united states v urquidez 494 u.s 259:
Page 494 U. S. 288
1688 had been enacted not by the people, but by Parliament. The Federalist
No. 84, p. 439 (M. Beloff ed. 1987). Americans vehemently attacked the
notion that rights were matters of "favor and grace,'" given to the people
from the government. B. Bailyn, supra, at 187 (quoting John Dickinson).
Thus, the Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights.
Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from
infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting. See, e.g., U.S.
Const., Amdt. 9 ("The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people"). The Fourth Amendment, for example, does not create a new right of
security against unreasonable searches and seizures. It states that
"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated. . . ."
The focus of the Fourth Amendment is on what the Government can and cannot
do, and how it may act, not on against whom these actions may be taken.
Bestowing rights and delineating protected groups would have been
inconsistent with the drafters' fundamental conception of a Bill of Rights
as a limitation on the Government's conduct with respect to all whom it
seeks to govern. It is thus extremely unlikely that the Framers intended
the narrow construction of the term "the people" presented today. by the
majority.
The drafting history of the Fourth Amendment also does not support the
majority's interpretation of "the people." First, the drafters chose not to
limit the right against unreasonable searches and seizures in more specific
ways. They could have limited the right to "citizens," "freemen,"
"residents," or "the American people." The conventions called to ratify the
Constitution in New York and Virginia, for example, each recommended an
amendment stating, "That every freeman has a right to be secure from all
unreasonable searches and seizures. . . . " W. Cuddihy, Search and Seizure
steward mach. co. v davis 301 u.s 548:
Separate opinion of Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS.
That portion of the Social Security legislation here under consideration, I
think, exceeds the power granted to Congress. It unduly interferes with the
orderly government of the state by her own people and otherwise offends the
Federal Constitution.
In Texas v. White (1869) 7 Wall. 700, 725, a cause of momentous importance,
this Court, through Chief Justice Chase, declared- [301 U.S. 548, 599]
'But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies
the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of
self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each
State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power,
jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under
the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted,
still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we
have already had occasion to remark at this term, that 'the people of each
State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the
functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that
'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the
United States.' (Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76). Not only,
therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the
States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not
unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance
of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the
Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the
National Government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an
indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.'
The doctrine thus announced and often repeated, I had supposed was firmly
established. (affirmed gamble v us (2019))
Before EVANS and PAGE, Circuit Judges, and FITZHENRY, District judge
(Circuit Ct. of Appeals 7th Circuit):
From the time of the adoption of the Constitution it became necessary in
many cases to determine whether an individual in a given case was a citizen
of the United States. In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, there is a
very full examination of the authorities and discussion of the question as
to what then constituted citizenship in the United States. In the Dred
Scott Case, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, the Supreme Court said: 'The words,
'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean
the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our
republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and
conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we
familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this
people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.'
That was in 1856, before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. In
1891, after the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, in Boyd v. Thayer,
143 U.S. 135, 159, [the case before this one. ] the Supreme Court quoted
and adopted the above definition from the Dred Scott Case. Judge Cooley, in
his work on Constitutional Limitations, said: 'The people, in a legal
sense, must be understood to be those who, by the existing Constitution,
are crowned with political rights, and who, while that instrument remains,
will be the sole organs through which the will of the body politic will be
expressed.'
It clearly appears that the people of the United States are the same
since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment as they were at the adoption
of the Constitution; that is, they are 'the political body who, according
to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the
power and conduct the government through their representatives.' [Clearly
the same, the supreme sovereign creators. Super emphasis added. ] [***].
The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were adopted to give
former slaves, negroes, a legal status as citizens of the United States and
of the several states in which they resided, and to protect them in those
rights. In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 the Supreme Court said: 'The
Fourteenth Amendment did not radically change the whole theory of the
relations of the state and federal governments to each other, and of both
governments to the people.' [Did not change the relations: Creator vs.
creature. Emphasis added. ] PETER HAND CO. v. UNITED STATES, 2 F.2d 449
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:01 PM NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Fred, Interesting point
*From: *Fred Wind <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent: *Saturday, February 20, 2021 3:01 PM
*To: *administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject: *[administrating-your-public-servants] Re: Communist NJ 1947
Constitution still required State officers to subscribe to an oath
Does anyone know if the US Senate ever ratified the NJ Constitution?
It seems to me that it is not bcz of Congress 'sine die' c. 1861, so the
constitution of 1844 would seem to be the controlling document in and for
New Jersey.
Besides, the plebiscite did not vote for it, so in my opinion it's a
contract for that generation as I wasn't born yet to give consent
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.onelink.me%2F107872968%3Fpid%3DInProduct%26c%3DGlobal_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers%26af_wl%3Dym%26af_sub1%3DInternal%26af_sub2%3DGlobal_YGrowth%26af_sub3%3DEmailSignature&data=04%7C01%7C%7C8db851a3f40746f4182408d8d5da3fac%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637494480627918329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=DGw9u8rr6bXo%2Bvr78JSNlnFKUXeVGL7zicng%2F%2F8BQsw%3D&reserved=0>
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 12:14 PM, NELSON DICE
<nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
https://www.nj.gov/state/archives/docconst47.html
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nj.gov%2Fstate%2Farchives%2Fdocconst47.html&data=04%7C01%7C%7C8db851a3f40746f4182408d8d5da3fac%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637494480627928324%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=EfxarmA1MCj6GtHRuwezyA%2FGx4cpeeHyH7XZFxgkh5A%3D&reserved=0>
