Today in Supreme Court History: February 16, 1833

2/16/1833: Barron v. City of Baltimore decided.

Comments

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

I still can't believe that folks take the Recnstruction Amendments as allowing Feds to impose on the states things that restrict the Feds. Religion shows this to be silly. Even when we had Freedom of Religon we had state religions, There are no SCOTUS judges I've ever saw as competent and wise that agreed with this. Now maybe a Kagan, a Sotomayor , or a Brown. But they are the worst judges of my lifetime.

I like what Scalia said because it describes Libertarianism so well

“In Heaven there will be no law, and the lion will lie down with the lamb….In Hell there will be nothing but law, and due process will be meticulously observed.”

[Dan Schiavetta]

Scalia must have forgotten what Thomas More said.

[Bob from Ohio]

Scalia died in his sleep, More got his head cut off.

More also literally ordered the burning of heretics.

Don't get your history from Hollywood.

[jdgalt1]

I thought it was Scalia who broke the 12th Commandment: "Don't go hunting with Dick Cheney."

[Noscitur a sociis]

On the contrary, although I can see why you might not see that if all you had to go on was ama valde intellectum’s post.

“In Heaven there will be no law, and the lion will lie down with the lamb….In Hell there will be nothing but law, and due process will be meticulously observed” isn’t a quote from Scalia, it’s from law professor Grant Gilmore. Scalia quoted it (with that same ellision, so I’m confident that’s the source) in a speech shortly before his death on natural law, where he concluded that as a judge it was essential for him to rigorously apply the law, even when he disagreed with it or it was inconsistent with his moral values, natural law, or equity. He deployed the quote to explain that heaven might be perfect enough to run without laws, but that this world wasn’t. So very much in line, I think with the More of the play. (Incidentally, I’m not sure that that was Gilmore’s point at all.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thank you.

"If men were angels there would be no need for government."

[Dr. Ed 2]

That was John Adams.

[Mr. Bumble]

The complete quote:
“If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
That last phrase seems important.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[deleted]

[Noscitur a sociis]

Right. In context, I think he was taking the opposite of the Scalia/More claim, i.e. that a sufficiently virtuous human society could and would get by with fewer laws, and that there would be less need to rigorously enforce them.

Edit: Not sure why the Margrave of Azilia deleted his post, but for the record the full quote is:

Law reflects but in no sense determines the moral worth of a society. The values of a reasonably just society will reflect themselves in a reasonably just law. The better the society, the less law there will be. In heaven there will be no law, and the lion shall lie down with the lamb. The values of an unjust society will reflect themselves in an unjust law. The worse the society, the more law there will be. In hell there will be nothing but law, and due process will be meticulously observed.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Thomas More was not a Supreme Court judge. As they say in Rhetoric class: Don't destroy your point by an absurd anachronistic example

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Libertarians cite the law regularly. They want limited governmental power. They still understand the necessity of law in human society.

I don't know how heaven and hell operate. I am told that Lucifer was kicked out of heaven for not following the rules.

Your support of protecting state laws banning firearms from 14A review will be pushed back upon by some around here.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Again, complete lack of backbone. "by some" but you refuse to take any position. Is there any statement you could make in the world that would not be gainsayed "by some' ?????

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

I saw the interview about sex trafficking and it is silly

Spain prohibits all forms of trafficking in persons through Article 318 of its Criminal and Penal Code. The prescribed penalties for sex trafficking is 5 to 15 years' imprisonment, and the penalty for labor trafficking is 4 to 12 years in prison.

And that is the way to do it. Penalties so strong a person turns to other (illegal) activities. Broken families are increasing, divorce is at a record high, and the result is vulnerable kids .

[Malika the Maiz]

Divorce rates are not at a record high.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2024/10/marriage-and-divorce.html

The penalty under US federal law for sex trafficking is up to 20 years in prison.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The penalty is generally either a mimimum of 10 or 15 years, and up to life imprisonment.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Yes, 'Record" because now more long-term relationships break up that were never legally marriages. I call that divorce.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (decided February 16, 1833): Bill of Rights (here, the Fifth Amendment takings clause) applies only to federal action, not state (Barron could not get compensation for City’s modification of stream which silted up his wharf) (I suppose the Maryland constitution had no takings clause); abrogated by the Fourteenth Amendment

Fisher v. Hurst, 333 U.S. 147 (decided February 16, 1948): In Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 1948, (see January 12), the Court had ruled that the University of Oklahoma could not refuse an applicant on account of race, and had remanded the case back to the District Court for implementation. But the District Court ordered that either Ms. Sipuel be admitted, or that UO set up a separate school of law for black students! Here the Court affirms that ridiculous ruling. (The separate law school, “Langston University School of Law”, with her as the only student, didn’t last long. She refused to attend, threatened to sue again, and UO gave in and let her into their existing law school.)

Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (decided February 16, 1948): product for injecting nitrogen-fixing bacteria into legumes not patentable; effective agent was the bacteria which is found in nature

The Caledonian, 17 U.S. 100 (decided February 16, 1819): “prize of war” can be captured after it arrives at port (this was an American vessel, with a cargo of rice, captured by the British during the War of 1812)

Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co., 333 U.S. 138 (decided February 16, 1948): landlord in “Cleveland Defense Rental Area” fails in his attempt to raise rents 40% - 60%; violated Housing and Rent Act of 1947, which was proper extension of War Powers Act because dealt with dislocations caused by war

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co. makes a brief reference to the 9th Amendment. Also, at the time, the country was still legally at war. Justice Jackson flags the danger of the war power:

No one will question that this power is the most dangerous one to free government in the whole catalogue of powers. It usually is invoked in haste and excitement, when calm legislative consideration of constitutional limitation is difficult. It is executed in a time of patriotic fervor that makes moderation unpopular. And, worst of all, it is interpreted by judges under the influence of the same passions and pressures. Always, as in this case, the Government urges hasty decision to forestall some emergency or serve some purpose, and pleads that paralysis will result if its claims to power are denied or their confirmation delayed.

He still concurred.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Barron v. Baltimore was the last significant opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall.

His successor served as counsel for the defendants in error. He was "stopped by the court" -- the justices didn't even deem it necessary to hear that side's oral argument.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11954966981769767880

Barron won at first in state court but lost on appeal. The city argued they dealt with a public nuisance and no compensation was warranted. The Supreme Court did not address that issue.

The result seems logical. There were, however, some people who thought the Bill of Rights did apply to the states. Ultimately, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and the BOR served as a useful listing of the "privileges or immunities" protected.

The opinion rests on the purpose of the Bill of Rights. James Madison supported an amendment that would apply some rights to the states. He felt this would be most important to do:

No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.

The original Constitution does have some limits on states -- see, particularly, Art. I, sec. 10 -- "in the nature of a bill of rights" (to quote Marshall).

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Most of what Madison personally wanted never made it to final law.

[A Japanese Student]

One electioneering law case, and two sentencing cases under aggravated crime statute.

Public Offices Election Act Case (Grand Bench, decided February 16, 1954): Distributing newspapers on a street is not a "usual means" of distribution since the newspapers at issue are usually distributed by mail; constitutional to prohibit newspapers that favor a named candidate from being distributed other than by "usual means" (here's how party newspapers work - the headquarters issue monthly edition, read mostly by supporters, and candidates in each district issue "regional extras" that are distributed on a street; because of this ruling the "extras" actually are regular editions, just not authored by the national headquarter and targeted at constituents. And why newspapers? because they are one of the only printed matters that can be distributed during election period!)

Act on Punishment of Physical Violence Case (Second Petty Bench, decided February 16, 1978): Courts can punish defendant under statute not cited in the charging document so long as it does not prejudice defense (the indictment alleged that the defendant, together with another person, assaulted victim; since two or more persons committed assault, it is aggravated assault (max. 3 years) under APPV §1, not simple assault (max. 2 years)) (My question: for federal grand jury purposes, is this governed under U.S. v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002), or Alleyne v. U.S., 570 U.S. 99 (2013)? I suppose it's Alleyne if the defendant objects at district court, and Cotton if the issue was waived)

Act on Punishment of Physical Violence Case (Second Petty Bench, decided February 16, 2004): Defendant was charged with 1 count of possession of knives on a street and 1 count of aggravated threats (threats using weapon, APPV §1) in a pachinko parlor. The judge acquitted the defendant of the possession charge (with explanation), aggravated threats charge (without explanation), and instead finds the defendant guilty of possession inside the parlor. Since possession is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated threats, this is unlawful; yet the prosecutor didn't appeal. Court below reverses and remands; the Supreme Court rules that, even in this circumstance, a remand is improper due to the prosecutor's failure to appeal; the defendant is thus acquitted in full

[Dan Schiavetta]

"And why newspapers? because they are one of the only printed matters that can be distributed during election period!"

That is strange. Can you elaborate on that?

[A Japanese Student]

Japan's electioneering laws are the opposite of free speech. Beyond what every candidate is entitled to (and paid for by taxpayers) or small exceptions, no printed matter can be distributed during the election period for the purpose of campaigning for a specific candidate.

Article 142 of POEA specifies the legal limits. Each House of Representatives single-member district candidate is entitled to 35,000 postcards, 70,000 A4-sized handouts (of up to 2 designs submitted to officials), and posters posted on municipality-managed builtin boards. TV ads are also banned; in exchange each candidate (or party, in the case of HoR SMD) gets free air time on public broadcast. Online communications are unrestricted aside from paid ads (also forbidden) and e-mails (must be sent by candidates). Also, no canvassing or paying campaign staff.

These are the rules for the "election period" (which is 2 weeks for general election). Outside this period candidates are not allowed to campaign at all. Strict rules apply to publicly displaying candidates' names.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thank you.

Sounds like a system run by and for adults.

[Mr. Bumble]

So do us a favor and move to Japan.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sounds quite fascist, although it is a different culture.

Also favors the incumbent, who "isn't campaigning" when he attends parades and kisses babies.

[Krayt]

Huh? Those in power deciding how much speech shall be spoken against them?

Sure, for adults, if adults are Hitler, Stalin, and the oppression of tens of billions throughout history.

The only thing childish is, hehe, your button pushing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And this is a relatively civilized country!

[A Japanese Student]

Another statistic which might be of interest:

Zero - the number of laws struck down as unconstitutionally burdening freedom of speech since 1947. In fact, the total number of facially invalid statutes is so low that it only uses a single page of high-school textbooks to list summaries of all cases. During the same period, SCOTUS struck down 30 federal laws on free-speech grounds.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Still as with the Clarence Thomas dissent in the cross-burning case, what is called 'freedom of speech' fails at the first appeal to courts.

So, the Masterpiece Cake case was a Freedom of Speech case for many.

Compelled Speech in Masterpiece Cakeshop: What the Supreme Court’s June 2018 Decisions Tell Us About the Unresolved Questions
Federalist Society Review, Volume 19