Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Blunders of The Supreme Court of The United States - Part 6

    Transféré par

    Dan Goodman
    47 vues7 pages
    The sixth in a series on blunders made by the Supreme Court of the United States. In this article the case of Chirac v. Lessee of A. F. Chirac et. al. (15 U.S. (Wheat. 2) 259, 1817) is selected. The blunder made is that Congress, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, has been given the power of naturalization under the Constitution. However, it is shown that the Constitution of the United States of America only gives to Congress the power to prescribe the rule of naturalization for the several States. Such a rule relates to residency within a State of the Union.

    Titre original

    Blunders of the Supreme Court of the United States _ Part 6

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formats disponibles

    PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    The sixth in a series on blunders made by the Supreme Court of the United States. In this article the case of Chirac v. Lessee of A. F. Chirac et. al. (15 U.S. (Wheat. 2) 259, 1817) is selected. The blunder made is that Congress, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, has been given the power of naturalization under the Constitution. However, it is shown that the Constitution of the United States of America only gives to Congress the power to prescribe the rule of naturalization for the several States. Such a rule relates to residency within a State of the Union.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    47 vues7 pages

    Blunders of The Supreme Court of The United States - Part 6

    Transféré par

    Dan Goodman
    The sixth in a series on blunders made by the Supreme Court of the United States. In this article the case of Chirac v. Lessee of A. F. Chirac et. al. (15 U.S. (Wheat. 2) 259, 1817) is selected. The blunder made is that Congress, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, has been given the power of naturalization under the Constitution. However, it is shown that the Constitution of the United States of America only gives to Congress the power to prescribe the rule of naturalization for the several States. Such a rule relates to residency within a State of the Union.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 7

    BlundersoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates Part6

    2011DanGoodman Thisworkisthesixthinaseriesofarticlestheauthorhaswrittenonblunders madebytheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates.Originally,hedecidedtowriteon onlytwomistakesmadebytheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates.However,the authorreconsideredafterwritingaboutthethirdblunderoftheSupremeCourtof theUnitedStates,tonotplaceanylimitonthenumberofblundershefindswiththe SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates. ThesixthblunderoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesisinthecaseofChirac v.LesseeofA.F.Chiracet.al(15U.S.(Wheat.2)259,1817).Theblunderoccursat page269,wherein,theChiefJustice,JohnMarshallwrites: ...[T]hepowerofnaturalizationisexclusivelyinCongress.Chiracv.Lessee ofA.F.Chiracet.al:15U.S.(Wheat.2)259,at269(1817).[Footnote1]
    http://books.google.com/books?id=920DAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA269#v=onepage&q&f=false

    TheblundermadeisthatCongress,accordingtotheSupremeCourtoftheUnited States,hasbeengiventhepowerofnaturalizationundertheConstitution.However, theConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaonlygivestoCongressthepowerto prescribetheruleofnaturalizationfortheseveralStates.Thatis,toprovidethe criteriaforonetobecomeacitizenofaState,inanyStateoftheUnion.[Footnote 2] ThepowergivenbytheConstitutiontoCongresstoprescribetheruleof naturalizationfortheseveralStatesisatArticleI,Section8,Clause4ofthe Constitution.Referringtothisprovision,AlexanderHamiltonwroteinFederalist Paper#32: AnentireconsolidationoftheStatesintoonecompletenationalsovereignty wouldimplyanentiresubordinationoftheparts;andwhateverpowersmight remaininthem,wouldbealtogetherdependentonthegeneralwill.Butastheplan 1

