Today in Supreme Court History: May 6, 1776

5/6/1776: Virginia Declaration of Rights by George Mason is published. Thomas Jefferson relied on this document when drafting the Declaration of Independence.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

In re Kansas Indians, 72 U.S. 737 (decided May 6, 1867): a state can't tax Native Americans on reservations.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You must recognize by now that Profs. Barnett and Blackman will not take your cue and do the work necessary to transform Today In Supreme Court History into a legitimate feature, let alone one suitable for an ostensibly academic blog. They won't even copy and paste the results of your research.

It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that you are simply rubbing the noses of Profs. Barnett and Blackman in the shoddy mess they continue to make of this, publicly and repeatedly.

You also are shaming and mocking Georgetown and (to the extent such a thing could even be possible) South Texas College Of Law Houston for association with this white, male, movement conservative blog and its substandard "scholarship."

Thank you for that.

[DaivdBehar]

Rev. You still talkin'. STFU until you resign your law firm job and interview your diverse replacement. Why you still talkin', you hypocrite?

[DaivdBehar]

Cap. Thank you for your service of showing how trivial, stupid, and illiterate the Supreme Court is. Keep it coming.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1 (decided May 6, 1968): IRS investigator conducting a "routine tax investigation" must given Miranda warnings because the person was in prison (for an unrelated offense).

[Dan Schiavetta]

Fok Yung Yo v. United States, 185 U.S. 296 (decided May 6, 1902: courts can't review decision of customs official to deport Chinese citizen.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180 (decided May 6, 1895): Supreme Court doesn't automatically accept writs of error from state courts; it decides by itself whether a federal question is involved, and if so, it must be central to the case.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Schware v. Board of Examiners of New Mexico, 353 U.S. 232 (decided May 6, 1957): details a bar applicant's complicated history, including past membership in the Communist Party and being forced to take an alias to forestall anti-Jewish prejudice. The Court held that New Mexico wrongfully denied his license in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. An interesting opinion to read.

[Syd Henderson]

Today is also the anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act being signed into law (1882). Not one of our finer moments.

[DaivdBehar]

Do you support getting overrun by people with a different culture?

[Dan Schiavetta]

For years, only Chinese were excluded. Nobody else. (Unless of course you had obvious symptoms of plague.)

[apedad]

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.

Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Section 4. None of mankind is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.

Section 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

Section 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented for the public good.

Section 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

Section 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Section 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

Section 11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.

Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

Section 13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Section 14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

Section 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.

[DaivdBehar]

Wow, that is a draft of the constitution. I am impressed.

That does not change the lawyer idiocy of the American Revolution. Taxes went from 1% of GDP to 2%. Why? To fund expensive military campaigns to protect the lands of the lawyer dipshits from Native American attack. So let's go wildin' and kill thousands of people. If we remained a colony, slavery would have ended in 1833, as a matter of law, enforced by a sheriff. The American Revolution caused the Civil War.

Mason was a landowner, not a lawyer. He promoted the Bill of Rights. He opposed slavery despite owning them. He is a great man. Madison copied his texts for much of the constitution, which was a good idea.

[Queen Amalthea]

" He opposed slavery despite owning them."

This man is an idiot.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Well . . .

Years ago in my prior career as a social worker I was sitting with my client, a paranoid schizophrenic who was telling me about “red white and blue fishes” flying out of the tree we were looking at.

Then she said, “Nice sunny day.” Which it was.

You and I, as adults writing our case notes, should note that, at least among the Founding Fathers, the slaveholders among them recognized the contradictions.

Unfortunately you and I, in our present minoritarian system of government, are not always calling the shots, as adults are in the real world. (“Do your homework! Wear galoshes on snowy mornings to school! Brush your teeth!”)