Category: The American Constitution

“Scripture is the rule for the church; the law of nature, the only rule for the state. To attempt to introduce the Mosaic Law into the constitution of the state under the guise of natural law is sophistical. Nor are we left without strong indications of what the law of nature teaches in the civil sphere: it teaches that the people not only designate the persons of their governors, but bestow upon them all their power.” – A. S. P. Woodhouse, Puritanism & Liberty

“The strong Puritan impulse to action results in the constant intrusion of religion into the secular sphere in an effort to enforce the standards of the holy community upon the world, and in a marked tendency to press on, in the name of that ideal, from the quest for religious liberty to the quest for political power.” – A. S. P. Woodhouse, Puritanism & Liberty

“The law taken abstract from its original reason and end is made a shell without a kernel, a shadow without a substance and a body without a soul. It is the execution of laws according to their equity and reason, which is the spirit that gives life to authority.” – John Lilburne, a/k/a Freeborn John (quoted by A. S. P. Woodhouse in Puritanism & Liberty)

“The particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void.” – Chief Justice Marshall, United States Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison (1803)

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” – Chief Justice Marshall, United States Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison (1803)

“When the legislature proceeds to impose on that officer [i.e., the President] other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law; is amenable to the laws for his conduct; and cannot at his discretion sport away the vested rights of others.” – Chief Justice Marshall, United States Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison (1803)

“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. [The] government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.” – Chief Justice Marshall, United States Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison (1803)

“The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” – Justice Holmes, United States Supreme Court, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)(internal citations omitted)

“The property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of a poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbour, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman, and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing who they think proper. To judge whether he is fit to be employed, may surely be trusted to the discretion of the employers whose interest it so much concerns. The affected anxiety of the law-giver lest they should employ an improper person, is evidently as impertinent as it is oppressive.” – Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vol. One

“An essential element of individual property is the legal right to exclude others from enjoying it. If the property is private, the right of exclusion may be absolute; if the property is affected with a public interest, the right of exclusion is qualified. But the fact that a product of the mind has cost its producer money and labor, and has a value for which others are willing to pay, is not sufficient to ensure to it this legal attribute of property. The general rule of law is, that the noblest of human productions—knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions, and ideas—become, after voluntary communication to others, free as the air to common use. Upon these incorporeal productions the attribute of property is continued after such communication only in certain classes of cases where public policy has seemed to demand it. These exceptions are confined to productions which, in some degree, involve creation, invention, or discovery. But by no means all such are endowed with this attribute of property. The creations which are recognized as property by the common law are literary, dramatic, musical, and other artistic creations; and these have also protection under the copyright statutes. The inventions and discoveries upon which this attribute of property is conferred only by statute, are the few comprised within the patent law.” – Justice Brandeis, Supreme Court of the United States, International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918).

“Property, a creation of law, does not arise from value . . . . Property depends upon exclusion by law from interference.” – Justice Holmes, Supreme Court of the United States, International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918).

“The peculiar value of news is in the spreading of it while it is fresh; and it is evident that a valuable property interest in the news, as news, cannot be maintained by keeping it secret.” – Justice Pitney, Supreme Court of the United States, International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918).

“The news element—the information respecting current events contained in the literary production—is not the creation of the writer, but is a report of matters that ordinarily are publici juris; it is the history of the day. It is not to be supposed that the framers of the Constitution, when they empowered Congress ‘to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries’ (Const. art. 1, § 8, par. 8), intended to confer upon one who might happen to be the first to report a historic event the exclusive right for any period to spread the knowledge of it.” – Justice Pitney, Supreme Court of the United States, International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918).

“Democracy is a system in which parties lose elections.” – Adam Przeworski (quoted by Gabe Fleisher in “Why Today Is So Extraordinary,” Wake Up to Politics, January 20, 2025

“Commercial agreements traditionally are the domain of state law. State law is not displaced merely because the contract relates to intellectual property which may or may not be patentable; the states are free to regulate the use of such intellectual property in any manner not inconsistent with federal law…. In this as in other fields, the question of whether federal law pre-empts state law involves a consideration of whether that law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. If it does not, state law governs.” – United States Supreme Court, Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co., 440 U.S. 257 (1979), as quoted by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon in Smith v. Healy, 744 F.Supp.2d 1112 (2010)

“Presidential elections in the United States are the dash for the cash. News outlets large and small suddenly open up their wallets and shovel out money for words, photos, video, anything that grabs eyes and ears. TOTAL COVERAGE! If you’re a freelancer, presidential elections are a gift from the news gods because it means a few months of steady paychecks, a fattened Rolodex, maybe a staff gig with juicy benefits or a sweetheart book deal.” – Dominic Gwinn, “2024 From The Back Of Dom’s Van,” December 31, 2024, Wonkette (emphasis in original)

“America’s a hustle.” – Noelle Valdivia, “Bliss,” The Penguin

“If you and the other guy are serving chocolate pies, and the other guy’s pie is actually made of poop, the solution is not to add poop to your own pie. You can try to warn everybody about that pie, but sometimes E. coli has to be its own teacher.” – Marcie Jones, “Democratic State Leaders Prepare The Resistance,” Wonkette, November 11, 2024

“Surveillance is a systematic collection of information. It should be continuous, and it involves active and passive activities.” – Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, ADP 3-90, Offense and Defense

“Bold decisions that are adequately informed give the best promise of success.” – Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, ADP 3-90, Offense and Defense

“In a democracy it is the duty of every citizen to think.” – James Russell Lowell, The Atlantic Monthly

“Because one’s right to retreat into his or her home without unreasonable government interference is a core principle of the fourth amendment (Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31, 121 S. Ct. 2038, 150 L. Ed. 2d 94 (2001)), law enforcement officers generally may not enter, much less search, a person’s home without a warrant absent exigent circumstances.” – Justice Burke, Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, The People v. Slavin, 964 N.E.2d 150 (2011)

“Amongst the acts done by permission of the law, for the advancement of public justice, may be reckoned those of the officer who in the execution of his office, either in a civil or criminal case, kills a person who assaults or resists him. The resistance will justify the officer in proceeding to the last extremity. So that in all cases, whether civil or criminal, where persons have a right to arrest and imprison, and using the proper means for that purpose, are resisted, in so doing they may repel force with force, and need not give back, and, if the party making resistance is unavoidably killed in the struggle, this homicide is justifiable.” – Justice Craig, Supreme Court of Illinois, Lynn v. People, 170 Ill. 527 (1897)

“The social interest in the integrity and competence of the judicial process requires that courts and judges should not be shielded from wholesome exposure to public view, and if this interest is to be well served, then some latitude must be allowed for inaccurate and intemperate comment.” – People v. Goss, 10 Ill. 2d 533 (1957)

“The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.” – Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)

“The defense presented two witnesses: Dr. Dawna Gutzmann and Cordelia Parker, Johnson’s eighth-grade special education teacher. Both witnesses testified that Johnson had low intelligence and limited reading and comprehension skills.

“Parker testified that, when the 1992 school year began, Johnson was reading out of a third-grade reading book; however, she believed he had advanced to a fourth-grade reader by the end of the year. He passed a modified constitution test and graduated from elementary school pursuant to a Chicago Board of Education policy that required the promotion to high school of all students over 15 years of age. Parker acknowledged that her report on Johnson indicated that his ability to express himself verbally was adequate.

“Gutzmann testified she was appointed to interview Johnson and did so on separate occasions. The purpose of her initial examination was to form and render an opinion regarding Johnson’s ability to comprehend Miranda warnings and waive his constitutional rights. She first advised Johnson that what he said was not confidential and what he said could later be brought out in court. Gutzmann said she discovered that Johnson had not understood her initial explanation. After she repeated it several times, Johnson indicated he understood.

“In her first interview with Johnson, Gutzmann questioned Johnson about the meaning of key concepts regarding Miranda warnings. Johnson told her he had never signed a statement prior to the one at issue in this case. Gutzmann reviewed some pertinent psychological reports and learned that Johnson had a score of 57 on a verbal subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Test. She noted that a complete IQ test involves more than just the verbal test.

“Based upon her initial interview, Gutzmann made a provisional diagnosis of major depressive disorder and mild mental retardation. She noted that a firm diagnosis would require additional information regarding Johnson’s adaptive functioning and a full IQ test. After her initial meeting with Johnson, it was her impression that he had dependent features to his personality which were manifest in a tendency to be deferential. Johnson seemed to have low self-esteem, and he appeared to be easily influenced by her authoritative position.”

– Justice Philip J. Rarick, People v. Johnson, 803 N.E.2d 405 (Ill. 2004), Illinois Supreme Court

“Our system of justice requires that a defendant’s guilt or innocence be determined based upon relevant evidence and legal principles, upon the application of reason and deliberation by a jury, not the expression of misdirected emotion or outrage by a mob.” – Justice Philip J. Rarick, People v. Johnson, 803 N.E.2d 405 (Ill. 2004), Illinois Supreme Court

“Every defect in a man, and in others’ way of taking him, our agreement that gold has value gives us power to rise above.” – Regina Corrado, “Unauthorized Cinnamon”, Deadwood

“We can never surrender to democracy’s enemies. We can never allow America to be defined by forces of division and hatred. We can never go backward in the progress we have made through the sacrifice and dedication of true patriots. We can never and will never relent in our pursuit of a more perfect union, with liberty and justice for all Americans.” – Representative Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, Final Report, Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol

“For the first time in our Nation’s history, a grand jury has charged a former President with committing crimes while in office to overturn an election that he lost. In response, the defendant claims that to protect the institution of the Presidency, he must be cloaked with absolute immunity from criminal prosecution unless the House impeached and the Senate convicted him for the same conduct. He is wrong. Separation-of-powers principles, constitutional text, history, and precedent all make clear that a former President may be prosecuted for criminal acts he committed while in office—including, most critically here, illegal acts to remain in power despite losing an election.” – from “Introduction” by Special Counsel Jack Smith, et al., “Answering Brief for the United States”, Filed December 30, 2023, Circuit Court for the District of Columbia