|
Real0ne -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/20/2015 8:54:38 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub
You simply do not know what the hell you are talking about....
Butch
Sure I do [8|]
This isnt exactly the OP but it seems people dont bother with history and stare decis.
FIRST DUTY OF GOVERNMENT
“The first duty of the Government is to afford protection to its citizens.”
In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the Supreme Court ruled that the Department’s failure to protect Joshua did not violate the Federal Constitution. Chief Justice Rehnquist maintained that nothing in the language or history of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required a state to protect its citizens from private violence.
snip
“The colonists,” wrote James Wilson in an influential pamphlet, “ought to be dependent on the king, because they have hitherto enjoyed, and still continue to enjoy, his protection. . . . [0]bedience is founded on the protection derived from government: for protection and allegiance are the reciprocal bonds, which connect the prince and his subjects.”
Although they adopted Coke’s theory of the British Empire, Americans rejected his view that the bond between subjects and sovereign was natural and immutable. Instead, they described this relationship in terms of the original contract between king and people, in which the king was bond to protect the rights of his subjects in return for their allegiance.
When Americans finally decided to break from Great Britain, they appealed to the precedent of the Glorious Revolution, in which James II was held to have “abdicated” government as a result of breaking the original contract. Thus, the Declaration of Independence, after reciting a long list of grievances that the king had failed to redress, alleged that the king “has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.” Several state constitutions justified independence on the same ground.
The immediate issue in Calvin’s Case was the status under English law of Scots bom after the accession of James I of England, who already was King of Scotland. Coke held that as subjects of the same king, Scots were entitled to the same protection as his Enghsh subjects, and therefore were entitled to all the rights of subjects under English law, including the right to hold property. At the same time, however, Coke recognized that although they shared an allegiance to the same king, England and Scotland were separate realms, with separate parliaments and laws.
Confronted with assertions of the absolute supremacy of Parliament over the colonies, Americans struggled during the decade before 1776 to define their status and rights within the British Empire. Gradually, they came to the view that their position was analogous to that of Scotland at the time Calvin’s Case was decided. Following Coke’s analysis of Scotland, they argued that the colonies were united to Great Britain only through their shared allegiance to a common king. Thus, Americans were not subject to the authority of Parliament at all, but only to their own legislatures and King George III
The First State Constitutions. After independence, Americans turned to the creation of new state governments. In this context, the traditional image of a bond between subjects and rulers lost much of its force. Instead, Americans viewed themselves as free citizens deliberating on the structure of their political life. In framing their new governments, they were strongly influenced by social contract theory.
Most of the first state constitutions included a bill of rights, which generally began by declaring the natural rights of mankind. For example, Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, the first to be adopted, asserted:
That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
This provision implied that society was founded on contract, a view that was made explicit in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780:
The body-politic [corporation] is formed by a voluntary association of individuals; it is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole people that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good . . .; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.
With its basis in such a compact, the function of government was to protect the natural rights of its citizens. Thus, several states declared that “government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people.” As we have seen, a number of states expressly recognized protection as the right of every individual. As the Massachusetts Constitution put it:
Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws.
He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary; but no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. [a court full of judges is not a representative body of the people]
the right to protection was a central princi¬ple of Anglo-American constitutionalism prior to the Civil War. This right was not merely a matter of constitutional theory, but was a con¬crete legal concept.
That concept had three major elements. The first related to the status of the individual: To be under the protection of the law meant to have the status of a freeman and a citizen. A second aspect referred to substantive rights:
Protection meant that the law recognized and secured an individual’s rights to life, liberty, and property.
Finally, the most basic meaning of protection referred to the enforcement of rights:
the specific ways in which government prevented violations of substantive rights, or redressed and punished such violations.
DUKE LAW JOURNAL Vol. 41:507 Duke University
I know you still have a HUGE issue with cherry picking the constitution to your own ends, however as you can see its exactly what I said; The government has NO obligation to protect you [as in your individual rights] despite that is the majority purpose of its creation. This country is in the same condition it was in pre-revolution and people are starting to wake up to that fact.
The cake case recognized one parties religion because it was under the commerce clause which is subordinate to the organic law while completely disregarding the others parties right to exercise their religion because religion cannot be regulated under commerce https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcskL9QAxT4
|
|
|
|
