The Rule of Law | LearnLiberty

The Rule of Law | LearnLiberty

Dr Rich Show Progamming Schedule 12/26 to 12/30 2011

WE THE PEOPLE of ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION LOBBY
THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Skip to content

Home
Sample Page

← ILLINOIS DILLARD ( MORE THAN 200 NEW LAWS TO TAKE EFFECT JAN. 1 )
Dr. Rich Show Progamming Schedule 12/26 to 12/30 2011
Posted on December 26, 2011 by wfinley11

VISIT DRRICHSHOW.COM FIND ON FACEBOOK FORWARD TO A FRIEND

Advertisement – Saluting Our Military

Dr. Rich Show Salutes our Military on January 10, 2012 from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST

Johnny Jackson will be hosting a special two hour program on January 10, 2012. During the program Johnny will be interviewing speakers and wounded warriors appearing in Tallahassee, FL for a Saluting our Veterans event sponsored by The United West. During the second hour of the show Johnny will be talking with activists who have assembled at the Florida State Capitol to petition the legislature. Tom Trento is our on the ground correspondent and will be conducting these interviews with Johnny.

To Learn More about the Saluting our Military event Click Here

Free Speech Friday Premiers January 6, 2012 on the Dr. Rich Show!
Free Speech Friday is giving a voice to our citizens to speak freely, peacefully assemble on the radio and petition their Government for the redress or their grievances. The Dr. Rich Show believes all politics are local and we are dedicated to giving ordinary people who are doing extraordinary things a voice. In light of all of this the Dr. Rich Show has set aside every Friday from 11:00 a.m. to Noon EST as a platform for those within our broadcast audience to speak about local issues important to Main Street Floridians.
Read More

Blasphemy Rules! Killing Free Speech European Style

A Vienna appellate court Judge upheld the lower court decision that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff ‘denigrated a religion’, Islam. Gates of Vienna (GOV) noted the Judge’s ruling: Judge Leo Levnaic-Iwanski upheld the verdict of the lower court, which convicted Elisabeth on the charge of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.”

Read More

General Peter van Uhm: Guns are the only thing standing between good and evil.

This video is of General Peter van Uhm, Royal Netherlands Army, who eloquently explains why he chose the gun, instead of the pen or the brush, to make the world a better place. Keep in mind that his son, First Lieutenant Dennis van Uhm, was killed in a roadside bombing in Uruzgan, the southern province of Afghanistan.

View Video

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO VIEW OUR VIDEOS ON CURRENT TOPICS AND BREAKING STORIES. OUR VIDEO ARCHIVE IS UPDATED DAILY!

DR. RICH SHOW IS A PROUD MEMBER OF THE CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO NETWORK.

LISTEN ONLINE AT
DRRICHSHOW.COM

AIRING MONDAY-FRIDAY, 11:00 A.M. TO NOON EST

SPECIAL GUEST PROGRAMMING SCHEDULE

Monday, December 26 – Sean Hackbarth, Communications Director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Sean will be talking about the business of America, which is business. We will be discussing the impediments to business expansion and the jobs that are created. Host: Dr. Rich Swier

Tuesday, December 27 – Dave Miller, an expert on U.S. trade, will be discussing our foreign trade imbalances, how we got to this point and his solutions to reverse our negative trade balance. Exports of American goods and services makes our nation strong economically and politically. David will explain how America can return to being a net exporting nation. Host: Johnny Jackson

Wednesday, December 28 – Carmine DellaSala, Vice-President at Diversified Energy Group, Inc. headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida, will be discussing the Oil & Energy industry. Florida and America need cheap and reliable power to fuel our economic engine. Carmine will be discussing how we keep competitive in energy production of all types. Host: Dr. Rich Swier

Thursday, December 29 – Bob Kunst, former candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives and current President of Shalom International will be discussing Israel, the Middle East and U.S. Israel relations. Host: Johnny Jackson

SPECIAL PROGRAM December 30th from 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. EST – Bob Armstrong will join Dr. Rich to discuss the 11 top Obama blunders of 2011. Our listeners have submitted their lists and Bob and Dr. Rich will be counting them down during this very special one hour end of year show. A HAPPY AND HEALTHY NEW YEAR TO ALL!

Friday, December 30 – Tom Trento, President of The United West and Ruth Roman, will be discussing recent events in the Middle East and how that translates to America’s national security. Tom and Ruth will be talking about home grown jihad in Florida and across America. Of particular interest is the stealth jihad being perpetrated against America by the Muslim Brotherhood. Host: Dr. Rich
Swier

To listen to the archives of past Dr. Rich radio shows please CLICK HERE.

Co-Host of the Dr. Rich Show

Johnny Jackson

Johnny is a dynamic conservative speaker, author, and talk show host. As co-host of the Dr. Rich Show, Johnny highlights extraordinary profiles in leadership and brings to light the truths of the United States constitution in accordance with the words, principles, and practices of the founding fathers of the United States of America. Johnny Jackson has spent over 15 years working as a respected Internet professional and is the co- author of the celebrated business manual “Netrepreneur: The Dimensions of Transferring Your Business Model to the Internet”. Johnny lives in Sarasota, FL, with his beautiful wife of 17 years, Heather, and their two daughters. Johnny is available for personal appearances, speaking engagements, and interviews. He can be reached via email at press@johnnyjackson.com or by calling 941-677-8862.

Stewart: Indefinite detention bill ‘one-way ticket to Gitmo’

Stewart: Indefinite detention bill ‘one-way ticket to Gitmo’

Dr. Rich Show Tonight (WALLS IN OUE MINDS )

WE THE PEOPLE of ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION LOBBY
THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Skip to content

Home
Sample Page

← ARTICLE TWO ( OF THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND THE CONSTITUTION And IT’S BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
Dr. Rich show tonight ( walls in our minds )
Posted on December 8, 2011 by wfinley11

Please forward this announcement to anyone you believe may have an interest, especially your local sheriff.

Dr. Richard Gierak

on
Walls In Our Minds

Join Terry Dodd, Red Beckman, Dr. Kate and special Co-Host Kirk MacKenzie TONIGHT for another powerful show

The show runs from 9 to 11 p.m. Eastern Time or 7 to 9 p.m. Mountain, December 8th.

Listen to the stream or join the online chat this Thursday evening at:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2011/12/09/drkates-revolution-radio-walls-in-our-minds

Call-in Number: (347) 838-9176

Dr. Richard Gierak holds degrees in biology, chemistry, and a doctorate in the healing arts. He has lived on the Klamath River for the past 25 years and serves as a science consultant to the Siskiyou County Water Users Association.

Article by Dr. Richard Gierak
KHSA Proposed Removal of Four Hydroelectric Dams Is Illegal

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Blog/Entries/2011/10/25_New_story.html

Co-Hosting this week’s show is:
Kirk Mackenzie, Author of “Money, Defending Your Prosperity”
Kirk MacKenzie is a proud American and the son of a career Air Force Colonel. He has degrees in electrical engineering and business administration, and spent most of his career in high-tech. He decided to stand up, make a difference, and remain silent no more.

The ever-increasing and perpetual debts have converted a free people into little more than bonded servants laboring for a new form of subjugation called central banking. The inability or unwillingness of Congress to solve any of the problems facing our nation, plus the increasingly obvious distortions and half-truths perpetuated by mass media, are the reasons the author decided some 20 years ago to turn off the TV and start on his own path of discovery. This approach proved to be fruitful. In total, that research spanned over 1,000 books and tens of thousands of articles, videos, and web searches. The book is the result of that journey. You can obtain the benefits of 20 years research in a couple of hours.

Watch seminars @ Kirk’s YouTube channel:http://www.youtube.com/user/SilentNoMorePubs

Call-in Number: (347) 838-9176

Phone lines will open during the 2nd hour, watch the documentary linked below and call in with your questions!

Show starts at 8 p.m. Central or 6 p.m. Pacific Time, Every Thursday night.

On October 22, 2011 something big happened.

Over 1000 people, 50 groups, and 8 sheriffs met in unity to save the Klamath River dams in Siskiyou County, California.

Siskiyou County is ground zero in the battle to defend our food, water, energy, building materials, metals, and minerals against Big Government’s multi-faceted and ever-increasing assault that will, if not stopped, ultimately destroy our nation’s true National Treasury: our land, natural resources, and the hard-working farmers, ranchers, timbermen, and miners that are their true stewards; and end our self-reliance, sovereignty, security, and prosperity.

The situation is far worse than most Americans realize.

Mainstream media and government have kept this battle from the American people. Now, however, everything is revealed as the documentary film linked above allows the people of Siskiyou County to give their first-hand accounts of what is truly at risk.

The documentary premiered at the October 22 launch of Defend Rural America, followed by a panel of eight sheriffs and attorney Karen-Budd Falen, all of whom stood tall to Defend Rural America.

This is the short version (54 minutes) of the documentary. The full-length version (78 minutes) includes an additional 24 minutes of personal stories, and may be purchased on DVD at Silent No MorePublications.
.
Kirk MacKenzie, Founder of Defend Rural America
Learn about “The Fight To Save Siskiyou County”
Watch the documentary film and “The Sheriff’s Panel” meeting at Kirk’s new website:http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Home.html

Oath Keepers » Blog Archive » Brandon Smith: When Governments Go Rogue

Oath Keepers » Blog Archive » Brandon Smith: When Governments Go Rogue

THE FOUNDERS ( UNCHANGING PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY )

WE THE PEOPLE of ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION LOBBY
THE SUPREME LAW OF THE OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES AMERICA
Skip to content

Home
Sample Page

← THE PATRIOT POST
THE FOUNDERS ( UNCHANGING PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY )
Posted on December 5, 2011 by wfinley11

The Founders’
Unchanging Principles of Liberty
NOTE: The following is from the July 2004 newsletter of the National Center for Constitutional Studies, www.nccs.net, an excellent website that I highly commend for your review.

As we celebrate the Declaration of Independence in July and the Constitution in September, let us once again reflect on the marvelous principles underlying these two documents. The following is a review of these principles together with a comment or a quote by the Founders. The Five Thousand Year Leap devotes 1 chapter to each of these 28 principles.

Principle 1 – The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.

Natural law is God’s law. There are certain laws which govern the entire universe, and just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, there are laws which govern in the affairs of men which are “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

Principle 2 – A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” – Benjamin Franklin

Principle 3 – The most promising method of securing a virtuous people is to elect virtuous leaders.

“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who … will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.” – Samuel Adams

Principle 4 – Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” – George Washington

Principle 5 – All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent, and to him they are equally responsible .

The American Founding Fathers considered the existence of the Creator as the most fundamental premise underlying all self-evident truth. They felt a person who boasted he or she was an atheist had just simply failed to apply his or her divine capacity for reason and observation.

Principle 6 – All mankind were created equal.

The Founders knew that in these three ways, all mankind are theoretically treated as:

Equal before God.
Equal before the law.
Equal in their rights.

Principle 7 – The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things.

The Founders recognized that the people cannot delegate to their government any power except that which they have the lawful right to exercise themselves.

Principle 8 – Mankind are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights.

“Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal [or state] laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner [of the right] shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.” – William Blackstone

Principle 9 – To protect human rights, God has revealed a code of divine law.

“The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found by comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity.” – William Blackstone

Principle 10 – The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.

“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legislative authority.” – Alexander Hamilton

Principle 11 – The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes … but when a long train of abuses and usurpations … evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” – Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence

Principle 12 – The United States of America shall be a republic.

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands….”

Principle 13 – A Constitution should protect the people from the frailties of their rulers.

“If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary…. [But lacking these] you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” – James Madison

Principle 14 – Life and liberty are secure only so long as the rights of property are secure .

John Locke reasoned that God gave the earth and everything in it to the whole human family as a gift. Therefore the land, the sea, the acorns in the forest, the deer feeding in the meadow belong to everyone “in common.” However, the moment someone takes the trouble to change something from its original state of nature, that person has added his ingenuity or labor to make that change. Herein lies the secret to the origin of “property rights.”