    oftheconventionaimsonlyatapartialunionorconsolidation,theState governmentswouldclearlyretainalltherightsofsovereigntywhichtheybefore had,andwhichwerenot,bythatact,EXCLUSIVELYdelegatedtotheUnitedStates. Thisexclusivedelegation,orratherthisalienation,ofStatesovereignty,wouldonly existinthreecases:wheretheConstitutioninexpresstermsgrantedanexclusive authoritytotheUnion;whereitgrantedinoneinstanceanauthoritytotheUnion, andinanotherprohibitedtheStatesfromexercisingthelikeauthority;andwhereit grantedanauthoritytotheUnion,towhichasimilarauthorityintheStateswould beabsolutelyandtotallyCONTRADICTORYandREPUGNANT.Iusethesetermsto distinguishthislastcasefromanotherwhichmightappeartoresembleit,butwhich would,infact,beessentiallydifferent;Imeanwheretheexerciseofaconcurrent jurisdictionmightbeproductiveofoccasionalinterferencesinthePOLICYofany branchofadministration,butwouldnotimplyanydirectcontradictionor repugnancyinpointofconstitutionalauthority.Thesethreecasesofexclusive jurisdictioninthefederalgovernmentmaybeexemplifiedbythefollowing instances:Thelastclausebutoneintheeighthsectionofthefirstarticleprovides expresslythatCongressshallexercise"EXCLUSIVELEGISLATION"overthedistrict tobeappropriatedastheseatofgovernment.Thisanswerstothefirstcase.The firstclauseofthesamesectionempowersCongress"TOLAYANDCOLLECTTAXES, DUTIES,IMPOSTSANDEXCISES";andthesecondclauseofthetenthsectionofthe samearticledeclaresthat,"NOSTATESHALL,withouttheconsentofCongress,LAY ANYIMPOSTSORDUTIESONIMPORTSOREXPORTS,exceptforthepurposeof executingitsinspectionlaws."HencewouldresultanexclusivepowerintheUnion tolaydutiesonimportsandexports,withtheparticularexceptionmentioned;but thispowerisabridgedbyanotherclause,whichdeclaresthatnotaxordutyshallbe laidonarticlesexportedfromanyState;inconsequenceofwhichqualification,it nowonlyextendstotheDUTIESONIMPORTS.Thisanswerstothesecondcase. ThethirdwillbefoundinthatclausewhichdeclaresthatCongressshallhave power"toestablishanUNIFORMRULEofnaturalizationthroughouttheUnited States."Thismustnecessarilybeexclusive;becauseifeachStatehadpowerto prescribeaDISTINCTRULE,therecouldnotbeaUNIFORMRULE.
    http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed32.htm

    ArticleI,Section8,Clause4oftheConstitution,therefore,onlygrantstoCongress thepowertoprescribeauniformruleofnaturalizationfortheseveralStates,itdoes notgiveCongressthepowerofnaturalization.Thepowerofnaturalizationremains withtheseveralStates: Mr.Govr.Morris:wasformakingtheclausereadatonce,importationofslaves intoN.Carolina,S.Carolina&Georgiashallnotbeprohibited&c.Thishesaid 2

    wouldbemostfairandwouldavoidtheambiguitybywhich,underthepower withregardtonaturalization,thelibertyreservedtotheStatesmightbe defeated.HewishedittobeknownalsothatthispartoftheConstitutionwasa compliancewiththoseStates.Ifthechangeoflanguagehowevershouldbeobjected tobythemembersfromthoseStates,heshouldnoturgeit.Mr.GovernorMorris, August25,1787,NotesofDebatesintheFederalConventionof1787,James Madison.[Footnote3]


    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0825.html

    Inaddition,theruleofnaturalizationrelatestoonlyresidency: Col.Hamilton:wasingeneralagainstembarrassingtheGovt.withminute restrictions.Therewasononesidethepossibledangerthathadbeensuggested.On theotherside,theadvantageofencouragingforeignerswasobvious&admitted. PersonsinEuropeofmoderatefortuneswillbefondofcomingherewheretheywill beonalevelwiththefirstCitizens.Hemovedthatthesectionbesoalteredasto requiremerelycitizenship&inhabitancy.Therightofdeterminingtheruleof naturalizationwillthenleaveadiscretiontotheLegislature[oftheUnited States]onthissubjectwhichwillanswereverypurpose.Col.Hamilton,August 13,1787,NotesofDebatesintheFederalConventionof1787,JamesMadison. [Footnote4]
    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0813.html

