View Single Post
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 09-02-2011, 03:04 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 384
just some stuff:


Placing fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and the arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the president as Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy.” 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen 438.

in-Chief means Sovereign!

“Pursuant to the “Law of the Flag”, a military flag does not result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: “Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a ship owner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster and that he submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all” – Ruhstrat v People, 57 N.E., 41, 45, 185 ILL, 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.

“This power is as extensive upon the land as upon the water. The constitution makes no distinction in that respect, and if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matter of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between the different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on. It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on the land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be the foundation of jurisdiction on its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on the water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on th eland.” – Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)

‘Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty.” Jackson v Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315 (U.S. 1852)

This began the most dangerous precedent of all Insular cases. This where Congress took a boundless field of power. When legislating for the States, they are bound by the Constitution, when legislating for their insular possessions they are not restricted in any way by the Constitution. Read the following quote from Harvard law review of AMERICANS INS. CO. V. 356 BALES OF COTTON, 26 U.S. 511, 546 (1828), relative to our insular possessions:

These courts then are not Constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the constitution, but is conferred by congress in the execution of those general powers which that body posses over th eterritories of the United States.” -- Harvard Law Review, Our New Possession, page 481.

“…[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution….” “In exercising the power, Conress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States, ….And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of the executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possession, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of the executive and legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable,” – Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

“It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution.” – Downs vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

“It is only with the extent of powers possessed by the district courts, acting as instance courts of admiralty, we are dealing. The Act of 1789 gives the entire constitutional power to determine “all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,” leaving the courts to ascertain its limits, as cases may arise.” – Waring et al, v. Clarke, Howard 5 12 L, ed. 1847.


No reference: claimed; 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on the land. The bill may be traced in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., Session 43, 320, 328, 337, 345(1844-1845), no opposition was reported.


Reply With Quote