Landmark Cases Part 2: Historic Supreme Court Decisions
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 май 2024
- On President’s Day, join C-SPAN President Susan Swain, National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen, and a panel of experts who will launch the second season of the C-SPAN series, Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions, produced in collaboration with the National Constitution Center. The panel and the series will explore the human stories between the Supreme Court’s most historic rulings.
This program is presented in partnership with C-SPAN.
Mr. Rosen, looking for a third season? Been watching for that! 🐦Best🏆🕊️
Program starts at 7:45
Helpful
Ex Parte Frank Knowls 5 Call 300: By metaphysical refinement, in examining our form of government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. But constant usage - arising from convenience, and perhaps necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy - has given substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys. A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the states, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective states.
Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855) Since that term was not specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution, Congress in 1868 took advantage of this term and utilized it in the so-called 14th Amendment to describe a NEW type of "citizen" whose primary allegiance was to the federal government, i.e. Washington, D.C. and not to one of the several states of the union. Thus, using the term as used in the U.S. Constitution to mislead and confuse the people as to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution
How could you law professors not know this? citizen of the United States is a dangerous thing to be. ************* The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state.
United States v. Anthony (1874), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830. We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.
U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). In other words, you do not have to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a state citizen. This was held to be true by the Maryland Supreme Court in 1966 wherein the state: Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.
Crosse v. Bd. of Supvr,s of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)
If you read Row v. Wade the case was decided : Does the government have a right to come between a woman and her doctor. this borderline slavery. She used the word "woman", had she said "person", a corporation, she would have lost the case. [Wo]man's rights come from God not Congress.
BOTTOMLINE. The current Supreme Court decides what is or is not Constitutional. BOTTOMLINE its COMLICATED. BOTTOMLINE Change-evolution.
Mo