Principle 15 – The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations.

Prosperity depends upon a climate of wholesome stimulation with four basic freedoms in operation:

The Freedom to try.
The Freedom to buy.
The Freedom to sell.
The Freedom to fail.

Principle 16 – The government should be separated into three branches .

“I call you to witness that I was the first member of the Congress who ventured to come out in public, as I did in January 1776, in my Thoughts on Government … in favor of a government with three branches and an independent judiciary. This pamphlet, you know, was very unpopular. No man appeared in public to support it but yourself.” – John Adams

Principle 17 – A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power by the different branches of government.

“It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” – James Madison

Principle 18 – The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of government are set forth in a written Constitution.

The structure of the American system is set forth in the Constitution of the United States and the only weaknesses which have appeared are those which were allowed to creep in despite the Constitution.

Principle 19 – Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment is the most widely violated provision of the bill of rights. If it had been respected and enforced, America would be an amazingly different country than it is today. This amendment provides:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Principle 20 – Efficiency and dispatch require that the government operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority.

“Every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded [bound] by it.” – John Locke

Principle 21 – Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom.

“The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent [to perform best]. – Thomas Jefferson

Principle 22 – A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men.

“The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence of others, which cannot be where there is no law.” – John Locke

Principle 23 – A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.

“They made an early provision by law that every town consisting of so many families should be always furnished with a grammar school. They made it a crime for such a town to be destitute of a grammar schoolmaster for a few months, and subjected it to a heavy penalty. So that the education of all ranks of people was made the care and expense of the public, in a manner that I believe has been unknown to any other people, ancient or modern. The consequences of these establishments we see and feel every day [written in 1765]. A native of America who cannot read and write is as rare … as a comet or an earthquake.” John Adams

Principle 24 – A free people will not survive unless they stay strong.

“To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” – George Washington

Principle 25 – “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.”- Thomas Jefferson, given in his first inaugural address.

Principle 26 – The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore the government should foster and protect its integrity.

“There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

Principle 27 – The burden of debt is as destructive to human freedom as subjugation by conquest.

“We are bound to defray expenses [of the war] within our own time, and are unauthorized to burden posterity with them…. We shall all consider ourselves morally bound to pay them ourselves and consequently within the life [expectancy] of the majority.” – Thomas Jefferson

Principle 28 – The United States has a manifest destiny to eventually become a glorious example of God’s law under a restored Constitution that will inspire the entire human race.

The Founders sensed from the very beginning that they were on a divine mission. Their great disappointment was that it didn’t all come to pass in their day, but they knew that someday it would. John Adams wrote:

“I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.”

I once again commend these to you. Freedom-loving citizens, young and older, find that memorizing these principles proves to be a valuable asset in their defense of our liberty.

Sincerely,

Earl Taylor, Jr.
National Center for Constitutional Studies
www.nccs.net

CONSTITUTION LOBBY PHONE MEETING 12/7/2011

Freedom Keepers on the Move - A Constitution Lobby National Call You Can't Miss! Dec 7
Join us for a Webinar on December 7
Space is limited.
Reserve your Webinar Seat Now at:
https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/337233614
7 First Amendment Petitions for Redress on the Bailouts, Federal Reserve, Monetary Policy, Public Debt, Public Elections, Public Education and Wars are waiting for your review and comment. We are ready to move into action -- ARE YOU WITH US? Come be part of the most important Call yet as Bob Schulz and Judith Whitmore share what is happening and next steps for
Americans who want to be part of a national stand for our Constitutional form of governance.
Title: Freedom Keepers on the Move - A Constitution Lobby National Call You Can't Miss! Dec 7
Date: Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Time: 9:00 PM - 10:00 PM EST
System Requirements
PC-based attendees
Required: Windows® 7, Vista, XP or 2003 Server
Macintosh®-based attendees
Required: Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer

HABEAS CORPUE ACT 1679

← INDEFINITE DETENTION” BILL PASSES 93- 7
HABEAS CORPUS →
HABEAS CORPUSCT 1679
Posted on December 5, 2011 by wfinley11

Responding to abusive detention of persons without legal authority,

public pressure on the English Parliament caused them to adopt this act,

which established a critical right that was later written into the

Constitution for the United States.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Habeas Corpus Act

1679

An act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for

prevention of imprisonments beyond the seas.

WHEREAS great delays have been used by sheriffs, gaolers and other

officers, to whose custody, any of the King's subjects have been

committed for criminal or supposed criminal matters, in making returns

of writs of habeas corpus to them directed, by standing out an alias and

pluries habeas corpus, and sometimes more, and by other shifts to avoid

their yielding obedience to such writs, contrary to their duty and the

known laws of the land, whereby many of the King's subjects have been

and hereafter may be long detained in prison, in such cases where by law

they are bailable, to their great charges and vexation.

II. For the prevention whereof, and the more speedy relief of all

persons imprisoned for any such criminal or supposed criminal matters;

(2) be it enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the

advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in

this present parliament assembled, and by the authority thereof. That

whensoever any person or persons shall bring any habeas corpus directed

unto any sheriff or sheriffs, gaoler, minister or other person

whatsoever, for any person in his or their custody, and the said writ

shall be served upon the said officer, or left at the gaol or prison

with any of the under-officers, under-keepers or deputy of the said

officers or keepers, that the said officer or officers, his or their

under-officers, under-keepers or deputies, shall within three days after

the service thereof as aforesaid (unless the commitment aforesaid were

for treason or felony, plainly and specially expressed in the warrant of

commitment) upon payment or tender of the charges of bringing the said

prisoner, to be ascertained by the judge or court that awarded the same,

and endorsed upon the said writ, not exceeding twelve pence per mile,

and upon security given by his own bond to pay the charges of carrying

back the prisoner, if he shall be remanded by the court or judge to

which he shall be brought according to the true intent of this present

act, and that he will not make any escape by the way, make return of

such writ; (3) and bring or cause to be brought the body of the party so

committed or restrained, unto or before the lord chancellor, or lord

keeper of the great seal of England for the time being, or the judges or

barons of the said court from which the said writ shall issue, or unto

and before such other person or persons before whom the said writ is

made returnable, according to the command thereof; (4) and shall then

likewise certify the true causes of his detainer or imprisonment, unless

the commitment of the said party be in any place beyond the distance of

twenty miles from the place or places where such court or person is or

shall be residing; and if beyond the distance of twenty miles, and not

above one hundred miles, then within the space of ten days, and if

beyond the distance of one hundred miles, then within the space of

twenty days, after such delivery aforesaid, and not longer.

III. And to the intent that no sheriff, gaoler or other officer may

pretend ignorance of the import of such writ. (2) be it enacted by the

authority aforesaid, That all such writs shall be marked in this manner,

Per statutum tricesimo primo Caroli secundi Regis, and shall be signed

by the person that awards the same; (3) and if any person or persons

shall be or stand committed or detained as aforesaid, for any crime,

unless for felony or treason plainly expressed in the warrant of

commitment, in the vacation-time, and out of term, it shall and may be

lawful to and for the person or persons so committed or detained (other

than persons convict or in execution of legal process) or any one on his

or their behalf, to appeal or complain to the lord chancellor or lord

keeper, or any one of his Majesty's justices, either of the one bench or

of the other, or the barons of the exchequer of the degree of the coif;

(4) and the said lord chancellor, lord keeper, justices or barons or any

of them, upon view of the copy or copies of the warrant or warrants of

commitment and detainer, or otherwise upon oath made that such copy or

copies were denied to be given by such person or persons in whose

custody the prisoner or prisoners is or are detained, are hereby

authorized and required, upon request made in writing by such person or

persons, or any on his, her, or their behalf, attested and subscribed by

two witnesses who were present at the delivery of the same, to award and

grant an habeas corpus under the seal of such court whereof he shall

then be one of the judges, (5) to be directed to the officer or officers

in whose custody the party so committed or detained shall be, returnable

immediate before the said lord chancellor or lord keeper or such

justice, baron or any other justice or baron of the degree of the coif

of any of the said courts; (6) and upon service thereof as aforesaid,

the officer or officers, his or their under-officer or under-officers,

under-keeper or under-keepers, or their deputy in whose custody the

party is so committed or detained, shall within the times respectively

before limited, bring such prisoner or prisoners before the said lord

chancellor or lord keeper, or such justices, barons or one of them,

before whom the said writ is made returnable, and in case of his absence

before any other of them, with the return of such writ, and the true

causes of the commitment and detainer; (7) and thereupon within two days

after the party shall be brought before them, the said lord chancellor

or lord keeper, or such justice or baron before whom the prisoner shall

be brought as aforesaid, shall discharge the said prisoner from his

imprisonment, taking his or their recognizance, with one or more surety

or sureties, in any sum according to their discretions, having regard to

the quality of the prisoner and nature of the offense, for his or their

appearance in the court of the King's bench the term following, or at

the next assizes, sessions or general gaol-delivery of and for such

county, city or place where the commitment was, or where the offense was

committed, or in such other court where the said offense is properly

cognizable, as the case shall require, and then shall certify the said

writ with the return thereof, and the said recognizance or recognizances

unto the said court where such appearance is to be made; (8) unless it

shall appear unto the said lord chancellor or lord keeper or justice or

justices, or baron or barons, that the party so committed is detained

upon a legal process, order or warrant, out of some court that hath

jurisdiction of criminal matters, or by some warrant signed and sealed

with the hand and seal of any of the said justices or barons, or some

justice or justices of the peace, for such matters or offenses for the

which by the law the prisoner is not bailable.

THE PATRIOT POST

Subscribe to The Patriot Post — It's Right and It's FREE: click here.

Digest · December 2, 2011
Government Economy Security Culture
The Foundation

"We are either a United people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation, which have national objects to promote, and a national character to support. If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending to it." --George Washington

Government
Divide and Conquer
Democrats' new electoral strategy

It's official: In the 2012 election, Democrats will rely completely on the votes of minorities, lower class government dependents, and the highly educated affluent, while giving up any pretense of trying to get the votes of white working class people. This may seem anathema to a party that features labor unions as one of its prize special interests, but private sector union workers make up an increasingly smaller portion of the workforce. Hispanics, however, are a fast-growing demographic, blacks are solidly Democrat, and the Occupy Wall Street movement has energized the entitled and the supposedly educated, so Democrats are betting they can win without working whites. Yet it's not the plan that's strange, it's the explicit acknowledgment of it.

Thomas Edsall, writing in the New York Times, says, "The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 -- a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories." So how can Democrats still win elections after having announced these intentions? They're telling working whites, "We don't need you," while at the same time hoping those voters won't leave completely.

Part of the reason for the strategy is that between 2008 and 2012 the white share of the electorate will shrink by 2 percent, while the aforementioned coalition's share will increase by the same amount. Also, there's a tacit lowering of the bar. As Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin write for the Center for American Progress (a leftist "think tank" funded by socialist financier George Soros and run by former Clinton operative John Podesta), it's The Path to 270: Demographics versus Economics in the 2012 Presidential Election. The path to 270. Barack Obama won 365 electoral votes in 2008. Lowering the bar means shafting an entire demographic and still winning is plausible.

Of course, we hope Obama takes Jimmy Carter's path -- going from 297 electoral votes in 1976 to just 49 in 1980.

As for the new -- or rather publicly admitted -- coalition, a large segment includes those who either receive or demand assistance from the federal government, i.e., the Occupy movement, which, incidentally, left behind 30 tons of trash in LA after cops arrested 300 while removing the protesters. More than 5,000 Occupiers have now been arrested across the nation. How many Tea Party activists were arrested?

