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. Apparently the states remained really free to exercise
governmental powers, not delegated or prohibited, without interference by
the federal government through threats of punitive measures or offers of
seductive favors. Unfortunately, the decision just announced opens the way
for practical annihilation of this theory; and no cloud of words or
ostentatious parade of irrelevant statistics should be permitted to obscure
that fact. [301 U.S. 548, 600] The invalidity also the destructive
tendency of legislation like the act before us were forecefully pointed out
by President Franklin Pierce in a veto message sent to the Senate May 3,
1854.1 He was a scholarly lawyer of distinction and enjoyed the advice and
counsel of a rarely able Attorney General-Caleb Cushing of Massachusetts.
This message considers with unusual lucidity points here specially
important. I venture to set out pertinent portions of it which must appeal
to all who continue to respect both the letter and spirit of our great
charter.
BROWN, Circuit Judge:
In our constitutional republic, Justice Brandeis observed, the title of
citizen is superior to the title of President. Thus, the questions "[w]ho
is the citizen[?]" and "what is the meaning of the term?" Aristotle,
*Politics* bk. 3, *reprinted in part in* READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
55, 61 (Francis W. Coker ed., 1938), are no less than the questions of "who
constitutes the sovereign state?" and "what is the meaning of statehood as
an association?".
Tuaua v. US, 788 F. 3d 300 (2015)
gamble v u.s (2019) breif overview of objections and justice thomas[i would
read what the other dissenting judges say to, ill also include a tiny bit
of ginsburg]: When the original States declared their independence, they
claimed the powers inherent in sovereignty .... The Constitution limited
but did not abolish the sovereign powers of the States, which retained `a
residuary and inviolable sovereignty.' The Federalist No. 39, p. 245 (C.
Rossiter ed. 1961). Thus, both the Federal Government and the States wield
sovereign powers, and that is why our system of government is said to be
one of `dual sovereignty.' Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 [111
S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410] (1991)." Murphy v. National Collegiate
Athletic Assn., 584 U.S. ___, ___, 138 S.Ct. 1461, 1475, 200 L.Ed.2d 854
(2018).
...But there is a difference between the whole and a single part, and that
difference underlies decisions as foundational to our legal system as
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819). There, in terms so
directly relevant as to seem presciently tailored to answer this very
objection, Chief Justice Marshall distinguished precisely between "the
people of a State" and "[t]he people of all the States," id., at 428, 435;
between the "sovereignty which the people of a single state
possess"...Stare decisis has its pedigree in the unwritten common law of
England. As Blackstone explained, the common law included "[e]stablished
customs" and "[e]stablished rules and maxims" that were discerned and
articulated by judges. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England
68-69 (1765) (Blackstone). In the common-law system, stare decisis played
1983*1983 an important role because "judicial decisions [were] the
principal and most authoritative evidence, that [could] be given, of the
existence of such a custom as shall form a part of the common law." Id., at
69. Accordingly, "precedents and rules must be followed, unless flatly
absurd or unjust," because a judge must issue judgments "according to the
known laws and customs of the land" and not "according to his private
sentiments" or "own private judgment." Id., at 69-70. In other words,
judges were expected to adhere to precedents because they embodied the very
law the judges were bound to apply...Importantly, however, the common law
did not view precedent as unyielding when it was "most evidently contrary
to reason" or "divine law." Blackstone 69-70. The founding generation
recognized that a "judge may mistake the law." Id., at 71; see also 1 Kent
444 ("Even a series of decisions are not always conclusive evidence of what
is law"). And according to Blackstone, judges should disregard precedent
that articulates a rule incorrectly when necessary "to vindicate the old
[rule] from misrepresentation." Blackstone 70; see also 1 Kent 443 ("If ...
any solemnly adjudged case can be shown to be founded in error, it is no
doubt the right and the duty of the judges who have a similar case before
them, to correct the error"). He went further: When a "former decision is
manifestly absurd or unjust" or fails to conform to reason, it is not
simply "bad law," but "not law" at all. Blackstone 70 (emphasis). This
view—that demonstrably erroneous "blunders" of prior courts should be
corrected—was accepted by state courts throughout the 19th century. See,
e.g., McDowell v. Oyer, 21 Pa. 417, 423 (1853); Guild v. Eager, 17 Mass.
615, 622 (1822).
Justice GINSBURG, dissenting: In the system established by the Federal
Constitution, however, "ultimate sovereignty" resides in the governed.
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n, 576
U.S. ___, ___, 135 S.Ct. 2652, 2675, 192 L.Ed.2d 704 (2015); Martin v.
Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 324-325, 4 L.Ed. 97 (1816); Braun, supra, at
26-30. Insofar as a crime offends the "peace and dignity" of a sovereign,
Lanza, 260 U.S. at 382, 43 S.Ct. 141, that "sovereign" is the people, the
"original fountain of all legitimate authority," The Federalist No. 22, at
152 (A. Hamilton); see Note, Double Prosecution by State and Federal
Governments: Another *1991 Exercise in Federalism, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1538,
1542 (1967).
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 1:25 PM Jb <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That would be the USA inc. corporation constitution. The organic one has
been haulted since 1871. With the passing of the treasonous organic act.
They also did away with the titles of nobility clause 14th amendment which
prevented folks London and Britain from holding any political position in
Usa government also a “14 amendment citizen” is not one of a sovereign
nature but of a corporation sub- with ability to do business with other
corporations.
On Jan 21, 2021, at 1:46 PM, Joe Skelton (Redacted sender "jskelton101"
for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The Constitution is only for Washington DC
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021, 05:46:43 PM CST,
administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <son@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Please see/review attached.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
-
administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mark Dice
Great information on the constitution. How over the years (ancient years) of
how it developed . Bringing up to the early years of the constitution.
Including how the courts operated in the early years. Contrary to many the
federal constitution which is also the United States Constitution and not
incorporated. I know many believe it was and I posted a piece denying that
and why. Now the municipal DC was Inc and is the major problem and hoping
Trump/military will eliminate that incorporation. As some say is not under
three constitution and the piece I submitted defends it was.
I'll be reading the whole thing. Since I did as usual a pick and choose to
get a synopsis before spending lots of time in a thorough read.
Thanks Charley
On Jan 17, 2021, 3:42 PM -0700, Joe Skelton <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
wrote:
The Constitution is for DC elites only.
On Sunday, January 17, 2021, 12:48:53 PM CST, NELSON DICE
<nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
https://constitution.org/
Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
