Chisholm v. Georgia 2 US 419 (February 1794)

[dorkenbutt]

"... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty ... Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and preeminences; our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens."
--SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
2 US 419 (February 1794) Chisholm v. Georgia
Chief Justice: Jay, John
Argued: February 5, 1793
Decided: February 18, 1793

The above quote says it all and this Supreme Court Decision has never been overturned to my knowledge. I have bolded what I believe to be the most important parts of the above quote.

I would like to know what Lawpuppy, Shoonra, Notorial dissent, and all the other agents here have to say about the above.

Looks pretty clear to me the people are the true sovereigns here and not the federal government. And I am not talking about US citizens (legal fictions) either, but real flesh and blood men/women.

[psholtz]

"Sovereigns without subjects".. I like that.

Interesting, though, that in the last sentence you quote, the SCOTUS does use the phrase "citizen"..

I wonder what the import of that is?

Would it have been better, had the SCOTUS written "Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and preeminences; our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than in their private capacity." (or something similar)?

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

The above quote says it all and this Supreme Court Decision has never been overturned to my knowledge.

Actually, it has been. Chisholm has the distinction of being one of only three Supreme Court decisions to be overturned by a constitutional amendment (the other two were the Dred Scott and Pollock cases).

The issue in Chisholm was whether the Constitution authorized a citizen of one State to sue another State in federal court without the consent of the latter State. The Court ruled that it did, and the outrage over the decision resulted in the adoption and ratification of the 11th Amendment (which provides that the federal judicial power doesn't extend to a case brought against a State by a citizen of another State or of a foregn State) in less than two years after the decision.

The quoted language from Jay is dicta. But in any event he is right to this extent: under the Constitution the people are sovereign in the sense that they have the power (through Congress and their state legislatures) to amend the Constitution. Their power to elect Congressmen also means they have the ultimate say over what kind of legislation gets passed by the federal government.

What the language does not mean is that any individual citizen has the legal right to ignore validly enacted legislation solely on the ground that he is an individual sovereign who is excusively entitled to dictate the laws that he will follow. For if that were the case, you would have anarchy instead of a system of government, and if anyone thinks John Jay was an anarchist, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

The quoted language fron Jay is dicta. But in any event he is right to this extent: under the Constitution the people are sovereign in the sense that they have the power (through Congress and their state legislatures) to amend the Constitution. Their power to elect Congressmen also means they have the ultimate say over what kind of legislation gets passed by the federal government.

The Sovereign is the source and the author of Law.

He is answerable for his thoughts, desires and actions only to God Almighty Himself.

The Sovereign's powers thusly emanate from w/in himself, and are in no way dependent upon or connected with any external connections to any external Constitutions or Congresses (unless by the express will, volition and consent of the Sovereign himself, and then only in a manner whereby the Constitution and Congress is wholly dependent upon and inferior to the Sovereign).

Your information abiout the 11th amendment is interesting.. thanks for posting that.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

What the language does not mean is that any individual citizen has the legal right to ignore validly enacted legislation solely on the ground that he is an individual sovereign who is excusively entitled to dictate the laws that he will follow. For if that were the case, you would have anarchy instead of a system of government, and if anyone thinks John Jay was an anarchist, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale.

The government has no power over those who are outside its jurisdiction.

[netwrkranger]

mertensv16 wrote:

The quoted language from Jay is dicta. But in any event he is right to this extent: under the Constitution the people are sovereign in the sense that they have the power (through Congress and their state legislatures) to amend the Constitution.

I can't recall a single instance of Congress or state legislature instituting my will.

Todays' elections resemble more of voting for your overlords than selecting your regents.

In re-reading the dicta, it doesn't say what you purport in your post, mertensv16. It doesn't mention anything about amending some agreement. It says "the people" are sovereign, govern themselves, and that officers and agents of the government are REGENTS of "the people".

mertensv16 wrote:
Their power to elect Congressmen also means they have the ultimate say over what kind of legislation gets passed by the federal government.

The majority of people in this country are against the War in Iraq. Tell me, will that be expressed by an ending of that endeavor any time soon?

Todays' government resembles more of legislature for and by corporate, professional, and special interest groups rather than "the people".

Then again, maybe it is the peoples' fault for voting the same incumbents into office time and time again. We were given a choice of a return to a republican form of government (Ron Paul) and the majority choose socialism in one form or another (corporate or welfare).

You get what you pay for =D.

- netwrkranger

[indio007]

When this opinion was written the gov't was still de jure. Since the US is now de facto corporate, the officers of the corporation take the will of the shareholders under advisement.

[dorkenbutt]

Here is an interesting link. http://classes.lls.edu/archive/manhe...rts/11th-t.htm

Just because the 11th Amendment overruled Chisholm it did not change the fact that people are sovereign. Since when can the UNITED STATES CORPORATION tell the sovereign (people) what to do? Again I am not talking about a US citizen (creation of the STATE) who has volunteered to be slave (see 14th Amendment) with civil rights. People are sovereign, US citizens (legal fictions) are not.

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

I can't recall a single instance of Congress or state legislature instituting my will.

Todays' elections resemble more of voting for your overlords than selecting your regents.

In re-reading the dicta, it doesn't say what you purport in your post, mertensv16. It doesn't mention anything about amending some agreement. It says "the people" are sovereign, govern themselves, and that officers and agents of the government are REGENTS of "the people".



The majority of people in this country are against the War in Iraq. Tell me, will that be expressed by an ending of that endeavor any time soon?

Todays' government resembles more of legislature for and by corporate, professional, and special interest groups rather than "the people".

Then again, maybe it is the peoples' fault for voting the same incumbents into office time and time again. We were given a choice of a return to a republican form of government (Ron Paul) and the majority choose socialism in one form or another (corporate or welfare).

You get what you pay for =D.

- netwrkranger

Since when do people vote anyone into office? The vote does not count and anyone that says it does is uninformed. The electoral college is the deciding factor and it has always been electors that put people into office. It has never been the popular vote.

The winner is predetermined and is hand picked by those that are truly in power. US citizens have no say so in the election process. This is the biggest sham there is.

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by indio007

When this opinion was written the gov't was still de jure. Since the US is now de facto corporate, the officers of the corporation take the will of the shareholders under advisement.

This does not negate the fact that people are sovereign. Problem is most do not have enough substance between their ears to comprehend this. Thus the reason for the mess we are in now.