Edsall writes of these entitled miscreants, "A top priority of the less affluent wing of today's left alliance is the strengthening of the safety net, including health care, food stamps, infant nutrition and unemployment compensation. These voters generally take the brunt of recessions and are most in need of government assistance to survive. According to recent data from the Department of Agriculture, 45.8 million people, nearly 15 percent of the population, depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to meet their needs for food." Obviously, Democrats promise to keep the gravy train running.

Meanwhile, productive citizens, small business owners and those without "sufficient" education -- the bitter clingers -- are told to take a hike. Democrats know they have no shot at convincing these voters that more entitlements, more regulations, more taxes and more debt are the way to restore prosperity. Just this week, Obama insisted, "Every single thing that we care about is at stake in the next election. The very core of what this country stands for is on the line." It seems that with their desperate new electoral strategy, Democrats have fully embraced the hate-filled group-against-group tenets of identity politics. Worse, however, is that they seem to have publicly declared their belief that "the very core of what this country stands for" no longer includes working-class white people.

What do you think of the Democrats' strategy?

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

Make sure you're sitting down for this one.

Barack Obama this week held a fundraiser in New York City, where guests paid $35,800 a plate to hear this tripe: "Our kids are going to be fine. And I always tell Malia and Sasha, look, you guys, I don't worry about you. ... [T]hey're on a path that is going to be successful, even if the country as a whole is not successful. But that's not our vision of America. I don't want an America where my kids are living behind walls and gates and can't feel a part of a country that is giving everybody a shot." Imagine how many poor, hungry kids could have eaten for $35,800.

The Obamas: Regular 99 percenters.

Meanwhile, Thanksgiving was the topic of Obama's last weekly address. However, he failed to mention God (a.k.a. He to Whom We Give Thanks) in his Thanksgiving commentary, instead noting "how truly lucky we are."
Did You Know?

The Patriot Post's Digest represents a collaborative effort of more than 30 contributors and editors who bring their passion and expertise from all walks of life. Thursday and Friday in particular represent some pretty long days and nights (trust us!) as we refine our publication to ensure an accurate and penetrating analysis of the week's news, policy and opinion. Indeed, this is what you, our readers, have come to expect over the last 15 years. Many Patriots volunteer their time and effort to our mission, while others receive only a modest salary. Nonetheless, our costs are substantial.

If you find today's Digest interesting, inspiring or informative, we humbly ask that you consider donating to our 2011 Year-End Campaign with a secure online donation. Or, if you prefer to support us by mail, please use our printable donor form. We must raise $183,634 to keep it coming your way.

Thank you!

Nate Jackson
Managing Editor


News From the Swamp: Super Failure

The U.S. Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, humorously dubbed the Supercommittee, failed in its mission to devise a way to trim $1.2 trillion from the budget over the next 10 years. The blame game over who caused the failure lasted for much of the week with Democrats predictably blaming Republicans for refusing significant tax increases even though they themselves refused to consider cuts or reforms to the entitlements that are driving the debt.

With this latest shot at a grand bargain now wasted, elected officials are turning their attention to smaller measures, such as extending the payroll tax cut. There is no economic data to suggest that the payroll tax cut has done anything to spur employment, but the White House and many Democrats insist on continuing the plan. Republicans initially opposed the extension because it hasn't revitalized the economy (in fact, growth has slowed this year) and because the Democrats want to "pay for it" with a 3.25 percent surtax on millionaires, three-quarters of whom are small business owners. That's on top of the possibly expiring Bush tax cuts, which will hit those same taxpayers. As The Wall Street Journal put it, "Perhaps Democrats can explain how taking money from employers is going to lead them to hire more workers."

Republicans, however, are bowing to political pressure as Democrats gladly label the GOP as hypocritical on taxes -- willing to raise taxes on workers but opposing tax increases on the wealthy. The real problem, of course, is that government spends too much, not that it takes in too little. So far, very few people in Washington really want to address that stubborn fact.
From the Left: Barney Frank to Retire

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) announced this week that he will retire at the end of his term, bringing an end to his 32-year congressional career. Mean, condescending and stubborn as a jackass to the end, Frank continues to deflect any blame for his role in the financial crisis. In 2003 and 2005, Frank claimed that government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were sound institutions, and he supported their practice of forcing banks to grant home loans to borrowers with questionable credit. It was this subprime lending that led to Fannie and Freddie's shaky balance sheets, a nationwide foreclosure crisis and, ultimately, a global financial meltdown.

Frank later created, with retired Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, a sweeping set of regulatory shackles that seeks to take over the banking industry under the guise of reforming it. Frank is confident that the law will never be repealed, but he is clearly not confident about Democrats' chances in 2012. As ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank would become Chairman if Democrats were to retake the chamber next year. The fact that he's retiring indicates he doesn't believe that they will, and his retirement could signify a wave of Democrat House members running for the exits ahead of next year's elections. Frank isn't even confident about his own chances, telling reporters this week that the redrawing of his district would mean a fresh constituency and a very hard campaign convincing new people to vote for him. As Comedy Central's Jon Stewart quipped, "So Frank's reason for stepping down is that, if he did run in 2012, he would, for the first time in decades, have to actually make himself appealing to voters."

In 2010, he faced the toughest fight of his career after 15 mostly uncontested terms that included a 1989 male prostitution ring run out of his DC apartment. Frank promises to spend the remainder of his term fighting the dismantling of Dodd-Frank, but he did manage to find time to sign on to a bill that would repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a significant portion of ObamaCare. The IPAB is an appointed board that, beginning in 2014, would be the ultimate decision maker regarding how much medical care Medicare patients will receive. This is the death panel that Frank and other leftists emphatically promised us in 2009 didn't exist. Barney remains a class act to the end.

New & Notable Legislation

Democrat Sens. Harry Reid (NV) and Ben Cardin (MD) have introduced the End Racial Profiling Act, calling for the prohibition of federal funds to state and local law enforcement agencies that practice any aspect of racial profiling in carrying out their investigations. The bill is clearly meant to punish states that seek to enforce illegal immigration laws. "Racial profiling" is defined so broadly and situations in which profiling would be unacceptable are so numerous that it would effectively strip police officers of much of their ability to perform their duties.

In other news, House Republicans' half-hearted attempt at a balanced budget amendment failed, falling 23 votes short of the two-thirds necessary to amend the Constitution. The fundamental problem with the proposal was that it contained no provisions on taxation or spending, leaving Paul Ryan, Chairman of the Budget Committee to comment, "This version ... makes it more likely taxes will be raised, government will grow and economic freedom will be diminished." Ryan was one of four Republicans to vote against the measure.

The Senate Thursday night passed the Defense Authorization bill, which includes a few interesting provisions. One ends the military ban on sodomy and bestiality. Don't ask, don't tell, right? Also, there's a provision that any suspected al-Qa'ida terrorists, including U.S. citizens captured in the country, may be held by the military indefinitely. The implications of that could get interesting.
On the Campaign Trail: As Cain Falls, Gingrich Rises

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain faces another allegation of sexual misconduct. This time it was from a woman named Ginger White, who claims that she had an off-and-on 13-year affair with Cain and that she has the phone records to prove it. White may not be the most credible person to come forward with such accusations (but then again, people who have affairs generally have credibility problems). She has a history of financial problems, a string of evictions, a previous sexual harassment claim that was settled out of court, and a lawsuit by a former business partner that was later dismissed. Cain announced that he was "reassessing" his campaign, which has, of late, become a colossal distraction and a treasure trove to media talkingheads and late-night comics.

Oddly enough, Cain continues to lose supporters to a resurgent Newt Gingrich, who won the coveted endorsement of the New Hampshire Union Leader last week. Gingrich's candidacy had been written off earlier this year, and his penchant for self-destructive comments and actions, such as sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi to profess his support of anti-global warming legislation, has made even his closest supporters nervous. But the endorsement from the conservative-leaning publication in the nation's first primary state, coupled with the former Speaker's impressive debate performances, makes Gingrich a viable alternative to Mitt Romney, who has yet to garner the support of more than about a quarter of Republican voters. The Union Leader's endorsement is not a guarantee of success in the primary, but it's a sure sign that Newt's once-moribund candidacy is now full of life.

Economy
A Swift Kick in the Eurozone

The economic crisis in the so-called "Eurozone" has become critical. This week a spike in Italian bond prices -- almost doubling levels in October -- foreshadowed serious problems with Italian debt. With interest rates having already risen three percentage points on both long- and short-term treasury bills, each increase of a percentage point adds roughly €20 billion in new debt-servicing costs. Continuing this trend will likely lead to a crash in Italy, which in turn, "would inevitably lead to the end of the euro, causing the deadlock of the process of European integration and resulting in unforeseeable consequences." So says newly appointed Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti, citing his frank discussions with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Seeking to stem that trend, the Federal Reserve rushed to open cash spigots to foreign banks, expanding a program that allows them to borrow dollars at lower rates. The hope is that easing borrowing costs to banks will temporarily stem the breakdown of global financial markets and give Europe more time to deal with its debt crisis. The anticipation of more cheap money sent financial markets soaring in the U.S. and Europe, but as with previous cash infusions this stopgap measure merely buys time: the rapidly growing tab is coming due.

What "tab" is that? Well, for one, a half-century of beggar-thy-neighbor socialist entitlements and completely unchecked government spending has amassed a debt that is simply unserviceable. Along with this latest installment of the "rearranging-deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic" Euro-saga, debt holdings of both Portugal and Hungary have been downgraded to "junk," with the promise of more downgrades to follow. Although European leaders publicly proclaim that a Eurozone breakup is "impossible," European banks are quietly preparing exactly that: a return to a multi-currency Europe.

Such a breakup would be devastating. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski stated that it would pose a greater threat to Poland than "tanks, terrorism or missiles." According to Swiss bank UBS, resulting bank runs and financial crises could cost smaller countries like Greece up to 50 percent of their GDP in the first year and 15 percent in subsequent years. For larger countries like Germany, the story is only slightly less bleak: 25 and 12.5 percent, respectively, in the first and subsequent years.

Reiterating the official U.S. position on the crisis, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney echoed comments made in October by the Chosen One. Declaring that the crisis had "created a headwind" for an already sluggish U.S. economy, Mr. Carney reminded us, "[W]e need to take decisive action on things that we can control." Carney added that European economic difficulties make it "much more difficult for us to create good jobs at home." Such look-at-that-speck-in-your-eye-not-the-plank-in-my-own statements highlight the sheer hypocrisy of the Hope-&-Change cabal and also signal the administration's latest "tactic" for turning the U.S. economy around -- namely, blame Europe.

While it is true Europe's house is not in order, blaming Europe for U.S. economic woes is not sufficient. Europe did not accumulate the $15 trillion U.S. debt bill, Europe is not responsible for implementing the U.S. entitlement system, and Europe did not mandate the current anti-business, anti-growth and anti-freedom policies of this administration. While the stronger countries in Europe are doubling down on an already bad bet -- that bailouts can save the European economy from the fundamental flaws of a Ponzi-scheme socialist entitlement system -- Team Chosen is doing them one better: Ignore the root cause of the problem and blame it on someone else. Ultimately, neither problem will be solved without real fiscal reform, notably the shedding of two continents' worth of entitlement spending and socialist policies.
Unemployment

November employment numbers are out today and they bring mixed news. Bloomberg reports, "The jobless rate declined to 8.6 percent, the lowest since March 2009, from 9 percent, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. Payrolls climbed 120,000, with more than half the hiring coming from retailers and temporary help agencies, after a revised 100,000 rise in October." Seems like good news. Unfortunately, part of the reason is that 315,000 Americans left the workforce altogether. Another part is that retailers have hired seasonal help.

Bloomberg also notes, "The so-called underemployment rate -- which includes part- time workers who'd prefer a full-time position and people who want work but have given up looking -- decreased to 15.6 percent from 16.2 percent." Furthermore, "The jobless rate has exceeded 8 percent since February 2009, the longest stretch of such levels of unemployment since monthly records began in 1948." This long after the recession supposedly ended, things should be looking much brighter than this. Welcome to Obamanomics.

