LOCKED -- What is the jurisdiction of the United States?

[arayder]

Well, I have to give you credit, PD, for at least including the link so we can see that the inference you intended to give from your selective quotation of the Maxwell v. Dow is disingenuous.

When we read the entire case we see an entirely different meaning. Indeed reading just the syllabus shows us you are yet again treating us to a biased and inaccurate reading of case law.

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

"The decision In Hurtado v. California,110 U. S. 516, that the words "due process of law " in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States do not necessarily require an indictment by a grand jury in a prosecution by a State for murder, has been often affirmed, and is now reaffirmed and applied to this case.

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government.

The trial of a person accused as a criminal by a jury of only eight persons instead of twelve, and his subsequent imprisonment after conviction, do not abridge his privileges and immunities under the Constitution as a citizen of the United States and do not deprive him of his liberty without due process of law.

Whether a trial in criminal cases not capital shall be by a jury composed of eight instead of twelve jurors, and whether, in case of an infamous crime, a person shall be only liable to be tried after presentment or indictment by a grand jury are proper to be determined by the citizens of each State for themselves, and do not come within the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution so long as all persons within the jurisdiction of the State are made liable to be proceeded against by the same kind of procedure, and to have the same kind of trial, and the equal protection of the law is secured to them."

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

PD, you are so off base that one has to wonder if you did not intend to to deceive the reader.

If you had done your due diligence and Shepardized the case you would have known that in subsequent rulings the Court incorporated a far greater portion of the Bill of Rights against the states. In essence you have, once again, portrayed old, dead case law as being current.

Besides not reading and understanding all of Maxwell v. Dow your next mistake was failing to realize that the points of law ruled in 1900 case may have been modified or reversed during the 20th century.

Lol. What is funny is you are thinking I posted that quote as case law or precendent. When in fact I quoted it for the words included in the quote.

What my quote says is the rights associated with the first 8 amendments do not apply to us citizens who only have privileges and immunities.

But please feel free to say it means something different, I would love to hear it.

I also find it funny you believe the court enlarged our unalienable rights... Lmfao

You seem completely mystified by the reality that case law changes, PD.

Since the reach of the 14th Amendment has been so extended since the dicta of the old, dead case law you have disingenuously cited one is safe in saying your quote means very little to us now.

You seem equally confused with the reality that society, government and the courts are imperfect and that the Founders and Framers enshrined unalienable rights and then fail to extend them to anyone but white males with property.

My country, I'm not sure it is truly yours PD, has a history of expanding and extending freedom. You seem stuck back in the 19th century, PD

[Pottapaug1938]

14.25. Admit that the legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence, in section 3A Am Jur 2d §2689 defines "U.S. citizens" under federal statutes as follows:

3C Am Jur 2d §2689, Who is born in United States and subject to United States jurisdiction "A person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if his or her birth occurs in territory over which the United States is sovereign, even though another country provides all governmental services within the territory, and the territory is subsequently ceded to the other country."

Admit that Black's law dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1473 defines the term "territories" as follows:

"Territory: A part of a country separated from the rest, and subject to a particular jurisdiction. Geographical area under the jurisdiction of another country or sovereign power.

A portion of the United States not within the limits of any state, which has not yet been admitted as a state of the Union, but is organized with a separate legislature, and with executive and judicial powers appointed by the President."

Where is a us citizen born again?

For your answer, PD, look no further than the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.;

The AmJur series and Black's Law Dictionaries DO NOT STATE THE LAW. They are guides to finding the law; but no more. Amy lawyer worth his or her bar ticket would go beyond references found in either and find CURRENT, UNREVERSED CASE LAW to buttress his or her points.

[Pottapaug1938]

Well, I have to give you credit, PD, for at least including the link so we can see that the inference you intended to give from your selective quotation of the Maxwell v. Dow is disingenuous.

When we read the entire case we see an entirely different meaning. Indeed reading just the syllabus shows us you are yet again treating us to a biased and inaccurate reading of case law.

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

"The decision In Hurtado v. California,110 U. S. 516, that the words "due process of law " in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States do not necessarily require an indictment by a grand jury in a prosecution by a State for murder, has been often affirmed, and is now reaffirmed and applied to this case.

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government.

The trial of a person accused as a criminal by a jury of only eight persons instead of twelve, and his subsequent imprisonment after conviction, do not abridge his privileges and immunities under the Constitution as a citizen of the United States and do not deprive him of his liberty without due process of law.

Whether a trial in criminal cases not capital shall be by a jury composed of eight instead of twelve jurors, and whether, in case of an infamous crime, a person shall be only liable to be tried after presentment or indictment by a grand jury are proper to be determined by the citizens of each State for themselves, and do not come within the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution so long as all persons within the jurisdiction of the State are made liable to be proceeded against by the same kind of procedure, and to have the same kind of trial, and the equal protection of the law is secured to them."

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

PD, you are so off base that one has to wonder if you did not intend to to deceive the reader.

If you had done your due diligence and Shepardized the case you would have known that in subsequent rulings the Court incorporated a far greater portion of the Bill of Rights against the states. In essence you have, once again, portrayed old, dead case law as being current.

Besides not reading and understanding all of Maxwell v. Dow your next mistake was failing to realize that the points of law ruled in 1900 case may have been modified or reversed during the 20th century.

Lol. What is funny is you are thinking I posted that quote as case law or precendent. When in fact I quoted it for the words included in the quote.

What my quote says is the rights associated with the first 8 amendments do not apply to us citizens who only have privileges and immunities.

But please feel free to say it means something different, I would love to hear it.[/quote]


I also find it funny you believe the court enlarged our unalienable rights... Lmfao[/quote]

You seem completely mystified by the reality that case law changes, PD.

Since the reach of the 14th Amendment has been so extended since the dicta of the old, dead case law you have disingenuously cited one is safe in saying your quote means very little to us now.

You seem equally confused with the reality that society, government and the courts are imperfect and that the Founders and Framers enshrined unalienable rights and then fail to extend them to anyone but white males with property.

My country, I'm not sure it is truly yours PD, has a history of expanding and extending freedom. You seem stuck back in the 19th century, PD[/quote]

Not only that -- the phrase "unalienable rights" comes from the Declaration of Independence -- which has NO LEGAL FORCE WHATSOEVER -- and not from the US Constitution.

[arayder]

Well, I have to give you credit, PD, for at least including the link so we can see that the inference you intended to give from your selective quotation of the Maxwell v. Dow is disingenuous.

When we read the entire case we see an entirely different meaning. Indeed reading just the syllabus shows us you are yet again treating us to a biased and inaccurate reading of case law.

. . .PD, you are so off base that one has to wonder if you did not intend to to deceive the reader.

If you had done your due diligence and Shepardized the case you would have known that in subsequent rulings the Court incorporated a far greater portion of the Bill of Rights against the states. In essence you have, once again, portrayed old, dead case law as being current.

Besides not reading and understanding all of Maxwell v. Dow your next mistake was failing to realize that the points of law ruled in 1900 case may have been modified or reversed during the 20th century.

Lol. What is funny is you are thinking I posted that quote as case law or precendent. When in fact I quoted it for the words included in the quote.

What my quote says is the rights associated with the first 8 amendments do not apply to us citizens who only have privileges and immunities. . . .

Wait, PD, first you imply you didn't mean to say Maxwell v. Dow invalid is case law then you tell us it is precedent. . .that it "says" something with meaning to us today.

All this after you have been shown that the Court has, since Maxwell v. Dow extent the reach of the 14th amendment to incorporate almost every part of the amendments you say it doesn't touch.

So it turns out the Maxwell v. Dow doesn't anymore "say" what you "say" it "says"!

[LPC]

Lol. What is funny is you are thinking I posted that quote as case law or precendent. When in fact I quoted it for the words included in the quote.

The words from a court decision have no value unless the decision has precedential value.

Moron.

[Pottapaug1938]

Lol. What is funny is you are thinking I posted that quote as case law or precendent. When in fact I quoted it for the words included in the quote.

The words from a court decision have no value unless the decision has precedential value.

Moron.

Let's give discredit where discredit is due.

[arayder]

Come on now, boys, let's not throw a wet blanket on the sovcit practice of shifting through old court decisions (sometimes even the dissenting opinion) for little bits of dead law and dicta that supports.