    And: Mr.Madision:wasnotaversetosomerestrictionsonthissubject;butcould neveragreetotheproposedamendment.Hethoughtanyrestrictionhoweverinthe Constitutionunnecessary,andimproper.unnecessary;becausetheNatl.Legislre. istohavetherightofregulatingnaturalization,andcanbyvirtuethereoffix differentperiodsofresidenceasconditionsofenjoyingdifferentprivilegesof Citizenship.Col.Hamilton,August9,1787,NotesofDebatesintheFederal Conventionof1787,JamesMadison.[Footnote5]


    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0809.html

    Also: Thedissimilarityintherulesofnaturalizationhaslongbeenremarkedasa faultinoursystem,andaslayingafoundationforintricateanddelicate questions....InoneState,residenceforashorttermconfirmsalltherightsof citizenship:inanother,qualificationsofgreaterimportancearerequired.Analien, therefore,legallyincapacitatedforcertainrightsinthelatter,may,byprevious residenceonlyintheformer,eludehisincapacity;andthusthelawofoneStatebe preposterouslyrenderedparamounttothelawofanother,withinthejurisdictionof 3

    theother.Weoweittomerecasualty,thatveryseriousembarrassmentsonthis subjecthavebeenhithertoescaped.BythelawsofseveralStates,certain descriptionsofaliens,whohadrenderedthemselvesobnoxious,werelaidunder interdictsinconsistentnotonlywiththerightsofcitizenshipbutwiththeprivilege ofresidence.Whatwouldhavebeentheconsequence,ifsuchpersons,byresidence orotherwise,hadacquiredthecharacterofcitizensunderthelawsofanotherState, andthenassertedtheirrightsassuch,bothtoresidenceandcitizenship,withinthe Stateproscribingthem?Whateverthelegalconsequencesmighthavebeen,other consequenceswouldprobablyhaveresulted,oftooseriousanaturenottobe providedagainst.ThenewConstitutionhasaccordingly,withgreatpropriety,made provisionagainstthem,andallothersproceedingfromthedefectofthe Confederationonthishead,byauthorizingthegeneralgovernmenttoestablisha uniformruleofnaturalizationthroughouttheUnitedStates.FederalistPaper#42.
    http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed42.htm

    Therefore,undertheConstitution,Congressisgiventhepowertoprescribea uniformruleofnaturalizationfortheseveralStates.Sucharulerelatestoresidency withinaStateoftheUnion. Thus,Congresswasnotgiventhepowerofnaturalization. ________________________ Footnotes: 1.ThisisthesecondcaseoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStateswhichinvolved anopinionissuedbythedistinguishedJohnMarshall.Asstatedinmywork, BlundersoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates:Part2,Itisunfortunatehe madeamistake,sincehischaracterandreputationwasthathewashonestman.He wouldnotbehappywithhimselfmakingamistake,sincehevaluedthetruthhighly. Withthatsaid. 2.FromFederalistPaper#41andFederalistPaper#42: FederalistPaper#41 THEConstitutionproposedbytheconventionmaybeconsideredundertwo generalpointsofview.TheFIRSTrelatestothesumorquantityofpowerwhichit 4

    vestsinthegovernment,includingtherestraintsimposedontheStates.The SECOND,totheparticularstructureofthegovernment,andthedistributionofthis poweramongitsseveralbranches. UndertheFIRSTviewofthesubject,twoimportantquestionsarise:1.Whether anypartofthepowerstransferredtothegeneralgovernmentbeunnecessaryor improper?2.Whethertheentiremassofthembedangeroustotheportionof jurisdictionleftintheseveralStates?.... Thatwemayformacorrectjudgmentonthissubject,itwillbepropertoreview theseveralpowersconferredonthegovernmentoftheUnion;andthatthismaybe themoreconvenientlydonetheymaybereducedintodifferentclassesasthey relatetothefollowingdifferentobjects:1.Securityagainstforeigndanger;2. Regulationoftheintercoursewithforeignnations;3.Maintenanceofharmonyand properintercourseamongtheStates;4.Certainmiscellaneousobjectsofgeneral utility;5.RestraintoftheStatesfromcertaininjuriousacts;6.Provisionsforgiving dueefficacytoallthesepowers.
    http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed41.htm

    FederalistPaper#42 ThepowersincludedintheTHIRDclassarethosewhichprovidefortheharmony andproperintercourseamongtheStates. Underthisheadmightbeincludedtheparticularrestraintsimposedonthe authorityoftheStates,andcertainpowersofthejudicialdepartment;butthe formerarereservedforadistinctclass,andthelatterwillbeparticularlyexamined whenwearriveatthestructureandorganizationofthegovernment.Ishallconfine myselftoacursoryreviewoftheremainingpowerscomprehendedunderthisthird description,towit:toregulatecommerceamongtheseveralStatesandtheIndian tribes;tocoinmoney,regulatethevaluethereof,andofforeigncoin;toprovidefor thepunishmentofcounterfeitingthecurrentcoinandsecuritiesoftheUnited States;tofixthestandardofweightsandmeasures;toestablishauniformruleof naturalization,anduniformlawsofbankruptcy,toprescribethemannerinwhich thepublicacts,records,andjudicialproceedingsofeachStateshallbeproved,and theeffecttheyshallhaveinotherStates;andtoestablishpostofficesandpost roads.
    http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed42.htm

    3.TheprovisionMr.Govr.Morriswasreferringto: "ThemigrationorimportationofsuchpersonsastheseveralStatesnowexisting 5

    shallthinkpropertoadmit,shallnotbeprohibitedbytheLegislaturepriortothe year1800,butataxordutymaybeimposedonsuchmigrationorimportationata ratenotexceedingtheaverageofthedutieslaidonimports."August24,1787, NotesofDebatesintheFederalConventionof1787,JamesMadison.


    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0824.html

    Also,thereisthefollowing: VII Sect.1.TheLegislatureoftheUnitedStatesshallhavethepowertolayandcollect taxes,duties,impostsandexcises; Toregulatecommercewithforeignnations,andamongtheseveralStates; ToestablishanuniformruleofnaturalizationthroughouttheUnitedStates. August6,1787,NotesofDebatesintheFederalConventionof1787,James Madison.


    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0806.html

    4.TheprovisionCol.Hamiltonwasreferringto: EverymemberoftheHouseofRepresentativesshallbeoftheageoftwentyfive yearsatleast;shallhavebeenacitizenintheUnitedStatesforatleastthreeyears beforehiselection;andshallbe,atthetimeofhiselection,aresidentoftheStatein whichheshallbechosen.August6,1787,NotesofDebatesintheFederal Conventionof1787,JamesMadison.


    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0806.html

    Theprovisionwouldread,underHamiltonssuggestion(citizenshipand inhabitancy): EverymemberoftheHouseofRepresentativesshallbeoftheageoftwentyfive yearsatleast;shallhavebeenacitizenintheUnitedStatesforatleastthreeyears beforehiselection;andshallbe,atthetimeofhiselection,aninhabitantoftheState inwhichheshallbechosen. Therefore,theruleofnaturalizationhastodowithresidencywithinaStateofthe Union. Also,thereisthefollowing: VII 6

    Sect.1.TheLegislatureoftheUnitedStatesshallhavethepowertolayandcollect taxes,duties,impostsandexcises; Toregulatecommercewithforeignnations,andamongtheseveralStates; ToestablishanuniformruleofnaturalizationthroughouttheUnitedStates. August6,1787,NotesofDebatesintheFederalConventionof1787,James Madison.


    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0806.html

    5.TheprovisionMr.Madisonwasreferringto: EverymemberoftheSenateshallbeoftheageofthirtyyearsatleast;shall havebeenacitizenintheUnitedStatesforatleastfouryearsbeforehiselection; andshallbe,atthetimeofhiselection,aresidentoftheStateforwhichheshallbe chosen.August6,1787,NotesofDebatesintheFederalConventionof1787, JamesMadison.


    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0806.html

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi