state citizenship is a vested substantial property right, and the State has
no power to divest or impair these rights. Favot v Kingsbury
wallace v jaffree 472 u.s 38
26. The Court of Appeals wrote:
The stare decisis doctrine and its exceptions do not apply where a lower
court is compelled to apply the precedent of a higher court. See 20
Am.Jur.2d Courts § 183 (1965).
Federal district courts and circuit courts are bound to adhere to the
controlling decisions of the Supreme Court. Hutto v. Davis, [ 454 U.S. 370,
375] (1982). . . . Justice Rehnquist emphasized the importance of precedent
when he observed that,unless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal
judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower
federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think
it to be.
Davis, [454 U.S. at 375]. See also Thurston Motor Line, Inc. v. Jordan K.
Rand, Ltd., [ 460 U.S. 533, 535] (1983) (the Supreme Court, in a per curiam
decision, recently stated: "Needless to say, only this Court may overrule
one of its precedents").
705 F.2d at 1532.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/19832231705f2d152611988
jaffree v wallace 705 F.2d 1526 (1983):
Federal district courts and circuit courts are bound to adhere to the
controlling decisions of the Supreme Court. Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370,
375, 102 S.Ct. 703, 705-706, 70 L.Ed.2d 556 (1982); Stell v.
Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education, 333 F.2d 55, 61 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 379 U.S. 933, 85 S.Ct. 332, 13 L.Ed.2d 344 (1964); Booster
Lodge No. 405, Int. Ass'n of M. & A.W. v. NLRB, 459 F.2d 1143, 1150 n. 7
(D.C.Cir.1972). Justice Rehnquist emphasized the importance of precedent
when he observed that "unless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal
judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower
federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think
it to be." Davis, 454 U.S. at 375, 102 S.Ct. at 706. See Also, Thurston
Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd., ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 1343, 75
L.Ed.2d 260 (1983) (the Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, recently
stated: "Needless to say, only this Court may overrule one of its
precedents."). The old Fifth Circuit articulated these positions when it
stated that "no inferior federal court may refrain from acting as required
by [a Supreme Court's] decision even if such a court should conclude
[705 F.2d 1533]
that the Supreme Court erred as to its facts or to the law." Stell, 333
F.2d at 61. Judicial precedence serves as the foundation of our federal
judicial system. Adherence to it results in stability and predictability.
If the Supreme Court errs, no other court may correct it.
“Blackstone’s Commentaries are a satisfactory exposition of Common Law”
Bloom v Illinois, 394 U.S. 194, 88 Supreme Court 1477 (1998).
this is a religious people. this is histroyically true...the mass of
organic utterances that this is a christian nation" U.S supreme court,
church of the holy trinity v U.S
The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or devine law, and they
are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed,
are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of
nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity...this law
of nature, being coeval with man kind and dictated by God himself, is of
course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the
globe and in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any
validity, if contrary to this.." blackstone's commentaries on the laws of
england (1765-1769), section 2, page 41. (it explains that "by holy
scriptures i mean the bible". i though i had it with this section but
apparently its in part of my sea of notes)
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 Wed, Mar 3, 2021, 9:58 PM J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
link to this decision, please?
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 8:28 AM veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
almost forgot to mention how the us supreme court also affirms the bible
is the law which is always has been and seen as such at min since the days
of coke's commentaries on the laws of england
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021, 7:10 AM veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
i use supreme court cases because all courts are bound to the us supreme
court decisions and where they error no other court can correct it. and
they have upheld the people are the sovereign, always have always will even
in their jurisdiction
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 10:59 PM Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why do you all use court cases? They are ever changing and it's their
jurisdiction.
On Feb 23, 2021, 5:45 PM -0700, Gary Edwards <motodoc1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
wrote:
Nelson,
Great share and summary. Thank you for posting!
*From:* administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <
administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On Behalf
Of* NELSON DICE
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 23, 2021 11:22 AM
*To:* administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [administrating-your-public-servants] did not confirm
citations. some good points
http://rvbeypublications.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/rightsweb.pub.pdf
Do You Know Your Rights???? - R. V. Bey Publications
<http://rvbeypublications.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/rightsweb.pub.pdf>
1. The Right to Travel; The Right to Mode of Conveyance; The Right to
Locomotion are all absolute rights, and the Police can not make void the
exercise of rights.
rvbeypublications.com
