페이지 이미지



* States"


stitution iato operation.

ing extend ? 229-232.

243. " RATIFICATION” [Ratificare; from ratus, valid, and facere, Define
to make. Litt. Sec. 515. Equivalent to confirmare."]—Co. Litt. ratification ?
295h. A confirmation of a previous act done either by the party
himself or by another. (Story on Agency. $ 250, 251; 2 Kent's
Com. 237.) Burrill's Law Dic., RATIFICATION.

to leave the action to the people, as the legislatures could only
make a league or treaty between the parties. Federalist, No. 43.
See Story's Const. § 1850-1856, and 621.

THE STATES RATIFYING THE SAME."_States" is In what here used in the sense of independent governments

, which could sense is not act, however, through their legislatures; but only through the here used ? conventions of the people. But when, is not declared. That the rejection by a convention was no estoppel pon a State, is proved by the case of North Carolina, whose first convention rejected tho Constitution.

The condition of the non-ratifying States is not de. fined; but the principles of self-preservation were strongly set forth at that day. Federalist, 43: No. 2 Kent's Com. Lect. 24, 30–36; Rawle's i'onst. ch. 10, p. 121; Story's Coust. § 1851, 1852.

* EstaBLISHMENT," is here used in the same sense as the verb 1-13, 248. in the preamble : the putting the government created by the Con

Ratifying extends beyond a literal definition of the term. For To what although the new States," and the independent pation (Texas)

does ratify: which have since been admitted into the Union, cannot be said to have ratified tlie Constitution in the sense of agreeing to the act done by themselves or another for them; yet in theory and in practice, they have agreed to all its obligations; and because of this agreement, every citizen for himself

, and each State in its 205, 271. sovereign or corporate capacity, is bound by all the obligations which the Constitution and the amendments impose. See the able opinions in Chisholm v. Georgia. 2 Dall. 474. See Preface, p. v.

Thus we see that from the first word in the preamble to the end of this stupendous work, there is a constant recurring necessity to carefull; weigh every word and phrase; to arrive at the defiuitiours by consulting the whole context, and interpreting each part by the ordinary rules of interpreting other great laws and compacts among men; that is by the words of the instrument, its context, it's reason and spirit. the old law, the mischiefs and the remedies intended to be applied ; always bearing in mind the great principle, that the compact must strengthen rather than perish.

The Constitution was adopted on the 17th September, 1787, by When was the convention appointed in pursuance of the resolution of the the ConstiCongress of thie Contederation of the 21st February, 1787, and

fied by the was ratified by the conventions of the several States, as follows, States? viz :-Of Delaware, on the 7th December, 1787; Pennsylvania, 12th Dec.

, 1787, New Jersey, 18th Dec., 1787: Georgia, 24 Jan. 229, 230. 1788; Connecticut, 9th Jan.. 1785; Massachusetts. 6th Feb., 1788; Maryland, 28th April, 1788: South Carolina, 230 May, 1789; New Hampshire, 21st "June. 1788; Virginia, 26th June,' 1788;' New Tork, 26th July, 1788; North Carolina, 21st Nov. 1789 : Rhode vention. Story's Const. § 1851.

North Carolina rejected it at its first con

tution rati

Island, 29th May, 1790.

When were 244. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.—These thirteen the amende articles proposed by Congress, in addition to, and amendment of mused pro- the Constitution of the United States, having been ratified by the

legislatures of the requisite number of the States, have become parts of the Constitution. The first ten amendments were proposed by Congress at its first session, in 1789. The eleventh was proposed in 1794, the twelfth in 1803, and the thirteenth and fourteenth (in note 275), as explained in notes 274, 275-285. Brightly's Dig. p. 12, note (a).

For the reasons which led to these amendments, see 2 Elliot's Debates, 331, 380-427; 1 Id. 119-122 ; 3 Id. 139, 140, 149, 153; Story's Const. S 1857-1868; 2 American Museum, 423, 425; Id. 534; Id. 540-546; Id. 553; 2 Kent's Com. Lect. 24; Federalist, No. 84; 1 Lloyd's Debates, 414, 420, 430-447. And see the History of the Rebellion for the 13th and 14th.

The whole object seems to have been to limit the powers of the the object

government by the prohibitory power of a biil of rights, notwithamend.

standing the government was one of limited powers, and contained ments? many restrictions in the shape of a bill of rights. Story's Const. $ 1857-1862.


What was

of the

What restrictions

as to



What is

Congress shall make no law respecting an establish

ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

, speech, the thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of Hight of pe- the press; or the right of the people peaceably to

assemble, and to petition the government for a redress

of grievances. Define 245. “EstaBLISHMENT."—Here it means a system of religion "establish

recognized and supported by the State ; as the Establishment or 93, 104. 243. Established Church of England. Worcester's Dictionary, ESTAB

LISHMENT; Story's Const. § 1871.

** OF RELIGION.”—[Lat. Religio, from re and ligo to bind.] –An roligion ?

acknowledgment of our obligation to God as our creator. with a feeling of reverence and love, and consequent duty of obedience to him, &c. Here a particular system of faith or worship. Worces. ter's Dic., RELIGION. Webster, ld. for a more comprehensive definition.

The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much the object? less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by pros.

trating Christianity ; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which would give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. Story's Const. § 1877; 2 Lloyd's Debates, 195–197. For a discussion of the subject, see 2 Kent's Com. (11 ed.) Lect. 24, pp. 35–37; notes 1, a, b, c, d. Rawle's Const. ch. 10, pp. 121, 122 ; Montesq. Spirit of Laws, B. 24, ch. 3, 5; 1 Tuck. Black. Com. App. 296; 2 Id. pote G, pp. 10, 11; 4 Black. Com. 41-59; Lord King's Life of Locke, 373; Jefferson's Notes on Vir.


What was


States! 243-245.

ginia, 264-270; Story's Const. § 1870-1879; People v. Ruggles, Object. 8 Johos. 160; Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 127.

This, and the clause in the VIth Article, that "no religious test shall ever be required for office,” are the only provisions in the federal Constitution upon the subject. Ex parte Garland, 4 Wal. lace, 397.

No restraint is placed on the action of the States; but the whole Is the repower over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State straint upon

tbe action governments. (Story's Const. § 1878.) Ex parte Garland, Id.

of the This makes no provision for protecting the citizens of the respective States in their religious liberties; that is left to the State constitutions; nor is there any inhibition imposed by the Constitution of the United States in this respect on the States. (Permoli v. First Municipality, 3 How. 589, 609; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 399. This court now holds the provision in the Constitution of Mis

17. souri void, on the ground that the federal Constitution forbids it. (Such as a test oath to priests.) Ex parte Garland, 4 Wallace, 398. 142, 143. See the subject fully discussed in 1 Kent's Com. Ilth edition, Part IV. sec. XXIV. p. 633; Story's Const. § 1870-1879; Andrew v. The Bible, &c., Society, 4 Sandf. N. Y. 156; Ayers v. M. E. Church, 3 Id. 351.

Christianity is not a part of the municipal law. Andrew v. N. Y. Is Christi& P. B. Society, 4 Sandt. N. Y. R. 182. With us, all religions are anity a part

of the tolerated, and none is established: each has an equal right to the protection of the law. Ayers v. The Methodist Church, 3 Sandf, 377. law It must be understood to extend equally to all sects, whether they What is the believed in Christianity or not, and whether they were Jews or In-extent of tidels. (Updegraff v. The Commonwealth, 11 Sergt. & Rawle, 394.) tion?

our toleraVidal v. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 198.

This declaration (to the same effect in the Constitution of the re- What is the public of Texas) reduced the Roman Catholic Church from the high revolutionprivilege of being the only national church, to a level and an equal rector ity with every other denomination of Christians. Blair v. Odin, 3 rations ? Tex. 300; Wheeler v. Moody, 9 Tex. 376. After this fundamental change, assessments and contributions could not be levied for the purpose of creating such editices and supporting ecclesiastics, on the ground that the previous system had destined such contributions. (Antoines v. Esclava, 9 Porter, 527; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cr. 43.) Paschal's Annotated Digest, note 154; Blair v. Odin, 3 Tex. 300.

So far as they (the acts of Congress organizing the territories) 229, 281. conferred political rights, and secured civil and religious liberties (which are political rights), the laws of Congress were all superseded by the State Constitution; nor are any part of them in force. unless they were adopted hy the Constitution of Louisiana, as laws of the State. Permoli v. First Municipality, 3 How. 610.


246. "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" [from freo, free, and dom. juris- What is diction].—Liberty: exemption from servitude. Syn.

Freedom freedom? and liberty, as applied to nations, are often used synonymously. 482. Freedom is personal and private; liberty public. Worcester's Dic., FREEDOM.

Define 247. “AND OF THE Press.”—This language imports no more

freedom of than that every man shall have a right to speak. write, and publish the press "?

his opinions upon any subject whatsoever, without any prior re483.

straint, so, always, that he does not injure any person in his rights, person, or reputation; and so always that he does not thereby disiurb nor attempt to subvert the government. (Rawle's Const. ch. 10, pp. 123, 124; 2 Kent's Com. Lect. 24. pp. 16–26; De Lolme, B. 2, ch. 12, 13; 2 Lloyd's Debates, 197, 198.) Story's Const. § 1880– 1885; Paschal's Annotated Digest, note 161, p. 47; Black. Com. 152, 153; Rex v. Burdett, 4 Barn & Ald. 96; De Lolme, B. 2, ch.

12, 291-297. 6, 16, 251. 248. “THE PEOPLE” here is used in the broad sense of the pre

amble ; and a broader sense than “electors.” It was never understood to apply to slaves.

“Right To PETITION.”—This right is incident to a republican "right to government. Story's Const. § 1994, 1995. The only question is petition'! as to the

to be redressed. That must always be determined by the power of the “government" to give the redress asked. See the discussions on the 21st rule of the House of Rep. resentatives in 1838, and the debates thereon until 1846.

It is to be observed that the right is to petition the " GOVERN MENT.” This must mean to uddress the petition to the appropriate department: to Congress, the executive, or the judiciary, accord. ing to their respective jurisdictions, as prescribed by the Constitu. tion and laws. The questions of jurisdiction and of right must always determine whether the redress sought can be granted.

Define the



What is the right to bear arms?

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep

and bear arms shall not be infringed. 249, 130, 175, 249. This clause has reference to a free government, and is 235, 240.

based on the idea, that the people cannot be oppressed or enslaved, 484. who are not first disarmed. Cockrum v. The State, 24 Tex. 401.

See Tucker's Black. Com. upon the Militia, App. 300: Black. Com. 143, 144; Rawle's Const. ch. 10, pp. 126, 127; 2 Lloyd's De. bates, 23.

The President, by order, disbanded the volunteer companies of the District of Columbia, in November, 1867. His right to do so has been denied.

ARTICLE III. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor in

time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. What is a

250. “No SOLDIER."-SOLDIER, A man engaged in military soldier ?

service; one whose occupation is military; a man enlisted for service in an army; a private or one in the ranks. Webster's Definition, Dic., SOLDIER.

"SHALL BE QUARTERED IN ANY House.”—TO QUARTER is to statio soldiers for lodging. Webster's Dic., QUARTER.

The object is to secure the perfect enjoyment of that great right of the common law, that a man's bouse shall be his own castle, privileged against all civil and military intrusion. Story's Const. $ 1900.

* Tue OWNER” here means the occupant in possession.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, Warrants? houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

251. “THE PEOPLE" is here used in as comprehensive a sense Who are the as in the preamble, and perhaps in a more enlarged sense than people ? there or elsewhere. It embraces all the inhabitants-citizens and aliens—who are entitled to the protectiou of the law. The slaves 6, 16, 93, 220, were never treated as a part of this “people.” The provision 221, 248, 262. is indispensable the full enjoyment of the riglıts of personal security, personal liberty, and private property. Story's Const.


“ SEARCHES AND SEIZURES," are always unreasonable when they When unare without authority of law. It was intended to prevent domi- reasonable ! ciliary visits and arbitrary arrests, which are the natural fruits of unrestricted power.

252. " AND NO WARRANT," &C.-[0. Fr. guarent; Lomb. warens ] What is a -An authority to do some judicial act; a power derived from warrant? a court, to take some person or property. Burrill's Law Dic., WARRANT.

This refers only to process issued under authority of the United To what States. Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. il. And it has no applica- contined ? tion to proceedings for the recovery of debts, as a treasury distress warrant. Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. Id. 272. See E.c parte Burford. 3 Cr. 448; Wakely v. Hart, 6 Binn. 316; 1 Opin. 2:29; 2 Id. 266. See Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 119. It was caused by the practice of issuing general warrants. Story's Const. § 1902. See Moody v. Beach, 3 Burr. 1743; 4 Black. Com. 291, 292 ; 15 Hansard's Parliamentary History, 13981419 (1764); Bell v. Clapp, 10 Johns. 263; Sailley v. Smith, 11 Johns. 500; Report and Resolutions of the Virginia Legislature, 25th Feb. 1799; 4 Jefferson's Correspondence, justifying arrests by Wilkinson, 75–136; Story's Const. 8 1902, note 2.


« 이전계속 »