To get the most out of this work and the best perspective, one ought to study first the Précis and the Table of Contents, both of which precede this Preface, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution which follow the Preface. The parts of the Constitution covered in this volume and in previous volumes are marked in bold for continuing ease of reference, though the author certainly doesn’t wish to discourage a full reading of it.

The treatise is styled, The Kiss of Judice: The Constitution Betrayed—A Coroner’s Inquest and Report. “Judice”, a pun, Latin, means “pertaining to judges”; thus denoting the judicial, Judas-like betrayal of the Constitution. “Coroner’s Inquest” denotes that the work is a study into the death of the Constitution. Your author is the Coroner.

In the first two volumes, the Inquest was mainly a dialogue among the Coroner and his Coroner’s Jury. The jury members answered the Coroner’s questions, for the most part in their own words, drawn from a variety of their written works. Occasionally the Coroner put words in their mouths; those “inventions” were shown in brackets in the jurors’ answers.

The Coroner’s Jury, which was unsequestered in Volume 3 and in this volume, consisted of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Story, Locke, and Blackstone. Also making appearances in the Inquest were Col. John Taylor of Caroline, the agent provocateur of this work, Judges Cabell, Brooke, Roane, and Fleming of the Virginia Court of Appeals, judges who, in 1815, defied the mandate of the U.S. Supreme Court ordering the Virginia Court to reverse its decision in Martin v. Hunter[1], a case your Coroner believes to have been among the most important in U.S. legal history. In that case, the Virginia judges held that the U.S. Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to review decisions of state courts.

We established there that the Virginia Court was right; and the consequence of that is that hundreds and probably thousands of state court decisions decided and most of the time overruled by the supreme court were “coram non judice[2], that is, void for lack of that court’s appellate jurisdiction.

In this fourth volume, as in the third, wherever we cite a case in which the supreme court had no jurisdiction, we use this symbol in the related footnote, as well as in the table “Summary of Cases Cited in the Treatise”, to indicate the lack of jurisdiction: ⊗ Please note that the ⊗s are not always repeated for every instance of the case.

Also, in this volume, as in Volume 3, we continue the change in format: here the author, mostly in his own words, applies the principles established in the previous volumes. Here, for better or worse, the reader must bear the author’s screed, although here he is guided by what the Coroner’s jury established in the earlier volumes.

Put another way, whereas in the first two volumes, we established the principles of the Founders’ design, in the third and in this fourth volume, we use those principles to examine major cases in which the modern “conventional wisdom” has tortured the real Constitution.

* * *

A special note on the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States.[3] That excellent work has proven invaluable in summarizing supreme court decisions, as well as doctrines, true and false, associated with the court decisions; and I have quoted and cited it liberally. In the Oxford quotes I have often added my own footnote marks. The pattern I’ve used a whole lot is to quote from the Oxford Companion article and follow that with my criticism or analysis of the merits of the court’s result and reasoning. The reader will find that there are relatively few instances in which the court has gotten it right, and that even in those instances, the reasoning is usually bad.

* * *

The Kiss of Judice is novel, because, to the author’s knowledge, it is the only “Constitutional Law” textbook that collects the wisdom of the Framers as the Constitution’s only authoritative sources; it does not, as most Constitutional Law texts do, emphasize court cases as constitutional authority, for more often than not, the courts have only warped the Constitution.

In a broader sense, though, the work is not novel, for it’s only an arrangement of the work already done by our eminent panel of jurors. The author is pleased to say that the work, by and large, is not original thought. Its beauty is that it only revives long-forgotten constitutional “discoveries”.

A few other matters. In this volume, there are more than 500 footnotes for those who want to see for themselves the sources of the material. Most of the footnotes contain hyperlinks to on-line sources. Others cite both on-line and print sources. Some cite only print sources. When the volume is published, the footnotes in this volume will be posted on the author’s blog @ (“Pastoral Republican”), as they already have been for Volumes 1-3. The footnotes within the quotations from the Oxford Companion and other sources are nearly always the author’s own. Some footnotes are meant to give readers a means of finding cross-references to further discussion in the treatise.

On another matter: We have used italics freely without regard to whether the italics were used in the original text quoted.

The work also contains a Bibliography. At the end of the Bibliography is a list of some of the very good websites that feature some of the authorities cited in this volume.

There is an Index some parts over- and some parts under-inclusive. It is organized around the main topics shown on its first page.

Often the reader will run across foreign words, usually Latin. We have in most cases found translations from seemingly reliable sources, but with some we were on our own. Beware.

The reader should understand that it is not the author’s intention to present “Constitutional Law” according to the supreme court’s revisions of, and “amendments” to, the Constitution. Rather the intent is to present the real Constitution unadulterated by the court. Thus the material in these volumes should not be taken as suggesting the actual results in past cases or in predicting outcomes in present and future cases—the author’s purpose being to show what those outcomes should have been—if the commands of the Constitution were to have been followed.


Also, Dear Reader, if errors be found, please notify the author (pictured above with wife and co-conspirator, Suzanne) (“Pastoral Republican”) in the space there provided. Suzanne and Doug reside near Ely, Minnesota. They are also the authors of six children.

Doug’s articles have appeared in The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (op-ed), Chronicles, and Human Events. And his verses, Epistle 1, “Proofs of the Existence of God”, Epistle 2, “The Realm of Reason”, Epistle 3, “The Realm of Faith”, and Epistle 4, “The Realm of Faith (continued) were published in the inimitable, New Oxford Review @ and (subscription required to view the poems in their entirety). The Epistles have been published in print and may be obtained through Amazon @

Doug was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1947, graduated from Milwaukee Country Day School in 1965, and took his BS and JD from the University of Arizona, afterward practicing law and serving as a judge for seven years on Wisconsin’s tax court, “The Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission”, where he wrote many opinions, both for the majority and in dissent.

Suzanne was born in Detroit in 1947 and graduated from St. Anthony’s there in 1965. Since then she has had many secretarial and accounting jobs, but her main work has always been taking care of her family.

Readers who don’t like the treatise’s content or have errors to correct are encouraged to contact the author on his website listed earlier. I should enjoy hearing even from critics, as well as from those who have compliments to offer.

I close with this prayer:

“Words are like leaves, and where they most abound,

Much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found.”[4]

The aim below, tis’ my wish and my hope:

Comply with the decree of Master Pope,

And squander not words, nor waste precious time,

And blight not Law, nor Liberty begrime

For Canons ought not the foolish to bear;

So, please God, as I write this fare,

Give content, balance, junction to each part,

And let Law be enhanc’d by reason’s art.

[1]Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee,, 14 U.S. 304 (1816),

[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 @

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

Published in: on August 12, 2015 at 11:23 am  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: