archive-edu.com » EDU » C » CORNELL.EDU

Total: 1513

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Carter v. Carter Coal Co.
    the Constitution may enact laws to promote the general welfare have always been definitely rejected by this Court P 291 7 Those who framed and those who adopted the Constitution meant to carve from the general mass of legislative powers then possessed by the States only such portions as it was thought wise to confer upon the federal government and in order that there should be no uncertainty as to what was taken and what was left the national powers of legislation were not aggregated but enumerated with the result that what was not embraced by the enumeration remained vested in the States without change or impairment P 294 8 The States in respect of all powers reserved to them are supreme And since every addition to the national legislative power to some extent detracts from or invades the power of the States it is of vital moment that in order to preserve the fixed balance intended by the Constitution the powers of the general government be not so extended as to embrace any not within the express terms of the several grants or the implications necessarily to be drawn therefrom P 294 9 The general government possesses no inherent power over the internal affairs of the States and emphatically not with regard to legislation P 295 10 The determination of the Framers Convention and the ratifying conventions to preserve complete and unimpaired state self government in all matters not committed to the national government is one of the plainest facts in the history of their deliberations Adherence to that determination is incumbent equally upon the federal government and the States State powers can neither be appropriated on the one hand nor abdicated on the other P 295 11 If the federal government once begins taking over the powers of the States the States may be so despoiled of their powers or what may amount to the same thing be so relieved of the responsibilities p241 which the possession of the powers necessarily enjoins as to reduce them to little more than geographical divisions of the national domain P 295 12 The Constitution is a law the supreme law of the land Judicial tribunals are required to apply the law to the facts in every case properly brought before them and in so doing they are bound to give effect to this supreme law as against any mere statute conflicting with it P 296 13 In the discharge of that duty the opinion of the lawmakers that a statute passed by them is valid must be given great weight but their opinion or the court s opinion that the statute will prove greatly or generally beneficial is wholly irrelevant to the inquiry P 297 14 As used in the commerce clause of the Constitution the term commerce is the equivalent of intercourse for the purposes of trade and includes transportation purchase sale and exchange of commodities between citizens of the different States The power to regulate commerce embraces the instruments

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0298_0238_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Castaneda v. Partida
    process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment because of gross underrepresentation of Mexican Americans on the county grand juries On the basis of the evidence before it the District Court concluded that respondent had made out a weak prima facie case of invidious discrimination and on balance the court s doubts about the reliability of population and grand jury statistics offered by respondent from census and county records coupled with its opinion that Mexican Americans constituted a governing majority in the county caused it further to conclude that the prima facie case was rebutted by the State and the petition was dismissed The Court of Appeals reversed holding that the State had failed to rebut respondent s prima facie case Held Based on all the facts that bear on the grand jury discrimination issue such as the statistical disparities the county population was 79 Mexican American but over an 11 year period only 39 of those summoned for grand jury service were Mexican American the method of jury selection and any other relevant testimony as to the manner in which the selection process was implemented the proof offered by respondent was sufficient to demonstrate a prima facie case of intentional discrimination in grand jury selection and the State failed to rebut such presumption by competent evidence Pp 492 501 a None of the evidence in the record rebutted respondent s prima facie case The State offered only the testimony of the State District p483 Judge who had selected the jury commissioners dealing principally with the selection of the commissioners and the instructions given them and did not call the commissioners themselves to testify Without evidence about the method by which the commissioners determined the other qualifications for grand jurors prior to the statutory time for testing qualifications no inference

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0430_0482_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n
    from unwarranted governmental regulation For commercial speech to come within the First Amendment it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading Next it must be determined whether the asserted governmental interest to be served by the restriction on commercial speech is substantial If both inquiries yield positive answers it must then be decided whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest Pp 561 566 b In this case it is not claimed that the expression at issue is either inaccurate or relates to unlawful activity Nor is appellant electrical utility s promotional advertising unprotected commercial speech merely because appellant holds a monopoly over the sale of electricity in its service area Since monopoly over the supply of a product provides no protection from competition with substitutes for that product advertising by utilities is just as valuable to consumers as advertising by unregulated firms and there is no indication that appellant s decision to advertise was not based on the belief that consumers were interested in the advertising Pp 566 568 c The State s interest in energy conservation is clearly substantial and is directly advanced by appellee s regulations The State s further interest in preventing inequities in appellant s rates based on the assertion that successful promotion of consumption in off peak periods would create extra costs that would because of appellant s rate structure be borne by all consumers through higher overall rates is also substantial The latter interest does not however provide a constitutionally adequate reason for restricting protected speech because the link between the advertising prohibition and appellant s rate structure is at most tenuous Pp 568 569 p558 d Appellee s regulation which reaches all promotional advertising

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0447_0557_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Chambers v. Florida
    state courts by use of coerced confessions are void under the clue process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment P 228 2 This Court is not concluded by the finding of a jury that a confession by one convicted in a state court of murder was voluntary but determines that question for itself from the evidence P 228 3 Confessions of murder procured by repeated inquisitions of prisoners without friends or

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0309_0227_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Chambers v. Maroney
    those found in one of the guns in the car At his first trial which ended in a mistrial petitioner was represented by a Legal Aid Society attorney Another Legal Aid Society attorney who represented him at the second trial did not confer with petitioner until a few minutes before that trial began The materials taken from the car and the bullets seized from petitioner s home were introduced in evidence and petitioner was convicted of robbery of both service stations Petitioner did not take a direct appeal but sought unsuccessfully a writ of habeas corpus in the Pennsylvania courts and in the federal courts challenging the admissibility of the materials taken from the car and the ammunition seized in his home and claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel The Court of Appeals dealt with the claim that the attorney s lack of preparation resulted in the failure to exclude the guns and ammunition by finding harmless error in the admission of the bullets and ruling that the materials seized from the car were admissible in evidence and concluded that the claim of prejudice from substitution of counsel was without substantial basis Held 1 The warrantless search of the automobile was valid and the materials seized therefrom were properly introduced in evidence Pp 46 52 a The search made at the police station some time after the arrest cannot be justified as incident to the arrest Pp 46 47 p43 b Just as there was probable cause to arrest the occupants of the car there was probable cause to search the car for guns and stolen money Pp 47 48 c If there is probable cause an automobile because of its mobility may be searched without a warrant in circumstances that would not justify a warrantless

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0399_0042_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Chandler v. Florida
    Court denied review The Florida courts did not construe Estes v Texas 381 U S 532 as laying down a per se constitutional rule barring broadcast coverage under all circumstances Held The Constitution does not prohibit a state from experimenting with a program such as is authorized by Florida s Canon 3A 7 Pp 569 583 a This Court has no supervisory jurisdiction over state courts and in reviewing a state court judgment is confined to evaluating it in relation to the Federal Constitution P 570 b Estes v Texas supra did not announce a constitutional rule that all photographic radio and television coverage of criminal trials is inherently a denial of due process It does not stand as an absolute ban on state experimentation with an evolving technology which in terms of modes of mas communication was in its relative infancy in 1964 when Estes was decided and is even now in a state of continuing change Pp 570 574 c An absolute constitutional ban on broadcast coverage of trials cannot be justified simply because there is a danger that in some cases conduct of the broadcasting process or prejudicial broadcast accounts of pretrial and trial events may impair the ability of jurors to decide the issue of guilt or innocence uninfluenced by extraneous matter The appropriate safeguard against juror prejudice is the defendant s right p561 to demonstrate that the media s coverage of his case be it printed or broadcast compromised the ability of the particular jury that heard the case to adjudicate fairly Pp 574 575 d Whatever may be the mischievous potentialities of broadcast coverage for intruding upon the detached atmosphere which should always surround the judicial process Estes v Texas supra at 587 at present no one has presented empirical data sufficient to establish

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0449_0560_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
    the Public Law of New Hampshire which forbids under penalty that any person shall address any offensive derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place or call him by any offensive or derisive name was construed by the Supreme Court of the State in this case and before this case arose as limited to the use in a public place of words directly tending to cause a breach of the peace by provoking the person addressed to acts of violence Held 1 That so construed it is sufficiently definite and specific to comply with requirements of due process of law P 573 2 That as applied to a person who on a public street addressed another as a damned Fascist and a damned racketeer it does not substantially or unreasonably impinge upon freedom of speech P 574 3 The refusal of the state court to admit evidence offered by the defendant tending to prove provocation and evidence bearing on the truth or falsity of the utterances charged is open to no constitutional objection P 574 2 The Court notices judicially that the appellations damned racketeer and damned Fascist are epithets

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0315_0568_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
    and exclusive right to purchase these lands from the Indian proprietors against all other European sovereigns to which principle the Indians have never assented and which they deny to be a principle of the natural law of nations or obligatory on them The bill alleges that it never was claimed under the charter of George the Second that the grantees had a right to disturb the self government of the Indians who were in possession of the country and that on the contrary treaties were made by the first adventurers with the Indians by which a part of the territory was acquired by them for a valuable consideration and no pretension was ever made to set up the British laws in the country owned by the Indians That various treaties have been from time to time made between the British colony in Georgia between the State of Georgia before her confederation with the other States between the confederate States afterwards and finally between the United States under their present Constitution and the Cherokee Nation as well as other nations of Indians in all of which the Cherokee Nation and the other nations have been recognized as sovereign and independent States possessing both the exclusive right to their territory and the exclusive right of self government within that territory That the various proceedings from time to time had by the Congress of the United States under the articles of their confederation as well as under the present Constitution of the United States in relation to the subject of the Indian nations confirm the same view of the subject The bill proceeds to refer to the treaty concluded at Hopewell on the 28th November 1785 between the commissioners of the United States and headmen and warriors of all the Cherokees the treaty of Holston of the 22d July 1791 between the president of the United States by his duly authorized commissioner William Blount and the chiefs and warriors of the Cherokee Nation of Indians and the additional p5 article of 17th November 1792 made at Philadelphia by Henry Knox the secretary at war acting on behalf of the United States the treaty made at Philadelphia on the 26th June 1794 the treaties between the same parties made at Tellico 2d October 1790 on the 24th October 1804 on the 25th October 1805 and the 27th October 1805 the treaty at Washington on the 7th January 1806 with the proclamation of that convention by the president and the elucidation of that convention of 11th September 1807 the treaty between the United States and the Cherokee Nation made at the city of Washington on the 22d day of March 1816 another convention made at the same place on the same day by the same parties a treaty made at the Cherokee agency on the 8th July 1807 and a treaty made at the city of Washington on the 27th February 1819 all of which treaties and conventions were duly ratified and confirmed by the Senate of the United States and became thenceforth and still are a part of the supreme law of the land By those treaties the bill asserts the Cherokee Nation of Indians are acknowledged and treated with as sovereign and independent States within the boundary arranged by those treaties and that the complainants are within the boundary established by the treaty of 1719 sovereign and independent with the right of self government without any right of interference with the same on the part of any State of the United States The bill calls the attention of the court to the particular provisions of those treaties for the purpose of verifying the truth of the general principles deduced from them The bill alleges from the earliest intercourse between the United States and the Cherokee Nation an ardent desire has been evinced by the United States to lead the Cherokees to a greater degree of civilization This is shown by the fourteenth article of the treaty of Holston and by the course pursued by the United States in 1808 when a treaty was made giving to a portion of the nation which preferred the hunter state a territory on the west of the Mississippi in exchange for a part of the lower country of the Cherokees and assurances were given by the president that those who chose to remain for the purpose of engaging in the pursuits of agricultural and civilized life in the country they occupied might rely on the p6 patronage aid and good neighbourhood of the United States The treaty of 8th July 1817 was made to carry those promises into effect and in reliance on them a large cession of lands was thereby made and in 1819 on the 27th February another treaty was made the preamble of which recites that a greater part of the Cherokee Nation had expressed an earnest desire to remain on this side of the Mississippi and were desirous to commence those measures which they deem necessary to the civilization and preservation of their nation to give effect to which object without delay that treaty was declared to be made and another large cession of their lands was thereby made by them to the United States By a reference to the several treaties it will be seen that a fund is provided for the establishment of schools and the bill asserts that great progress has been made by the Cherokees in civilization and in agriculture They have established a constitution and form of government the leading features of which they have borrowed from that of the United States dividing their government into three separate departments legislative executive and judicial In conformity with this constitution these departments have all been organized They have formed a code of laws civil and criminal adapted to their situation have erected courts to expound and apply those laws and organized an executive to carry them into effect They have established schools for the education of their children and churches in which the Christian religion is taught they have abandoned the hunter state and become agriculturists mechanics and herdsmen and under provocations long continued and hard to be borne they have observed with fidelity all their engagements by treaty with the United States Under the promised patronage and good neighbourhood of the United States a portion of the people of the nation have become civilized Christians and agriculturists and the bill alleges that in these respects they are willing to submit to a comparison with their white brethren around them The bill claims for the Cherokee Nation the benefit of the provision in the Constitution that treaties are the supreme law of the land and all judges are bound thereby of the declaration in the Constitution that no State shall pass any law p7 impairing the obligation of contracts and avers that all the treaties referred to are contracts of the highest character and of the most solemn obligation It asserts that the Constitutional provision that Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes is a power which from its nature is exclusive and consequently forbids all interference by any one of the States That Congress have in execution of this power passed various acts and among others the act of 1802 to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes and to preserve peace on the frontiers The objects of these acts are to consecrate the Indian boundary as arranged by the treaties and they contain clear recognitions of the sovereignty of the Indians and of their exclusive right to give and to execute the law within that boundary The bill proceeds to state that in violation of these treaties of the Constitution of the United States and of the Act of Congress of 1802 the State of Georgia at a session of her Legislature held in December in the year 1828 passed an act which received the assent of the Governor of that State on the twentieth day of that month and year entitled An act to add the territory lying within this State and occupied by the Cherokee Indians to the counties of Carroll De Kalb Gwinett Hall and Habersham and to extend the laws of this State over the same and for other purposes That afterwards to wit in the year 1829 the Legislature of the said State of Georgia passed another act which received the assent of the Governor on the 19th December of that year entitled An act to add the territory lying within the chartered limits of Georgia now in the occupancy of the Cherokee Indians to the counties of Carroll De Kalb Gwinett Hall and Habersham and to extend the laws of this State over the same and to annul all laws and ordinances made by the Cherokee Nation of Indians and to provide for the compensation of officers serving legal processes in said territory and to regulate the testimony of Indians and to repeal the ninth section of the Act of 1828 on this subject The effect of these laws and their purposes are stated to be to parcel out the territory of the Cherokees to extend all the laws of Georgia over the same to abolish the Cherokee laws and to deprive the Cherokees of the protection of their laws p8 to prevent them as individuals from enrolling for emigration under the penalty of indictment before the State courts of Georgia to make it murder in the officers of the Cherokee government to inflict the sentence of death in conformity with the Cherokee laws subjecting them all to indictment therefor and death by hanging extending the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace of Georgia into the Cherokee territory and authorising the calling out of the militia of Georgia to enforce the process and finally declaring that no Indian or descendant of any Indian residing within the Cherokee Nation of Indians shall be deemed a competent witness in any court of the State of Georgia in which a white person may be a party except such white person resides within the said nation All these laws are averred to be null and void because repugnant to treaties in full force to the Constitution of the United States and to the Act of Congress of 1802 The bill then proceeds to State the interference of President Washington for the protection of the Cherokees and the resolutions of the Senate in consequence of his reference of the subject of intrusions on their territory That in 1802 the State of Georgia in ceding to the United States a large body of lands within her alleged chartered limits and imposing a condition that the Indian title should be peaceably extinguished admitted the subsisting Indian title That cessions of territory have always been voluntarily made by the Indians in their national character and that cessions have been made of as much land as could be spared until the cession of 1819 when they had reduced their territory into as small a compass as their own convenience would bear and they then accordingly resolved to cede no more The bill then refers to the various applications of Georgia to the United States to extinguish the Indian title by force and her denial of the obligations of the treaties with the Cherokees although under these treaties large additions to her disposable lands had been made and states that Presidents Monroe and Adams in succession understanding the articles of cession and agreement between the State of Georgia and the United States in the year 1802 as binding the United States to extinguish the Indian title so soon only as it could be done peaceably and on reasonable terms refused themselves to apply force to these complainants p9 or to permit it to be applied by the State of Georgia to drive them from their possession but on the contrary avowed their determination to protect these complainants by force if necessary and to fulfil the guarantee given to them by the treaties The State of Georgia not having succeeded in these applications to the Government of the United States have resorted to legislation intending to force by those means the Indians from their territory Unwilling to resist by force of arms these pretensions and efforts the bill states that application for protection and for the execution of the guarantee of the treaties has been made by the Cherokees to the present President of the United States and they have received for answer that the President of the United States has no power to protect them against the laws of Georgia The bill proceeds to refer to the act of Congress of 1830 entitled An act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the States or territories and for their removal west of the Mississippi The Act is to apply to such of the Indians as may choose to remove and by the proviso to it nothing contained in the Act shall be construed as authorising or directing the violation of any existing treaty between the United States and any of the Indian tribes The complainants have not chosen to remove and this it is alleged it is sufficient for the complainants to say but they proceed to state that they are fully satisfied with the country they possess the climate is salubrious it is convenient for commerce and intercourse it contains schools in which they can obtain teachers from the neighbouring States and places for the worship of God where Christianity is taught by missionaries and pastors easily supplied from the United States The country too is consecrate in their affections from having been immemorially the property and residence of their ancestors and from containing now the graves of their fathers relatives and friends Little is known of the country west of the Mississippi and if accepted the bill asserts it will be the grave not only of their civilization and Christianity but of the nation itself It also alleges that the portion of the nation who emigrated p10 under the patronage and sanction of the President in 1808 and 1809 and settled on the territory assigned to them on the Arkansas river were afterwards required to remove again and that they did so under the stipulations of a treaty made in May 1828 The place to which they removed under this last treaty is said to be exposed to incursions of hostile Indians and that they are engaged in constant scenes of killing and scalping and have to wage a war of extermination with more powerful tribes before whom they will ultimately fall They have therefore decidedly rejected the offer of exchange The bill then proceeds to state various acts under the authority of the laws of Georgia in defiance of the treaties referred to and of the Constitution of the United States as expressed in the act of 1802 and that the State of Georgia has declared its determination to continue to enforce these laws so long as the complainants shall continue to occupy their territory But while these laws are enforced in a manner the most harassing and vexatious to your complainants the design seems to have been deliberately formed to carry no one of these cases to final decision in the State courts with the view as the complainants believe and therefore allege to prevent any one of the Cherokee defendants from carrying those cases to the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of error for review under the twenty fifth section of the act of Congress of the United States passed in the year 1789 and entitled An act to establish the judicial courts of the United States Numerous instances of proceedings are set forth at large in the bill The complainants expected protection from these unconstitutional acts of Georgia by the troops of the United States but notice has been given by the commanding officer of those troops to John Ross the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation that these troops so far from protecting the Cherokees would cooperate with the civil officers of Georgia in enforcing their laws upon them Under these circumstances it is said that it cannot but be seen that unless this court shall interfere the complainants have but these alternatives either to surrender their lands in exchange for others in the western wilds of this continent which would be to seal at once the doom of their civilization Christianity and national p11 existence or to surrender their national sovereignty their property rights and liberties guarantied as these now are by so many treaties to the rapacity and injustice of the State of Georgia or to arm themselves in defence of these sacred rights and fall sword in hand on the graves of their fathers These proceedings it is alleged are wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience tend to the manifest wrong of the complainants and violate the faith of the treaties to which Georgia and the United States are parties and of the Constitution of the United States These wrongs are of a character wholly irremediable by the common law and these complainants are wholly without remedy of any kind except by the interposition of this honourable Court The bill avers that this Court has by the Constitution and laws of the United States original jurisdiction of controversies between a State and a foreign state without any restriction as to the nature of the controversy that by the Constitution treaties are the supreme law of the land That as a foreign state the complainants claim the exercise of the powers of the Court of protect them in their rights and that the laws of Georgia which interfere with their rights and property shall be declared void and their execution be perpetually enjoined The bill States that John Ross is the principal chief and executive head of the Cherokee Nation and that in a full and

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0030_0001_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive



  •