Post your thoughts on employment.

Regulatory Commissars: EPA Takes Up Auto Design

Try as they might to catch up to fuel economy standards set by Congress a few years back, Detroit automakers concede that the EPA's new standards -- set without benefit of congressional hearings or one of those nasty floor votes Democrats aren't assured of winning -- will prove difficult to attain without radically changing their business model and making cars less safe. Citing the 1970 Clean Air Act for the EPA's unprecedented regulating of the automotive market, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson unilaterally decided to double fuel economy standards in 15 years to 54 miles per gallon. Granted, when numbers like 56 or even 62 miles per gallon as a fleet-wide average were bandied about, "only" 54 miles per gallon is a bit of a relief. But the EPA's own estimate pegs the cost of the new rule at an astounding $157 billion (a low estimate), which will be passed on to consumers. The National Automotive Dealers Association estimates that the price of cars will increase an additional $3,100 thanks to the new standards.

While Congress is trying to restore more realistic numbers that were worked out among automakers, safety advocates, and the federal government, it's not likely any change will occur unless a new administration is sworn in come 2013. By then Detroit may already be on a road they're forced to travel by an overzealous regime.
Around the Nation: Drilling Ebb and Flow

Domestic oil production provides further proof that Barack Obama's economic policies are at best ineffective and at worst driving this country into the ground. Approval for drilling applications in the Gulf of Mexico has dwindled to a pathetic 35 percent. To make matters worse, there is now an unprecedented 115-day wait for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement to issue its decision. The historical averages for approval are 73.4 percent and 61 days, respectively.

These policies are not only harming the post-spill recovery effort in the Gulf, but they are having an equally detrimental ripple effect throughout the country. Some 700 local jobs would be created from each rig, and allowing drilling projects to move forward would generate revenue for both the public and private sectors.

Yet every cloud has a silver lining. The Obama administration's bureaucratic quagmire hasn't completely stifled American innovation. The oil and gas production industries are growing, though as noted already they could be growing even more. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 440,000 Americans at work in these industries, up 80 percent since 2003. This is due not to government stimulus money or other handouts but good old-fashioned private investment. While the government continues to flush money down green toilets for the likes of Solyndra, there have been incredible developments in horizontal drilling and hydraulics. Contrary to the multipliers and other magical equations employed by Keynesians, these are actual numbers, showing actual progress. All we need is a government that will back off and allow this growth in other sectors.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is set to become a net exporter of petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel for the first time in 62 years. Granted, we're also the world's largest importer of crude oil, but it speaks well of American capacity and productivity that our exports are soaring.

ObamaCare: Waivers and Taxes

States are still lining up for waivers from ObamaCare. While several states including Nevada, Wisconsin, Maine and Iowa (purely coincidentally, these were all blue states in 2008 but are very much in play in 2012) have won waivers, other states, such as Delaware, North Dakota, Indiana and Louisiana, have not been so fortunate. As blogger Doug Powers correctly points out, however, "The real red flag isn't who was denied or approved, but that states are clamoring for waivers at all from something that purportedly will improve the quality of everyone's life. If it's this painful on the front end, what's it going to be like at the back end? Probably like most back ends."

Meanwhile, some are already beginning to feel ObamaCare's kick in the back end. Michigan-based Stryker Corporation, a global medical device company, recently announced it's laying off 5 percent of its workforce because of the law. "The targeted [employee] reductions and other restructuring activities are being initiated to provide efficiencies and realign resources in advance of the new Medical Device Excise Tax scheduled to begin in 2013," the company noted. Industry-wide, ObamaCare's 2.3 percent tax is expected to cost $20 billion in revenue over 10 years. In July, one major trade group representing the medical device industry warned that the tax would "undermine ... [the] industry's ability to create and maintain good jobs in the U.S." Unfortunately, this prediction is proving true. This administration may give lip service to job creation, but talk is cheap, and ObamaCare is proving to be anything but.

Security
Warfront With Jihadistan: Trouble With Pakistan

As the Obama regime continues preparations to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, the region remains intensely hot. Last Saturday, a joint U.S.-Afghan patrol was fired upon across the Afghan-Pakistani border, apparently by Pakistani troops. The U.S. patrol called in air strikes, and two Pakistani border posts were destroyed, killing 24 Pakistani soldiers and sparking anti-American riots. Islamabad retaliated by closing its Afghan border crossings to NATO supplies, telling the U.S. to vacate a Pakistani air base used by American drones, and boycotting an international conference aimed at stabilizing Afghanistan. The air strikes have also jeopardized Barack Obama's hope of enlisting our supposed ally's support in the Afghan war as the U.S. role winds down.

This is not the first attack on our forces by Pakistan. With a large percentage of its military being sympathetic to, or even members of, the Taliban and al-Qa'ida, those forces often use whatever chance they get to shoot at U.S. troops. Unfortunately, Pakistan has us over a barrel, since more than 40 percent of all supplies sent to U.S. forces in Afghanistan are shipped via Pakistani ports and roads. Additionally, Pakistan allows us to use its airspace, including the use of three air bases from which Predator drones are operated. But given the increasing hostility from Pakistan, maybe it's time for the U.S. to redirect the billions of dollars in aid given to Islamabad and start building a better logistics route and system that steers clear of Pakistan's Islamist leanings, or at least use the threat of reduced aid as a big stick to bring the Pakistani military under control. The problem is, we can't live with them, but we can't live without them either.

Is Pakistan a friend or foe?

Tensions Rise With Iran

Another week, another explosion at an Iranian nuclear facility. The first one destroyed a large portion of a military complex and killed a key figure in Iran's ballistic missile program. This latest one occurred in Isfahan, damaging a facility that prepares uranium for enrichment. Iran continues to assert that both explosions were accidents though there is reason to believe they doth protest too much. A growing list of unusual incidents relating to Iran's nuclear program suggests that a covert sabotage effort is underway. Nuclear scientists have been killed in a plane crash, by a mysterious drive-by bomber, and by unmanned aerial vehicles crashing into a nuclear facility. The Stuxnet and Duqu computer viruses also did substantial damage. Whether it's Israel, Britain or the U.S. -- or all of the above -- may the effort continue.

In perhaps related news, The Wall Street Journal reports, "On Tuesday, around 200 protesters belonging to the plainclothes Basij militia stormed the British Embassy and its residence compound in Tehran, vandalizing the property and causing significant damage." The British responded by evacuating the embassy and ordering all Iranian diplomats to leave the UK immediately. France, Germany and the Netherlands have also recalled their ambassadors to Tehran. Recall that in 2008, Barack Obama declared that he would meet with the leaders of Iran "without pre-condition." Maybe he should call Jimmy Carter for advice.

Culture
Second Amendment: Hiding Something

"The Obama Administration has abruptly sealed court records containing alarming details of how Mexican drug smugglers murdered a U.S. Border patrol agent with a gun connected to a failed federal experiment that allowed firearms to be smuggled into Mexico," reports Judicial Watch. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered last December in Arizona with a gun obtained through Operation Fast and Furious. Attorney General Eric Holder testified to Congress last month, however, that the government wasn't responsible. Now, further information regarding that case will be withheld from the media and the public. So much for transparency.

Fortunately, The Washington Times obtained some of the details before they were sealed. The Times reports, "A now-sealed federal grand jury indictment in the death of Border Patrol agent Brian A. Terry says the Mexican nationals were 'patrolling' the rugged desert area of Peck Canyon at about 11:15 p.m. on Dec. 14 with the intent to 'intentionally and forcibly assault' Border Patrol agents." Manuel Osorio-Arellanes, a cartel member, was also shot in the firefight and awaits trial for second-degree murder. That he hasn't yet been tried suggests that Obama has a great deal more to hide in this administration-concocted operation that has taken hundreds of lives. And to think that Leftists drove Nixon out over a second-rate burglary of the DNC office.
Climate Change This Week: A Decline Not Hidden

Perhaps the global warming hysteria brought on by claims that our planet is hotter than at any point since temperatures have been recorded can't be refuted by a single piece of research, but a new climate study published in Science Magazine found that global temperatures are not influenced by the amount of carbon dioxide in the air as previously thought. Even if current CO2 levels were doubled, Earth's temperature would rise only about 3.1 degrees Fahrenheit, not 3.6 degrees to 8.6 degrees as estimated in the 2007 report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Furthermore, in the dry language of the study's seven co-authors, "Assuming paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model, these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought." Translation: the ecofascist hype was just blown away. Of course, that's not going to stop the true believers from castigating "deniers" or pointing out that any extreme weather we have experienced in recent years is symptomatic of drastic climate change, nor will it halt their demands that government continue combating a problem that's truly beyond mankind's ability to rectify.

The debate about whether we are causing climate change is not really about temperatures, but about power and control over our wallets and our lifestyles. Some of us realize that and are realistic about what can be done. Let's see if those who still think mankind is influencing the climate in a negative way can hide the decline in their credibility based on this new research.

In related news, Sunday will mark the 2,232nd consecutive day in which the U.S. has not been hit by a major hurricane. That's a new record, despite dire warnings from warmists.


Knoxville Murder Update

There is an unbelievably cruel update on the "hate crime" rape/torture/mutilation/murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, the subject of "Murder in Black and White" by Mark Alexander. Alexander focused on this case because, despite the clear racial implications -- the victims were white and the assailants are black -- there was a virtual media blackout on the incident.

On Thursday, it was announced that the sentencing judge, Richard Baumgartner, a New York native and longtime Democrat, has been removed from the bench on account of his habitual drug use. Though juries rendered the verdicts in these trials, lawyers have won a retrial for all four convicted murderers because Baumgartner was likely impaired during their trials. That means the families of the two victims will have to go through the horrors of these trials once again. What a travesty of justice.

What do you think about the Knoxville case?

And Last...

Obamanomics has many people in a slump these days, including GM and even Santa Claus. General Motors is dealing with bad publicity for its electric car, the Volt. Touted as the latest, greatest "green" automobile, the heavily subsidized Volt is powered partly by battery and partly by gasoline. Unfortunately for GM -- and possibly some unlucky owners -- three Volts have actually caught fire in crash testing. GM at first offered loaners to any skittish owners and is now working on a full-blown recall and an offer to buy back Motor Trend's Car of the Year from any owner who fears a fire. Sounds like the perfect investment for the Obama administration.

Meanwhile, a Michigan school for would-be Santa Clauses is teaching these mall Santas how to deal with the Obama economy -- including how to quickly size up a family's financial situation and possibly scale back a child's gift request. Also part of the training is how to answer the tragic question, "Can you bring my daddy a job?" A school lecturer said, "Santas have to be sure to never promise anything." It's a sad state of affairs, to be sure, but on the bright side, at least Santa's sleigh won't be catching fire.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team

PREAMBLE OF THE U.S.CONSTITUTION

Preamble to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"We the People" redirects here. For other uses, see We the People (disambiguation).
Page semi-protected
United States of America
Great Seal of the United States

This article is part of the series:
United States Constitution
Original text of the Constitution
Preamble

Articles of the Constitution
I · II · III · IV · V · VI · VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I · II · III · IV · V
VI · VII · VIII · IX · X

Subsequent Amendments
XI · XII · XIII · XIV · XV
XVI · XVII · XVIII · XIX · XX
XXI · XXII · XXIII · XXIV · XXV
XXVI · XXVII
Unratified Amendments
I(1) · XIII(1) · XIII(2) · XX(1) · XXVII(1) · XXVII(2)

Other countries · Law Portal
view · talk · edit

The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.
Contents
[hide]

1 Text
2 Meaning and application
2.1 Judicial relevance
2.2 Examples
2.3 Interpretation
2.3.1 Aspects of national sovereignty
2.3.2 People of the United States
2.3.3 The popular nature of the Constitution
2.3.4 Where the Constitution is legally effective
2.3.5 To form a more perfect Union
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References
6 External links

Text
“ We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”


Meaning and application

The Preamble serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government,[1] nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble's limited nature, no court has ever used it as a decisive factor in case adjudication,[2] except as regards frivolous litigation.[3]
Judicial relevance

The courts have shown interest in any clues they can find in the Preamble regarding the Constitution's meaning.[4] Courts have developed several techniques for interpreting the meaning of statutes and these are also used to interpret the Constitution.[5] As a result, the courts have said that interpretive techniques that focus on the exact text of a document[6] should be used in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution, so the Preamble provides additional language against which to compare other parts of the Constitution. Balanced against these techniques are those that focus more attention on broader efforts to discern the meaning of the document from more than just the wording;[7] the Preamble is also useful for these efforts to identify the "spirit" of the Constitution.

Additionally, when interpreting a legal document, courts are usually interested in understanding the document as its authors did and their motivations for creating it;[8] as a result, the courts have cited the Preamble for evidence of the history, intent and meaning of the Constitution as it was understood by the Founders.[9] Although revolutionary in some ways, the Constitution maintained many common law concepts (such as habeas corpus, trial by jury, and sovereign immunity),[10] and courts deem that the Founders' perceptions of the legal system that the Constitution created (i.e., the interaction between what it changed and what it kept from the British legal system[11]) are uniquely important because of the authority "the People" invested them with to create it.[12] Along with evidence of the understandings of the men who debated and drafted the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention, the courts are also interested in the way that government officials have put into practice the Constitution's provisions, particularly early government officials,[13] although the courts reserve to themselves the final authority to determine the Constitution's meaning.[14] However, this focus on historical understandings of the Constitution is sometimes in tension with the changed circumstances of modern society from the late 18th century society that drafted the Constitution; courts have ruled that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of these changed circumstances.[15] All of these considerations of the political theory behind the Constitution have prompted the Supreme Court to articulate a variety of special rules of construction and principles for interpreting it.[16] For example, the Court's rendering of the purposes behind the Constitution have led it to express a preference for broad interpretations of individual freedoms.[17]
Examples

An example of the way courts utilize the Preamble is Ellis v. City of Grand Rapids.[18] Substantively, the case was about eminent domain. The City of Grand Rapids wanted to use eminent domain to force landowners to sell property in the city identified as "blighted", and convey the property to owners that would develop it in ostensibly beneficial ways: in this case, to St. Mary's Hospital, a Catholic organization. This area of substantive constitutional law is governed by the Fifth Amendment, which is understood to require that property acquired via eminent domain must be put to a "public use". In interpreting whether the proposed project constituted a "public use", the court pointed to the Preamble's reference to "promot[ing] the general Welfare" as evidence that "[t]he health of the people was in the minds of our forefathers".[19] "[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: '* * * promote the general Welfare.'"[20]

On the other hand, courts will not interpret the Preamble to give the government powers that are not articulated elsewhere in the Constitution. United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co.[21] is an example of this. In that case, the defendants were a car manufacturer and dealership indicted for a criminal violation of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). The Congress passed the statute in order to cope with the Great Depression, and one of its provisions purported to give to the President authority to fix "the prices at which new cars may be sold".[22] The dealership, located in Oklahoma City, had sold an automobile to a customer (also from Oklahoma City) for less than the price for new cars fixed pursuant to NIRA. Substantively, the case was about whether the transaction in question constituted "interstate commerce" that Congress could regulate pursuant to the Commerce Clause.[23] Although the government argued that the scope of the Commerce Clause included this transaction, it also argued that the Preamble's statement that the Constitution was created to "promote the general Welfare" should be understood to permit Congress to regulate transactions such as the one in this case, particularly in the face of an obvious national emergency like the Great Depression. The court, however, dismissed this argument as erroneous[24] and insisted that the only relevant issue was whether the transaction that prompted the indictment actually constituted "interstate commerce" under the Supreme Court's precedents that interpreted the scope of the Commerce Clause.[25]
Interpretation
Aspects of national sovereignty

The Preamble's reference to the "United States of America" has been interpreted over the years to make revised claims as to the nature of the governmental entity that the Constitution created (i.e., the federal government). In contemporary international law, the world consists of sovereign states (or "sovereign nations" in modern equivalent). A state is said to be "sovereign," if any of its ruling inhabitants are the supreme authority over it; the concept is distinct from mere land-title or "ownership."[26] While each state was originally recognized as sovereign unto itself, the post-Civil War Supreme Court held that the "United States of America" consists of only one sovereign nation with respect to foreign affairs and international relations; the individual states may not conduct foreign relations.[27] Although the Constitution expressly delegates to the federal government only some of the usual powers of sovereign governments (such as the powers to declare war and make treaties), all such powers inherently belong to the federal government as the country's representative in the international community.[28]

Domestically, the federal government's sovereignty means that it may perform acts such as entering into contracts or accepting bonds, which are typical of governmental entities but not expressly provided for in the Constitution or laws.[29] Similarly, the federal government, as an attribute of sovereignty, has the power to enforce those powers that are granted to it (e.g., the power to "establish Post Offices and Post Roads"[30] includes the power to punish those who interfere with the postal system so established).[31] The Court has recognized the federal government's supreme power[32] over those limited matters[33] entrusted to it. Thus, no state may interfere with the federal government's operations as though its sovereignty is superior to the federal government's (discussed more below); for example, states may not interfere with the federal government's near absolute discretion to sell its own real property, even when that real property is located in one or another state.[34] The federal government exercises its supreme power not as a unitary entity, but instead via the three coordinate branches of the government (legislative, executive, and judicial),[35] each of which has its own prescribed powers and limitations under the Constitution.[36] In addition, the doctrine of separation of powers functions as a limitation on each branch of the federal government's exercise of sovereign power.[37]

A unique aspect of the American system of government is that, while the rest of the world views the United States as one country, domestically American constitutional law recognizes a federation of state governments separate from (and not subdivisions of) the federal government, each of which is sovereign over its own affairs.[38] Sometimes, the Supreme Court has even analogized the States to being foreign countries to each other to explain the American system of State sovereignty.[39] However, each state's sovereignty is limited by the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of both the United States as a nation and each state;[40] in the event of a conflict, a valid federal law controls.[41] As a result, although the federal government is (as discussed above) recognized as sovereign and has supreme power over those matters within its control, the American constitutional system also recognizes the concept of "State sovereignty," where certain matters are susceptible to government regulation, but only at the State and not the federal level.[42] For example, although the federal government prosecutes crimes against the United States (such as treason, or interference with the postal system), the general administration of criminal justice is reserved to the States.[43] Notwithstanding sometimes broad statements by the Supreme Court regarding the "supreme" and "exclusive" powers the State and Federal governments exercise,[44] the Supreme Court and State courts have also recognized that much of their power is held and exercised concurrently.[45]
People of the United States

The phrase "People of the United States" has sometimes been understood to mean "citizens." This approach reasons that, if the political community speaking for itself in the Preamble ("We the People") includes only citizens, by negative implication it specifically excludes non-citizens in some fashion.[46] It has also been construed to mean something like "all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."[47] The phrase has been construed as affirming that the national government created by the Constitution derives its sovereignty from the people,[48] (whereas "United Colonies" had identified external monarchical sovereignty) as well as confirming that the government under the Constitution was intended to govern and protect "the people" directly, as one society, instead of governing only the states as political units.[49] The Court has also understood this language to mean that the sovereignty of the government under the U.S. Constitution is superior to that of the States.[50] Stated in negative terms, the Preamble has been interpreted as meaning that the Constitution was not the act of sovereign and independent states.[51] In short, although in some ways the meaning and implications of the Preamble may be contested, at the least it can be said that the Preamble demonstrates that the federal government of the United States was not created as an agreement between or coalition of the states. Instead, it was the product of "the People" with the power to govern the People directly, unlike the government under the Articles of Confederation, which only governed the People indirectly through rules imposed on the states.
The popular nature of the Constitution

The Constitution claims to be an act of "We the People." However, because it represents a general social contract, there are limits on the ability of individual citizens to pursue legal claims allegedly arising out of the Constitution. For example, if a law was enacted which violated the Constitution, not just anybody could challenge the statute's constitutionality in court; instead, only an individual who was negatively affected by the unconstitutional statute could bring such a challenge.[52] For example, a person claiming certain benefits that are created by a statute cannot then challenge, on constitutional grounds, the administrative mechanism that awards them.[53] These same principles apply to corporate entities,[54] and can implicate the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies.[55]

In this same vein, courts will not answer hypothetical questions about the constitutionality of a statute.[56] The judiciary does not have the authority to invalidate unconstitutional laws solely because they are unconstitutional, but may declare a law unconstitutional if its operation would injure a person's interests.[57] For example, creditors who lose some measure of what they are owed when a bankrupt’s debts are discharged cannot claim injury, because Congress’ power to enact bankruptcy laws is also in the Constitution and inherent in it is the ability to declare certain debts valueless.[58] Similarly, while a person may not generally challenge as unconstitutional a law that they are not accused of violating,[59] once charged, a person may challenge the law's validity, even if the challenge is unrelated to the circumstances of the crime.[60]
Where the Constitution is legally effective

The Preamble has been used to confirm that the Constitution was made for, and is binding only in, the United States of America.[61] For example, in Casement v. Squier,[62] a serviceman in China during World War II was convicted of murder in the United States Court for China. After being sent to prison in the State of Washington, he filed a writ of habeas corpus with the local federal court, claiming he had been unconstitutionally put on trial without a jury.[63] The court held that, since his trial was conducted by an American court and was, by American standards, basically fair, he was not entitled to the specific constitutional right of trial by jury while overseas.[64]

Since the Preamble declares the Constitution to have been created by the "People of the United States", "there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no part of the Union."[65] The following examples help demonstrate the meaning of this distinction:[66]

Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890): the Supreme Court held that a certain treaty between the United States and France which was applicable in "the States of the Union" was also applicable in the District of Columbia, even though it is not part of or a member of the Union (i.e., it is not a State and therefore not one of the "United States").
De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901): the Supreme Court ruled that a customs collector could not, under a statute providing for taxes on imported goods, collect taxes on goods coming from Puerto Rico after it had been ceded to the United States from Spain, reasoning that although it was not a State, it was under the jurisdiction of U.S. sovereignty, and thus the goods were not being imported from a foreign country. However, in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), the Court held that the Congress could constitutionally enact a statute taxing goods sent from Puerto Rico to ports in the United States differently from other commerce, in spite of the constitutional requirement that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,"[67] on the theory that although Puerto Rico could not be treated as a foreign country, it did not count as part of the "United States" and thus was not guaranteed "uniform" tax treatment by that clause of the Constitution. This was not the only constitutional clause held not to apply in Puerto Rico: later, a lower court went on to hold that goods brought from Puerto Rico into New York before the enactment of the tax statute held constitutional in Downes, could retroactively have the taxes applied to them notwithstanding the Constitution's ban on ex post facto laws, even if at the time they were brought into the United States no tax could be applied to the goods because Puerto Rico was not a foreign country.[68]
Ochoa v. Hernandez y Morales, 230 U.S. 139 (1913): the Fifth Amendment's requirement that "no person shall . . . be deprived of . . . property, without due process of law" was held, by the Supreme Court, to apply in Puerto Rico, even though it was not a State and thus not "part" of the United States.

To form a more perfect Union

The phrase "to form a more perfect Union" has been construed as referring to the shift to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation.[69] In this transition, the "Union" was made "more perfect" by the creation of a federal government with enough power to act directly upon citizens, rather than a government with narrowly limited power that could act on citizens (e.g., by imposing taxes) only indirectly through the states.[70] Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the "Union," and the country is called the "United States of America," the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States.[71] The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that state nullification of any federal law,[72] dissolution of the Union,[73] or secession from it,[74] are not contemplated by the Constitution.
See also

List of songs from Schoolhouse Rock (The Preamble)

Notes

^ In the hand-written engrossed copy of the Constitution maintained in the National Archives, the British spelling "defence" is used in the preamble (See the National Archives transcription and the Archives' image of the engrossed document. Retrieved both web pages on 24 October 2009.)

References

^ See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) ("Although th[e] preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments."); see also United States v. Boyer, 85 F. 425, 430–31 (W.D. Mo. 1898) ("The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them." (quoting 1 JOSEPH STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES § 462 (1833)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
^ It is difficult to prove a negative, but courts have at times acknowledged this apparent truism. See, e.g., Boyer, 85 F. at 430 ("I venture the opinion that no adjudicated case can be cited which traces to the preamble the power to enact any statute.").
^ In Jacobs v. Pataki, 68 F. App'x 222, 224 (2d Cir. 2003), the plaintiff made the bizarre argument that "the 'United States of America' that was granted Article III power in the Constitution is distinct from the 'United States' that currently exercises that power"; the court dismissed this contention with 3 words ("it is not") and cited a comparison of the Preamble's reference to the "United States of America" with Article III's vesting of the "judicial Power of the United States."
^ Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 531–32 (1871) ("[I]t [cannot] be questioned that, when investigating the nature and extent of the powers, conferred by the Constitution upon Congress, it is indispensable to keep in view the objects for which those powers were granted. This is a universal rule of construction applied alike to statutes, wills, contracts, and constitutions. If the general purpose of the instrument is ascertained, the language of its provisions must be construed with reference to that purpose and so as to subserve it. In no other way can the intent of the framers of the instrument be discovered. And there are more urgent reasons for looking to the ultimate purpose in examining the powers conferred by a constitution than there are in construing a statute, a will, or a contract. We do not expect to find in a constitution minute details. It is necessarily brief and comprehensive. It prescribes outlines, leaving the filling up to be deduced from the outlines."), abrogated on other grounds by Pa. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), as recognized in Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
^ Cf. Badger v. Hoidale, 88 F.2d 208, 211 (8th Cir. 1937) ("Rules applicable to the construction of a statute are equally applicable to the construction of a Constitution." (citing Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Minn. 107 (1865))).
^ Examples include the "plain meaning rule," Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 619 (1895) ("The words of the Constitution are to be taken in their obvious sense, and to have a reasonable construction."), superseded on other grounds by U.S. CONST. amend. XVI, as recognized in Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916); McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892) ("The framers of the Constitution employed words in their natural sense; and where they are plain and clear, resort to collateral aids to interpretation is unnecessary and cannot be indulged in to narrow or enlarge the text . . . ."), and noscitur a sociis, Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 519 (1893) ("It is a familiar rule in the construction of terms to apply to them the meaning naturally attaching to them from their context. Noscitur a sociis is a rule of construction applicable to all written instruments. Where any particular word is obscure or of doubtful meaning, taken by itself, its obscurity or doubt may be removed by reference to associated words. And the meaning of a term may be enlarged or restrained by reference to the object of the whole clause in which it is used.").
^ See, e.g., Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 663 (1945) ("[I]n determining the meaning and application of [a] constitutional provision, we are concerned with matters of substance, not of form."), overruled on other grounds by Limbach v. Hooven & Allison Co., 466 U.S. 353 (1984); South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 451 (1905) ("[I]t is undoubtedly true that that which is implied is as much a part of the Constitution as that which is expressed."), overruled on other grounds by Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528 (1985); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 658 (1884) ("[I]n construing the Constitution of the United States, [courts use] the doctrine universally applied to all instruments of writing, that what is implied is as much a part of the instrument as what is expressed. This principle, in its application to the Constitution of the United States, more than to almost any other writing, is a necessity, by reason of the inherent inability to put into words all derivative powers . . . ."); Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U.S. 80, 87 (1877) ("A mere adherence to the letter [of the Constitution], without reference to the spirit and purpose, may [sometimes] mislead.").
^ Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 219 (1901) ("[W]hen called upon to construe and apply a provision of the Constitution of the United States, [courts] must look not merely to its language but to its historical origin, and to those decisions of this court in which its meaning and the scope of its operation have received deliberate consideration.").
^ United States v. S.-E. Underwriters Ass'n, 322 U.S. 533, 539 (1944) ("Ordinarily courts do not construe words used in the Constitution so as to give them a meaning more narrow than one which they had in the common parlance of the times in which the Constitution was written."), superseded on other grounds by statute, McCarran-Ferguson Act, ch. 20, 59 Stat. 33 (1945) (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011–1015 (2006)), as recognized in U.S. Dep't of the Treasury v. Fabe, 508 U.S. 491 (1993); Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1, 12 (1887) ("[I]n the construction of the language of the Constitution . . . , we are to place ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed that instrument."), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (1985), and United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002).
^ United States v. Sanges, 144 U.S. 310, 311 (1892) ("[T]he Constitution . . . is to be read in the light of the common law, from which our system of jurisprudence is derived." (citations omitted)); Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888) ("The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.").
^ United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 142 (1936) ("Whether a clause in the Constitution is to be restricted by a rule of the common law as it existed when the Constitution was adopted depends upon the terms or nature of the particular clause." (citing Cont'l Ill. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Chi., Rock Island & Pac. Ry. Co., 294 U.S. 648 (1935))); Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 243 (1895) ("We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted, not as reaching out for new guaranties of the rights of the citizen, but as securing to every individual such as he already possessed as a British subject -- such as his ancestors had inherited and defended since the days of Magna Charta.").
^ Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 533, 542 (1869) ("We are obliged . . . to resort to historical evidence, and to seek the meaning of the words [in the Constitution] in the use and in the opinion of those whose relations to the government, and means of knowledge, warranted them in speaking with authority.").
^ McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892) ("[W]here there is ambiguity or doubt [in the meaning of constitutional language], or where two views may well be entertained, contemporaneous and subsequent practical construction are entitled to the greatest weight."); Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 279–80 (1856) ("[A] legislative construction of the constitution, commencing so early in the government, when the first occasion for [a] manner of proceeding arose, continued throughout its existence, and repeatedly acted on by the judiciary and the executive, is entitled to no inconsiderable weight upon the question whether the proceeding adopted by it was 'due process of law.'" (citations omitted)).
^ Fairbank v. United States, 181 U.S. 283, 311 (1901) ("[A] practical construction [of the Constitution] is relied upon only in cases of doubt. . . . Where there was obviously a matter of doubt, we have yielded assent to the construction placed by those having actual charge of the execution of the statute, but where there was no doubt we have steadfastly declined to recognize any force in practical construction. Thus, before any appeal can be made to practical construction, it must appear that the true meaning is doubtful."); see Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.").
^ In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 591 (1895) ("Constitutional provisions do not change, but their operation extends to new matters as the modes of business and the habits of life of the people vary with each succeeding generation."), overruled on other grounds by Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968); R.R. Co. v. Peniston, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 5, 31 (1873) ("[T]he Federal Constitution must receive a practical construction. Its limitations and its implied prohibitions must not be extended so far as to destroy the necessary powers of the States, or prevent their efficient exercise."); In re Jackson, 13 F. Cas. 194, 196 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1877) (No. 7124) ("[I]n construing a grant of power in the constitution, it is to be construed according to the fair and reasonable import of its terms, and its construction is not necessarily to be controlled by a reference to what existed when the constitution was adopted.").
^ E.g., Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 329 U.S. 69, 77, 78 (1946) ("[T]o infer qualifications does not comport with the standards for expounding the Constitution. . . . We cannot, therefore, read the prohibition against 'any' tax on exports as containing an implied qualification."); Fairbank, 181 U.S. at 287 ("The words expressing the various grants [of power] in the Constitution are words of general import, and they are to be construed as such, and as granting to the full extent the powers named."); Shreveport v. Cole, 129 U.S. 36, 43 (1889) ("Constitutions . . . are construed to operate prospectively only, unless, on the face of the instrument or enactment, the contrary intention is manifest beyond reasonable question.")
^ Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1886) ("[C]onstitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."), recognized as abrogated on other grounds in Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976).
^ 257 F. Supp. 564 (W.D. Mich. 1966).
^ Id. at 572.
^ Id. at 574 (emphasis added).
^ 8 F. Supp. 535 (W.D. Okla. 1934).
^ Id. at 535.
^ U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. ("The Congress shall have power . . . [t]o regulate commerce . . . among the several states . . . .").
^ Kinnebrew Motor Co., 8 F. Supp. at 539 ("Reference has been made in the government's brief to the ‘Welfare Clause‘ of the Constitution as if certain powers could be derived by Congress from said clause. It is not necessary to indulge in an extended argument on this question for the reason that there is no such thing as the ‘Welfare Clause‘ of the Constitution.").
^ Id. at 544 ("The only question which this court pretends to determine in this case is whether or not the sale of automobiles, in a strictly retail business in the vicinity of Oklahoma City, constitutes interstate commerce, and this court, without hesitation, finds that there is no interstate commerce connected with the transactions described in this indictment, and if there is no interstate commerce, Congress has no authority to regulate these transactions.")
^ See Shapleigh v. Mier, 299 U.S. 468, 470, 471 (1937) (when certain land passed from Mexico to the United States because of a shift in the Rio Grande's course, "[s]overeignty was thus transferred, but private ownership remained the same"; thus, a decree of a Mexican government official determining title to the land, "if lawful and effective under the Constitution and laws of Mexico, must be recognized as lawful and effective under the laws of the United States, the sovereignty of Mexico at the time of that decree being exclusive of any other")
^ Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 604, 606 (1889) ("[T]he United States, in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens, are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory. The powers to declare war, make treaties, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, regulate foreign commerce, secure republican governments to the states, and admit subjects of other nations to citizenship are all sovereign powers, restricted in their exercise only by the Constitution itself and considerations of public policy and justice which control, more or less, the conduct of all civilized nations. . . . For local interests, the several states of the union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power.").
^ United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936) ("[T]he investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality. . . . As a member of the family of nations, the right and power of the United States in that field are equal to the right and power of the other members of the international family. Otherwise, the United States is not completely sovereign.").
^ United States v. Bradley, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 343, 359 (1836) ("[T]he United States being a body politic, as an incident to its general right of sovereignty, has a capacity to enter into contracts and take bonds in cases within the sphere of its constitutional powers and appropriate to the just exercise of those powers, . . . whenever such contracts or bonds are not prohibited by law, although the making of such contracts or taking such bonds may not have been prescribed by any preexisting legislative act."); United States v. Tingey, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 115, 128 (1831) ("[T]he United States has . . . [the] capacity to enter into contracts [or to take a bond in cases not previously provided for by some law]. It is in our opinion an incident to the general right of sovereignty, and the United States being a body politic, may, within the sphere of the constitutional powers confided to it, and through the instrumentality of the proper department to which those powers are confided, enter into contracts not prohibited by law and appropriate to the just exercise of those powers. . . . To adopt a different principle would be to deny the ordinary rights of sovereignty not merely to the general government, but even to the state governments within the proper sphere of their own powers, unless brought into operation by express legislation.")
^ U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 7
^ In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 578, 582 (1895) ("While, under the dual system which prevails with us, the powers of government are distributed between the State and the Nation, and while the latter is properly styled a government of enumerated powers, yet within the limits of such enumeration, it has all the attributes of sovereignty, and, in the exercise of those enumerated powers, acts directly upon the citizen, and not through the intermediate agency of the State. . . . The entire strength of the nation may be used to enforce in any part of the land the full and free exercise of all national powers and the security of all rights entrusted by the Constitution to its care. The strong arm of the national government may be put forth to brush away all obstructions to the freedom of interstate commerce or the transportation of the mails. If the emergency arises, the army of the Nation, and all its militia, are at the service of the Nation to compel obedience to its laws.")
^ In re Quarles, 158 U.S. 532, 535 (1895) ("The United States are a nation, whose powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, within the sphere of action confided to it by the Constitution, are supreme and paramount. Every right, created by, arising under or dependent upon the Constitution, may be protected and enforced by such means, and in such manner, as Congress, in the exercise of the correlative duty of protection, or of the legislative powers conferred upon it by the Constitution, may in its discretion deem most eligible and best adapted to attain the object." (citing Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 293 (1892))); Dobbins v. Comm'rs of Erie Cnty., 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 435, 447 (1842) ("The government of the United States is supreme within its sphere of action."), overruled on other grounds by Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466 (1939), and superseded on other grounds by statute, Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, ch. 59, 53 Stat. 574 (codified as amended at 4 U.S.C. § 111 (2006)).
^ United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 68 (1936) ("From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden." (footnote omitted)); Pac. Ins. Co. v. Soule, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 433, 444 (1869) ("The national government, though supreme within its own sphere, is one of limited jurisdiction and specific functions. It has no faculties but such as the Constitution has given it, either expressly or incidentally by necessary intendment. Whenever any act done under its authority is challenged, the proper sanction must be found in its charter, or the act is ultra vires and void."); Briscoe v. President of the Bank of Ky., 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 257, 317 (1837) ("The federal government is one of delegated powers. All powers not delegated to it, or inhibited to the states, are reserved to the states, or to the people.")
^ See U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2; United States v. Bd. of Com'rs, 145 F.2d 329, 330 (10th Cir. 1944) ("Congress is vested with the absolute right to designate the persons to whom real property belonging to the United States shall be transferred, and to prescribe the conditions and mode of the transfer; and a state has no power to interfere with that right or to embarrass the exercise of it. Property owned by the United States is immune from taxation by the state or any of its subdivisions.")
^ Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 331, 347 (1885) ("The departments of the government are legislative, executive, and judicial. They are co ordinate in degree to the extent of the powers delegated to each of them. Each, in the exercise of its powers, is independent of the other, but all, rightfully done by either, is binding upon the others. The constitution is supreme over all of them, because the people who ratified it have made it so; consequently, anything which may be done unauthorized by it is unlawful.")
^ See Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 655, 663 (1875) ("The theory of our governments, state and national, is opposed to the deposit of unlimited power anywhere. The executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches of these governments are all of limited and defined powers."); Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 603, 611 (1870) ("[T]he Constitution is the fundamental law of the United States. By it the people have created a government, defined its powers, prescribed their limits, distributed them among the different departments, and directed in general the manner of their exercise. No department of the government has any other powers than those thus delegated to it by the people. All the legislative power granted by the Constitution belongs to Congress, but it has no legislative power which is not thus granted. And the same observation is equally true in its application to the executive and judicial powers granted respectively to the President and the courts. All these powers differ in kind, but not in source or in limitation. They all arise from the Constitution, and are limited by its terms.")
^ Humphrey's Ex'r v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 629–30 (1935) ("The fundamental necessity of maintaining each of the three general departments of government entirely free from the control or coercive influence, direct or indirect, of either of the others has often been stressed, and is hardly open to serious question. So much is implied in the very fact of the separation of the powers of these departments by the Constitution, and in the rule which recognizes their essential coequality."); e.g., Ainsworth v. Barn Ballroom Co., 157 F.2d 97, 100 (4th Cir. 1946) (judiciary has no power to review a military order barring servicemen from patronizing a certain dance hall due to separation of powers concerns because "the courts may not invade the executive departments to correct alleged mistakes arising out of abuse of discretion[;] . . . to do so would interfere with the performance of governmental functions and vitally affect the interests of the United States")
^ Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 397, 406 (1872) ("There are within the territorial limits of each state two governments, restricted in their spheres of action but independent of each other and supreme within their respective spheres. Each has its separate departments, each has its distinct laws, and each has its own tribunals for their enforcement. Neither government can intrude within the jurisdiction, or authorize any interference therein by its judicial officers with the action of the other.")
^ Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 519, 590 (1839) ("It has . . . been supposed that the rules of comity between foreign nations do not apply to the states of this Union, that they extend to one another no other rights than those which are given by the Constitution of the United States, and that the courts of the general government are not at liberty to presume . . . that a state has adopted the comity of nations towards the other states as a part of its jurisprudence or that it acknowledges any rights but those which are secured by the Constitution of the United States. The Court thinks otherwise. The intimate union of these states as members of the same great political family, the deep and vital interests which bind them so closely together, should lead us, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to presume a greater degree of comity and friendship and kindness towards one another than we should be authorized to presume between foreign nations. . . . They are sovereign states, and the history of the past and the events which are daily occurring furnish the strongest evidence that they have adopted towards each other the laws of comity in their fullest extent."); Bank of U.S. v. Daniel, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 32, 54 (1838) ("The respective states are sovereign within their own limits, and foreign to each other, regarding them as local governments."); Buckner v. Finley, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 586, 590 (1829) (" For all national purposes embraced by the federal Constitution, the states and the citizens thereof are one, united under the same sovereign authority and governed by the same laws. In all other respects, the states are necessarily foreign to and independent of each other. Their constitutions and forms of government being, although republican, altogether different, as are their laws and institutions.")
^ Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 188 (1947) ("The power of a state to determine the limits of the jurisdiction of its courts and the character of the controversies which shall be heard in them is, of course, subject to the restrictions imposed by the Federal Constitution." (quoting McKnett v. St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co., 292 U.S. 230, 233 (1934)) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506, 516 (1856) ("[A]lthough the State[s] . . . [are] sovereign within [their] territorial limits to a certain extent, yet that sovereignty is limited and restricted by the Constitution of the United States.")
^ United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 95–96 (1947) ("The powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government are subtracted from the totality of sovereignty originally in the states and the people. Therefore, when objection is made that the exercise of a federal power infringes upon rights reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the inquiry must be directed toward the granted power under which the action of the Union was taken. If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail."); Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. at 406 ("The two governments in each state stand in their respective spheres of action in the same independent relation to each other, except in one particular, that they would if their authority embraced distinct territories. That particular consists in the supremacy of the authority of the United States when any conflict arises between the two governments.").
^ Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 570 (1832) ("The powers given [to the federal government] are limited; and no powers, which are not expressly given, can be exercised by [it]: but, where given, they are supreme. Within the sphere allotted to them, the co- ordinate branches of the general government revolve, unobstructed by any legitimate exercise of power by the state governments. The powers exclusively given to the federal government are limitations upon the state authorities. But, with the exception of these limitations, the states are supreme; and their sovereignty can be no more invaded by the action of the general government, than the action of the state governments in arrest or obstruct the course of the national power."), recognized as abrogated on other grounds in New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324 (1983).
^ Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 109 (1945) ("Our national government is one of delegated powers alone. Under our federal system, the administration of criminal justice rests with the States except as Congress, acting within the scope of those delegated powers, has created offenses against the United States.").
^ E.g., Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, 372 (1876) ("Th[e federal] government is as sovereign within its sphere as the states are within theirs. True, its sphere is limited. Certain subjects only are committed to it; but its power over those subjects is as full and complete as is the power of the states over the subjects to which their sovereignty extends."). Taken very literally, statements like this could be understood to suggest that there is no overlap between the State and Federal governments.
^ Ex parte McNiel, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 236, 240 (1872) ("In the complex system of polity which prevails in this country, the powers of government may be divided into four classes. [1] Those which belong exclusively to the states. [2] Those which belong exclusively to the national government. [3] Those which may be exercised concurrently and independently by both. [4] Those which may be exercised by the states, but only until Congress shall see fit to act upon the subject. The authority of the state then retires and lies in abeyance until the occasion for its exercise shall recur."); People ex rel. Woll v. Graber, 68 N.E.2d 750, 754 (Ill. 1946) ("The laws of the United States are laws in the several States, and just as binding on the citizens and courts thereof as the State laws are. The United States is not a foreign sovereignty as regards the several States but is a concurrent, and, within its jurisdiction, a paramount authority."); Kersting v. Hargrove, 48 A.2d 309, 310 (N.J. Cir. Ct. 1946) ("The United States government is not a foreign sovereignty as respects the several states but is a concurrent, and within its jurisdiction, a superior sovereignty. Every citizen of New Jersey is subject to two distinct sovereignties; that of New Jersey and that of the United States. The two together form one system and the two jurisdictions are not foreign to each other.").
^ See, e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 410–11 (1857) ("The brief preamble sets forth by whom [the Constitution] was formed, for what purposes, and for whose benefit and protection. It declares that [the Constitution] [was] formed by the people of the United States; that is to say, by those who were members of the different political communities in the several States; and its great object is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. It speaks in general terms of the people of the United States, and of citizens of the several States, when it is providing for the exercise of the powers granted or the privileges secured to the citizen. It does not define what description of persons are intended to be included under these terms, or who shall be regarded as a citizen and one of the people. It uses them as terms so well understood, that no further description or definition was necessary. But there are two clauses in the Constitution which point directly and specifically to the negro race as a separate class of persons, and show clearly that they were not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the Government then formed." (emphasis added)), superseded by constitutional amendment, U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1, as recognized in Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873). But see id. at 581–82 (Curtis, J., dissenting) (arguing that "the Constitution has recognized the general principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth" and that the "necessary conclusion is, that those persons born within the several States, who, by force of their respective Constitutions and laws, are citizens of the State, are thereby citizens of the United States").
^ Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) (using this particular phrasing).
^ Cf. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 296 (1936) ("[T]he Constitution itself is in every real sense a law—the lawmakers being the people themselves, in whom under our system all political power and sovereignty primarily resides, and through whom such power and sovereignty primarily speaks. It is by that law, and not otherwise, that the legislative, executive, and judicial agencies which it created exercise such political authority as they have been permitted to possess. The Constitution speaks for itself in terms so plain that to misunderstand their import is not rationally possible. 'We the People of the United States,' it says, 'do ordain and establish this Constitution.' Ordain and establish! These are definite words of enactment, and without more would stamp what follows with the dignity and character of law."); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886) ("Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." (emphasis added)); Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 176 (1803) ("That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. . . . The principles . . . so established are deemed fundamental. . . . This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers." (emphases added)).
^ Cf. League v. De Young, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 184, 203 (1851) ("The Constitution of the United States was made by, and for the protection of, the people of the United States."); Barron v. Mayor of Balt., 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 247 (1833) ("The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. . . . The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests."), superseded on other grounds by constitutional amendment, U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, as recognized in Chi., Burlington & Quincy R.R. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897). While the Supreme Court did not specifically mention the Preamble in these cases, it seems apparent that it was expounding on the implications of what it understood reference to "the People" in the Preamble to mean.
^ Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471 (1793) (opinion of Jay, C.J.) ("[I]n establishing [the Constitution], the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, ‘We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.‘ Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the State Governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner; and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner." (emphasis added)). abrogated by constitutional amendment, U.S. CONST. amend. XI, as recognized in Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798), and abrogated by Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 12 (1890); see also United States v. Cathcart, 25 F. Cas. 344, 348 (C.C.S.D. Ohio 1864) (No. 14,756) ("[The Supreme Court has] den[ied] the assumption that full and unqualified sovereignty still remains in the states or the people of a state, and affirm[ed], on the contrary, that, by express words of the constitution, solemnly ratified by the people of the United States, the national government is supreme within the range of the powers delegated to it; while the states are sovereign only in the sense that they have an indisputable claim to the exercise of all the rights and powers guarantied to them by the constitution of the United States, or which are expressly or by fair implication reserved to them.").
^ See White v. Hart, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 646, 650 (1872) ("The National Constitution was, as its preamble recites, ordained and established by the people of the United States. It created not a confederacy of States, but a government of individuals."); Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 324–25 (1816) ("The constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but . . . , as the preamble of the constitution declares, by 'the people of the United States.' . . . The constitution was not, therefore, necessarily carved out of existing state sovereignties, nor a surrender of powers already existing in state institutions . . . ."); cf. M‘Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 402–03 (1819) (rejecting a construction of the Constitution that would interpret it "not as emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states. The powers of the general government . . . are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion;" instead, "the [Constitution] was submitted to the people. They acted upon it . . . by assembling in convention. . . . [It] d[id] not, on . . . account [of the ratifying conventions assembling in each state], cease to be the [action] of the people themselves, or become [an action] of the state governments.").
^ Ala. State Fed'n of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 463 (1945) ("Only those to whom a statute applies and who are adversely affected by it can draw in question its constitutional validity in a declaratory judgment proceeding as in any other."); Premier-Pabst Sales Co. v. Grosscup, 298 U.S. 226, 227 (1936) ("One who would strike down a state statute as obnoxious to the Federal Constitution must show that the alleged unconstitutional feature injures him."); Buscaglia v. Fiddler, 157 F.2d 579, 581 (1st Cir. 1946) ("It is a settled principle of law that no court will consider the constitutionality of a statute unless the record before it affords an adequate factual basis for determining whether the challenged statute applies to and adversely affects the one who draws it in question."); Liberty Nat'l Bank v. Collins, 58 N.E.2d 610, 614 (Ill. 1944) ("The rule is universal that no one can raise a question as to the constitutionality of a statute unless he is injuriously affected by the alleged unconstitutional provisions. It is an established rule in this State that one may not complain of the invalidity of a statutory provision which does not affect him. This court will not determine the constitutionality of the provisions of an act which do not affect the parties to the cause under consideration, or where the party urging the invalidity of such provisions is not in any way aggrieved by their operation." (citation omitted)).
^ See, e.g., Ison v. W. Vegetable Distribs., 59 P.2d 649, 655 (Ariz. 1936) ("It is the general rule of law that when a party invokes the benefit of a statute, he may not, in one and the same breath, claim a right granted by it and reject the terms upon which the right is granted."); State ex rel. Sorensen v. S. Neb. Power Co., 268 N.W. 284, 285 (Neb. 1936) ("[In this case,] defendants . . . invoked the statute, . . . relied upon and t[ook] advantage of it, and are now estopped to assail the statute as unconstitutional."). It is important not to read these too broadly. For example, in In re Auditor Gen., 266 N.W. 464 (Mich. 1936), certain property had been foreclosed upon for delinquent payment of taxes. A statute changed the terms by which foreclosure sales had to be published and announced in the community. The Michigan Supreme Court held that it was not necessary to question the validity of the taxes whose nonpayment led to the foreclosure, to have standing to question the validity of the procedure by which the foreclosure sale was being conducted.
^ E.g., Am. Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 329 U.S. 90, 107 (1946) (a claim that the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 "is void in the absence of an express provision for notice and opportunity for hearing as to security holders regarding proceedings under that section [is groundless]. The short answer is that such a contention can be raised properly only by a security holder who has suffered injury due to lack of notice or opportunity for hearing. No security holder of that type is now before us. The management[] of American . . . admittedly w[as] notified and participated in the hearings . . . and . . . possess[es] no standing to assert the invalidity of that section from the viewpoint of the security holders' constitutional rights to notice and hearing"); Virginian Ry. Co. v. Sys. Fed'n No. 40, Ry. Employees Dep't, 300 U.S. 515, 558 (1937) (under the Railway Labor Act, a "railroad can complain only of the infringement of its own constitutional immunity, not that of its employees" (citations omitted)).
^ E.g., Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 337, 353 (1937) ("Constitutional questions are not to be decided hypothetically. When particular facts control the decision they must be shown. Petitioner's contention as to impossibility of proof is premature. . . . For the present purpose it is sufficient to hold, and we do hold, that the petitioner may constitutionally be required to present all the pertinent facts in the prescribed administrative proceeding and may there raise, and ultimately may present for judicial review, any legal question which may arise as the facts are developed." (citation omitted)).
^ United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 89–90 (1947) ("The power of courts, and ultimately of this Court, to pass upon the constitutionality of acts of Congress arises only when the interests of litigants require the use of this judicial authority for their protection against actual interference. A hypothetical threat is not enough.").
^ Sparks v. Hart Coal Corp., 74 F.2d 697, 699 (6th Cir. 1934) ("It has long been settled that courts have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. That question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such act."); e.g., Manne v. Comm'r, 155 F.2d 304, 307 (8th Cir. 1946) ("A taxpayer alleging unconstitutionality of an act must show not only that the act is invalid, but that he has sustained some direct injury as the result of its enforcement." (citing Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)).
^ Kuehner v. Irving Trust Co., 299 U.S. 445, 452, 453 (1937) (“While, therefore, the Fifth Amendment forbids the destruction of a contract it does not prohibit bankruptcy legislation affecting the creditor's remedy for its enforcement against the debtor's assets, or the measure of the creditor's participation therein, if the statutory provisions are consonant with a fair, reasonable, and equitable distribution of those assets. The law under consideration recognizes the petitioners' claim and permits it to share in the consideration to be distributed in reorganization. . . . It is incorrect to say that Congress took away all remedy under the lease. On the contrary, it gave a new and more certain remedy for a limited amount, in lieu of an old remedy inefficient and uncertain in its result. This is certainly not the taking of the landlord's property without due process.”); In re 620 Church St. Bldg. Corp., 299 U.S. 24, 27 (1936) (“Here the controlling finding is not only that there was no equity in the property above the first mortgage but that petitioners' claims were appraised by the court as having ‘no value.’ There was no value to be protected. This finding . . . [renders] the constitutional argument [that petitioners were deprived of property without due process of law] unavailing as petitioners have not shown injury.”).
^ Mauk v. United States, 88 F.2d 557, 559 (9th Cir. 1937) ("Since appellant is not indicted under or accused of violating this provision, he has no interest or standing to question its validity. That question is not before us and will not be considered.").
^ Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U.S. 373, 376–77 (1946) (person arrested for violating laws segregating buses was "a proper person to challenge the validity of th[e] statute as a burden on commerce"; even though she was a mere passenger and not, for example, a bus operator concerned about burdens on interstate commerce, "[i]f it is an invalid burden, the conviction under it would fail. The statute affects appellant as well as the transportation company. Constitutional protection against burdens on commerce is for her benefit on a criminal trial for violation of the challenged statute").
^ Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 251 (1901) ("The Constitution was created by the people of the United States, as a union of states, to be governed solely by representatives of the states."); In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891) ("By the constitution a government is ordained and established ‘for the United States of America,’ and not for countries outside of their limits. The guaranties it affords against accusation of capital or infamous crimes, except by indictment or presentment by a grand jury, and for an impartial trial by a jury when thus accused, apply only to citizens and others within the United States, or who are brought there for trial for alleged offenses committed elsewhere, and not to residents or temporary sojourners abroad.").
^ 46 F. Supp. 296 (W.D. Wash. 1942), aff'd, 138 F.2d 909 (9th Cir. 1943).
^ Id. at 296 ("Upon his arraignment the [trial] court appointed counsel for the petitioner who was without funds and was a member of the armed forces of the United States at Shanghai. The petitioner entered a plea of not guilty and demanded a trial before a jury of Americans, which motion was denied, and he was thereupon tried by the court. The petitioner contends that his constitutional rights were violated by his being denied a jury trial.").
^ Id. at 299 ("The petitioner does not claim that he was not afforded a fair trial aside from the denial of his demand for a jury. Inasmuch as unquestionably he obtained a trial more to his liking than he would have obtained in Shanghai in other than an American court sitting in Shanghai, and since the Supreme Court of this country has determined that the right of trial by jury does not obtain in an American court sitting in another country pursuant to treaty, it must be held that the allegations of petitioner's petition do not entitle him to release.").
^ Downes, 182 U.S. at 251 (emphases added). Compare, e.g., Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222, 234 (1901) ("[A]fter the ratification of the treaty [with Spain] and the cession of the island to the United States[,] Porto Rico then ceased to be a foreign country . . . ."), and Municipality of Ponce v. Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, 210 U.S. 296, 310 (1908) ("[I]n case of cession to the United States; laws of the ceded country inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, so far as applicable, would cease to be of obligatory force; but otherwise the municipal laws of the acquired country continue." (quoting Ortega v. Lara, 202 U.S. 339, 342 (1906))), with Downes, 182 U.S. at 287 ("[T]he island of Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States . . . .").
^ The fact that this discussion happens to talk mainly about Puerto Rico should not be understood to imply that the Supreme Court held that Puerto Rico was some sort of sui generis jurisdiction. For example, in Goetze v. United States, 182 U.S. 221 (1901), the Supreme Court held that this same reasoning (that a place could be under the jurisdiction of the United States, without being "part" of the United States) applied to Hawaii before it was admitted into the Union as a State.
^ U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 1.
^ De Pass v. Bidwell, 124 F. 615 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1903).
^ See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549–50 (1876) ("The separate governments of the separate States, bound together by the articles of confederation alone, were not sufficient for the promotion of the general welfare of the people in respect to foreign nations, or for their complete protection as citizens of the confederated States. For this reason, the people of the United States . . . ordained and established the government of the United States, and defined its powers by a constitution, which they adopted as its fundamental law . . . ." (emphasis added)); Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 724–25 (1869) ("[The Union, which had existed since colonial times,] received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.'"), overruled on other grounds by Morgan v. United States, 113 U.S. 476 (1885); Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 332 (1816) ("The constitution was for a new government, organized with new substantive powers, and not a mere supplementary charter to a government already existing.").
^ See Lane Cnty. v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 71, 76 (1869) ("The people, through [the Constitution], established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the Confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States.").
^ Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 545 (1871) ("The Constitution was intended to frame a government as distinguished from a league or compact, a government supreme in some particulars over States and people."); id. at 554–55 (Bradley, J., concurring) ("The Constitution of the United States established a government, and not a league, compact, or partnership. It was constituted by the people. It is called a government.").
^ See Bush v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., 188 F. Supp. 916, 922–23 (E.D. La. 1960) ("Interposition is . . . based on the proposition that the United States is a compact of states, any one of which may interpose its sovereignty against the enforcement within its borders of any decision of the Supreme Court or act of Congress, irrespective of the fact that the constitutionality of the act has been established by decision of the Supreme Court. . . . In essence, the doctrine denies the constitutional obligation of the states to respect those decisions of the Supreme Court with which they do not agree. The doctrine may have had some validity under the Articles of Confederation. On their failure, however, ‘in Order to form a more perfect Union,’ the people, not the states, of this country ordained and established the Constitution. Thus the keystone of the interposition thesis, that the United States is a compact of states, was disavowed in the Preamble to the Constitution." (emphasis added) (footnote omitted) (citation omitted)), aff'd mem., 365 U.S. 569 (1961). Although the State of Louisiana in Bush invoked a concept it called "interposition," it was sufficiently similar to the concept of "nullification" that the court used the latter, more familiar term in a fashion that clearly indicated it viewed the concepts as functionally interchangeable. See id. at 923 n.7 ("[E]ven the ‘compact theory’ [of the Constitution] does not justify interposition. Thus, Edward Livingston, . . . though an adherent of th[e 'compact] theory['], strongly denied the right of a state to nullify federal law or the decisions of the federal courts." (emphases added)). Compare Martin, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) at 332 ("The confederation was a compact between states; and its structure and powers were wholly unlike those of the national government."), with id. ("The constitution was an act of the people of the United States to supercede [sic] the confederation, and not to be ingrafted on it, as a stock through which it was to receive life and nourishment.").
^ White v. Hart, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 646, 650 (1871) ("[The Constitution] assumed that the government and the Union which it created, and the States which were incorporated into the Union, would be indestructible and perpetual; and as far as human means could accomplish such a work, it intended to make them so.")
^ Texas, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) at 725–26 ("[W]hen the[] Articles [of Confederation] were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? . . . The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."); United States v. Cathcart, 25 F. Cas. 344, 348 (C.C.S.D. Ohio 1864) (No. 14,756) ("The[ Supreme Court has] repudiate[d] emphatically the mischievous heresy that the union of the states under the constitution is a mere league or compact, from which a state, or any number of states, may withdraw at pleasure, not only without the consent of the other states, but against their will.").