Let's imagine a white supremacist playing the same trick and using a Supreme Court decision to support his odious views. . .

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal. . .The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appeared, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

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

The opinion of the Court could, of course,then be followed by an inference that the signers of the Declaration of Independence and Justice Taney knew what they were talking about and a question as to whether they were wrong.

[Pottapaug1938]

Perhaps you have proof that florida gave up sovereignty and that the federal government is sovereign over florida? Which would mean dc has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over florida.

Are you guys stating that?

Not even close, Bucko. Look up "concurrent sovereignty" in your dictionaries and encyclopedias. Then, read the US Constitution and see how certain powers are allocated to the Federal government and some to the states --some exclusively, some concurrently.

Your last assertion, then, is just as ridiculous as most of your others.

[Famspear]

Perhaps you have proof that florida gave up sovereignty and that the federal government is sovereign over florida? Which would mean dc has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over florida.

Are you guys stating that?

Both Florida and the United States of America (the federal government, if you will) have sovereignty in Florida. That does not mean that "dc" has "exclusive legislative jurisdiction over florida" as you put it.

Here's a little test for you, grasshopper.

Suppose the state legislature of Florida were to enact a law providing for residents of Florida to file bankruptcy in Florida bankruptcy courts that are set up under the Florida law. Let us assume that the Florida Constitution says that the Florida legislature can enact such a law. Which of the following would be correct?

A. In bankruptcy cases filed by Florida residents in the Florida bankruptcy courts, Florida state bankruptcy judges would be required to declare the Florida bankruptcy law to be unconstitutional, as a violation of the United States Constitution.

B. In bankruptcy cases filed by Florida residents in the Florida bankruptcy courts, Florida state bankruptcy judges would be required to follow the Florida Constitution, and would declare the Florida bankruptcy law to be constitutional.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Perhaps you have proof that florida gave up sovereignty and that the federal government is sovereign over florida? Which would mean dc has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over florida.

Are you guys stating that?

Not even close, Bucko. Look up "concurrent sovereignty" in your dictionaries and encyclopedias. Then, read the US Constitution and see how certain powers are allocated to the Federal government and some to the states --some exclusively, some concurrently.

Your last assertion, then, is just as ridiculous as most of your others.

First off, your thinking dual sovereignty, and your still confused about it. Dual sovereignty is for prosecution only, if and when someone breaks the laws of both jurisdictions.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/dual-s ... -doctrine/

Btw no such thing as concurrent sovereignty. That by itself would not be sovereignty at all.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Not only that -- the phrase "unalienable rights" comes from the Declaration of Independence -- which has NO LEGAL FORCE WHATSOEVER -- and not from the US Constitution.[/quote]



Your not the brightest bulb in the lamp eh?


Why not learn something today, you have to be tired of knowing it all.



Professor John Eidsmoe writes:

"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.

"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.' (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)

http://www.nccs.net/1998-06-the-declara ... an-law.php

[LPC]

Btw no such thing as concurrent sovereignty. That by itself would not be sovereignty at all.

Schiller.

[wserra]

Btw no such thing as concurrent sovereignty. That by itself would not be sovereignty at all.

The Supreme Court seems to disagree.

The general principle of state-court jurisdiction over cases arising under federal laws is straightforward: state courts may assume subject-matter jurisdiction over a federal cause of action absent provision by Congress to the contrary or disabling incompatibility between the federal claim and state-court adjudication. [Citations omitted.] This rule is premised on the relation between the States and the National Government within our federal system. See The Federalist No. 82 (Hamilton). The two exercise concurrent sovereignty, although the Constitution limits the powers of each and requires the States to recognize federal law as paramount.

Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473, 477-478 (1981) (emphasis supplied).

'Course, the Supreme Court seems to disagree with almost everything you say. What do they know?

Schiller.

[arayder]

Btw no such thing as concurrent sovereignty. That by itself would not be sovereignty at all.

The Supreme Court seems to disagree.

The general principle of state-court jurisdiction over cases arising under federal laws is straightforward: state courts may assume subject-matter jurisdiction over a federal cause of action absent provision by Congress to the contrary or disabling incompatibility between the federal claim and state-court adjudication. [Citations omitted.] This rule is premised on the relation between the States and the National Government within our federal system. See The Federalist No. 82 (Hamilton). The two exercise concurrent sovereignty, although the Constitution limits the powers of each and requires the States to recognize federal law as paramount.

Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473, 477-478 (1981) (emphasis supplied).

'Course, the Supreme Court seems to disagree with almost everything you say. What do they know?

Schiller.

Game, set, match to Mr. wserra.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Btw no such thing as concurrent sovereignty. That by itself would not be sovereignty at all.

The Supreme Court seems to disagree.

The general principle of state-court jurisdiction over cases arising under federal laws is straightforward: state courts may assume subject-matter jurisdiction over a federal cause of action absent provision by Congress to the contrary or disabling incompatibility between the federal claim and state-court adjudication. [Citations omitted.] This rule is premised on the relation between the States and the National Government within our federal system. See The Federalist No. 82 (Hamilton). The two exercise concurrent sovereignty, although the Constitution limits the powers of each and requires the States to recognize federal law as paramount.

Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473, 477-478 (1981) (emphasis supplied).

'Course, the Supreme Court seems to disagree with almost everything you say. What do they know?

Schiller.

Notice how they were talking about prosecuting of a case.

Starting to think you boys do not have a clue wtf sovereignty means.


Hey why not look up concurrent sovereignty and paste the definition then?

[Pottapaug1938]

Not only that -- the phrase "unalienable rights" comes from the Declaration of Independence -- which has NO LEGAL FORCE WHATSOEVER -- and not from the US Constitution.

Your not the brightest bulb in the lamp eh?

Why not learn something today, you have to be tired of knowing it all.

Professor John Eidsmoe writes:

"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.

"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.' (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)

http://www.nccs.net/1998-06-the-declara ... an-law.php

Well, bully for you and for the learned professor. You found references about how such-and-such a law says that such-and-such a constitution shall not be repugnant to, among other things, the principles of the Declaration of Independence. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS, IN ITSELF, A PART OF OUR BODY OF LAWS. NEITHER DOES THE PRESENCE OF THE DECLARATION IN THE UNITED STATES CODE MEAN THAT HAS ANY LEGAL FORCE. Were that the case, we would have case law in which the holding in the case centers on the Declaration -- but we have none. At best, the Declaration can be used as sort of a rule of construction. It, by itself, is not a law upon which we can rely when we enter the legal system.

One other note about your learned professor: if you look at his web site (thanks for the link), you see headings like the following:

Acceptance of the Declaration of Independence is Acceptance of God as Our King

Nice try. Maybe, next time, you can come up with something better than a fringe "scholar" like this.

[Famspear]

Starting to think you boys do not have a clue wtf sovereignty means.

What you actually "think" about concepts such as sovereignty would not fill a thimble, grasshopper.

[Pottapaug1938]

Btw no such thing as concurrent sovereignty. That by itself would not be sovereignty at all.

The Supreme Court seems to disagree.

The general principle of state-court jurisdiction over cases arising under federal laws is straightforward: state courts may assume subject-matter jurisdiction over a federal cause of action absent provision by Congress to the contrary or disabling incompatibility between the federal claim and state-court adjudication. [Citations omitted.] This rule is premised on the relation between the States and the National Government within our federal system. See The Federalist No. 82 (Hamilton). The two exercise concurrent sovereignty, although the Constitution limits the powers of each and requires the States to recognize federal law as paramount.

Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473, 477-478 (1981) (emphasis supplied).

'Course, the Supreme Court seems to disagree with almost everything you say. What do they know?

Schiller.

Notice how they were talking about prosecuting of a case.

So what? Seems to me that this quote defines concurrent (or however you want to characterize it) sovereignty pretty well, whether a case involves a criminal or civil matter.

[Famspear]

Our Dingbat Du Jour still has not fessed up to his dishonesty in citing a non-existent U.S. Supreme Court decision called "Conner" that someone can supposedly cite to defeat a charge of willfulness in a federal criminal tax case.

[JamesVincent]

You got me, I thought it was a supreme case and was wrong. Your A genius sir, keep up the good work.

Our Dingbat Du Jour still has not fessed up to his dishonesty in citing a non-existent U.S. Supreme Court decision called "Conner" that someone can supposedly cite to defeat a charge of willfulness in a federal criminal tax case.