] §22.6

493.[1] Vol. 3, §17.2234 & §27

494.[1] §§22.5

495.[1] Vol. 3, §16.335

496.[1] §22.6

497.[1] Vol. 2, §6.211; http://www.answers.com/topic/abington-school-district-v-schempp, Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/374/203.html; http://www.answers.com/topic/engel-v-vitale, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) ⊗ @ http://laws.findlaw.com/us/370/421.html

498.[1] Vol. 3, §17.2235-6. On defamation of public figures, see New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/case.html and subsequent cases.

499.[1] Both the federal government and the states can take anything they want for any purpose deemed public. See Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/348/26/case.html (upholding condemnation of blighted areas for public housing); Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/229/case.html (takings power extends to any taking that is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose); and don’t always have to pay just compensation. See Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/438/104/case.html. See also generally, Epstein, Takings, Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, Chapters 12 and 13.

500.[1] Vol. 2, §7.2 United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947). http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/75.html

501.[1] Vol. 2, §8

502.[1] Vol. 3, §16.335

503.[1] Vol. 3, §16.3411

504.[1] Vol. 3, §17.71

505.[1] Vol. 3, §16.35

506.[1] http://harpers.org/blog/2009/07/jefferson-the-risk-of-too-much-confidence-in-elected-government. Draft of Kentucky Resolution of 1799, Warnfield, E.D., The Kentucky Resolutions of 1789, 2nd ed., New York, N.Y. (1894), pp. 157-58.

507.[1] The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, p. 149. “Non-existent power” cannot be “prescripted by an unchallenged exercise.” United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632 (1950) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/632/case.html.

508.[1] Felix Frankfurter Reminisces, Reynal and Company, New York, N.Y. (1960), p. 189.

509.[1] Federalist No. 84.

510.[1] http://taxfoundation.org/article/tax-freedom-day-2013-april-18-five-days-later-last-year

511.[1] Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/469/528/case.html

512.[1] Referring to the practice of judges deeming things to be so without the benefit of reasoned application of the law.

513.[1] Professor of Law, University of Chicago. “The True Wisdom of the Bill of Rights”, The Bill of Rights in the Modern State, p. 9.

514.[1] Bolt, Robert, A Man for All Seasons.

515.[1] Rosenfield v. New Jersey, 408 U.S. 901 (1972) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/901/

516.[1] Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/15/case.html

517.[1] Brown v. Oklahoma, 408 U.S. 914 (1972) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=408&invol=914

518.[1] Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130 (1974) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/415/130/

519.[1] Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455 (1970) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/400/455/. The Bill of Rights—Original Meaning and Current Understanding, p. 94.

520.[1] The Vanishing Adolescent (1959).

521.[1] Speech, Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775.

522.[1] Letter to Col William S. Smith, Nov. 13, 1787.

523.[1] Letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787.

524.[1] “First Inaugural Address,” March 4, 1861.

525.[1] “Law,” The Great Ideas, A Syntopicon of Great Books of the Western World, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., William Benton Publisher, Chicago, Illinois (1982), vol. 2, p. 969.

526.[1] Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442 (1886) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/425/ .

527.[1] United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632 (1950) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/632/ .

528.[1] 1991-1993 the years for which Suzanne Bartley sought a tax refund.

529.[1] Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 289 (1941) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/314/252/ .

530.[1] Speech, New York City (February 27, 1860).

531.[1] Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty (1859), Encyclopædia Britannica (Great Books of the Western World), University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill. (1980), Ch. 2.

532.[1] The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, Hall Kermit, Ed., Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford (1992), p.180.

533.[1] Id.

534.[1] Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/211/78/case.html .

535.[1] 32 U.S. 243 (1833) @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html .

536.[1] Paraphrasing Blackstone’s definition: “power of locomotion, of changing situation . . . without imprisonment or restraint of the person.”

537.[1] This amendment is based on the logic of the enumerated powers doctrine: the only valid takings for public uses are for the purposes of exercising enumerated powers.

538.[1] “The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a completed commentary on our constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank . . . .” John Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821) ⊗ @ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/264/case.html .

Advertisements
Published in: on December 2, 2013 at 10:51 am  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://douglassbartley.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/footnotes-to-vol-4-the-kiss-of-judice-the-constitution-betrayed-in-progress/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: