Here is the Oath of the office of a Citizen:
Quote:
Oath of Allegiance
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian* direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
*CIVILIAN. A doctor, professor, or student of the civil law. --bouvier
|
Looks like a "doctor, professor, or student of the civil law" can/may
out rank a Citizen... when required by the law.
Looks like the Military Officers can/may
out rank a Citizen as well... when required by the law.
I would prefer to limit the scope of the information I look at to the information that would lead someone holding the Office of a supreme Court Justice to making such a statement in the first place, not their statement.
Further, looking at the quote[s], there are similar quote[s] where Louis is said to have called it a "private office" and "many others" call it this as well.
In fact, I have already come to a conclusion and supported it regarding the "private" vs. "public" nature of this office:
Quote:
Since "[t]he United States of America are a corporation" [UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, 5. - bouvier], and specifically, a "Public corporation, which are also called political, and sometimes municipal corporations, [which] are those which have for their object the government of a portion of the state;" [CORPORATION, 4. - bouvier].... THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE OFFICE OF A POLITICAL CORPORATION CAN BE "PRIVATE".
PRIVATE. Not general, as a private act of the legislature; not in office; as, a private person, as well as an officer, may arrest a felon; individual, as your private interest; not public, as a private way, a private nuisance.[bouvier]
|
My mind is made up on this and I will not debate this point any further.
The other aspect in the quote[s], and the
purpose of this thread is looking at the "rank" of the office of [C|c]itizen.
"... In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man,
whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be
the rank he holds...
A person is a man considered
according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
..." [PERSON - bouvier]
What is the rank one holds in the
body politic when they hold the office of Citizen a.k.a. Citizenship?
This is, and remains, the subject matter of this discussion and I have no interest in the rhetoric, hyperbola, and disingenuous sophistry:
Quote:
|
"It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be, in its present form, from the Inquisition it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance." The Complete Madison, at 303.
|
Quote:
|
By contrast, the Fourth Circuit’s decision in this case severely constricts national banks’ access to diversity jurisdiction as compared to the access generally available to corporations, for corporations ordinarily rank as citizens only of States in which they are incorporated or maintain their principal place of business, and are not deemed citizens of every State in which they maintain a business establishment. --WACHOVIA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. SCHMIDT et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit
http://supreme.justia.com/us/546/04-1186/
|
Quote:
"My brethren say that, when a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of beneficent legislation has shaken off the inseparable concomitants of that state, there must be some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen, and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws, and when his rights as a citizen or a man are to be protected in the ordinary modes by which other men's rights are protected... What the nation, through Congress, has sought to accomplish in reference to that race is what had already been done in every State of the Union for the white race -- to secure and protect rights belonging to them as freemen and citizens, nothing more. It was not deemed enough "to help the feeble up, but to support him after." The one underlying purpose of congressional legislation has been to enable the black race to take the rank of mere citizens. The difficulty has been to compel a recognition of the legal right of the black race to take the rank of citizens, and to secure the enjoyment of privileges belonging, under the law, to them as a component part of the people for whose welfare and happiness government is ordained." -- Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/109/3/case.html
|
Magnanimously,
Christopher Theodore: Rhodes
P.S.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
So it's no longer being blamed on either Brandeis or Frankfurter. Now it's "Many people have said ...."
|
It's not a matter of blame, its a matter of credit, and of the 2 Justices, the credit would most likely be due Louis Dembitz Brandeis who (more then likely) influanced Felix Frankfurter.. having been at the Court many years before the Felix.
It was "many people" before I pointed it out, you even noted that the vast number of sites attribute Brandeis and only some to Frankfurter. People quoting someone are simply saying the same thing, and as
you pointed out the vast number of sites quoting them, the hyperbola about me pointing out that
many people have said this is disingenuous.
So, yes "Many people have said ...."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
Well, "Many people" told me that my life would improve if George Bush beat Al Gore, "Many people" also told me that my life would improve if I went to law school instead of accounting school. Etc. Seems like Many People owe me a massive refund!!
|
That's why I wanted to look into if it is true that it is the "highst office", and give it a just and reasonable consideration based on the facts and law. Many people say many things...
"Many people" told me that my life would improve if I know my Self, love my Self and love Others as I love my Self... I have found this to be true.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
Before someone continues building an elaborate argument that somehow he's entitled to certain privileges and immunities reserved to federal office-holders, based on this quotation (even though the quote itself speaks of an "office in a democracy". not an office in the federal govt), I like a few details clarified:
First, where did this quotation come from? Brandeis? Frankfurter? Alfred E. Neuman? And when and where? Before they got on the Supreme Court, both Brandeis and Frankfurter were very energetic teachers, lawyers and public speakers; did this quotation date from before the judgeship? Was it said in a court decision or a Fourth of July speech? Let's be specific.
|
At the moment, I am not able to find the exact source that Brandeis is being quoted from, but amoung the many sites that I found with these quotes being published, are the sites of Universities.
While I would like the specifics, until the exact source of the quote is found, and as it's source is not crucial to me (as such a prespective will be able to be supported without quoting either of those justices, if it be true), I simply apply some reason and common sense.
For example, the credit would most likely be due Louis Dembitz, having been at the Court many years before the Felix (according to a brief overview of their lives, he appears to be the more influential of the two). It stands to reason that Felix would have been influanced and guided by Louis.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
Second, what sort of legal authority does this figure of speech get?
|
Prima facie evidence of a fact, is in law sufficient to establish the fact, unless rebutted.
Further, your presumption that it is a 'figure of speech' is not proven. Till then, this question is, in part, premature.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
Has it been mentioned by more than one legal authority? In other court cases?
|
Good questions...
As I find things relevent to their answers I will be sure to post them here.