American Jurisprudence

      Sovereign: Is defined in Blacks Law as: “A person, body [jury], or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler with limited power.” Whereas sovereign authority was vested in We the People through unalienable rights by natures God and sovereign authority was vested in the state through the Constitution by We the People. Only people are sovereign, subject onto God alone and have rights vested by God. “That statute which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land.” “The right to be let alone the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

      Sovereignty is superlative and thus admits to no degrees of sovereignty by definition. Sovereignty resides only in that one (God) deriving no authority from another. In earth, men are ordained sovereign and subject only to God. Bureaucrats, in their capacity, are not sovereign and have no additional rights. They have authority given by the people, subject to the Constitution and a duty to speak when demanded by the People to give an account. The state cannot diminish rights of the people. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” – Rom 13:1.

      “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” “The assertion of federal rights [Bill of Rights], when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law;” Thus man, being no source or spring of law, is no sovereign. Therefore, God is Sovereign and man is vested by God to self-govern and thereby the author of the Constitution, the Law of the Land by which all government servants are bound. This is what makes the United States of America different than any other Nation. If we lose these truths we lose our Liberty.

      Licensing Liberty: “Various facts of circumstances extrinsic to the constitution are often resorted to, by the courts, to aid them and determining its meaning, as previously noted however, such extrinsic aids may not be resorted to where the provision in the question is clear and unambiguous in such a case the courts must apply the terms of the constitution as written and they are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument.”

      “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exists independently of the state’s authority, the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”

      Congress Cannot Alter Rights: “It is clear that Congress cannot by authorization or ratification give the slightest effect to a state law or constitution which is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.” – 16 American Jurisprudence 2nd Sec. 258.

      Rights Do Not Come in Degrees: “Although it is manifested that an unconstitutional provision in the statute is not cured because included in the same act with valid provisions and that there is no degree of constitutionality.” – 16 American Jurisprudence 2nd Sec. 260.

      Remedy for Every Injury: A legal maxim, in the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law. “In all other cases,” he says, “it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded.” And afterwards, page 109 of the same volume, he says, “I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the Courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark that all possible injuries whatsoever that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice, for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England that ‘every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress. 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.”

      Interpretation in Favor of The People: Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. “Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.” – 16 American Jurisprudence 2nd Sec. 97;

      No Emergency is Just Cause to Suppress The Constitution: “While an emergency cannot create power and no emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution or States Constitutions. Public emergency such as economic depression for especially liberal construction of constitutional powers and it has been declared that because of national emergency, it is the policy of the courts of times of national peril, so liberally to construed the special powers vested in the chief executive as to sustain an effectuate the purpose there of, and to that end also more liberally to construed the constituted division and classification of the powers of the coordinate branches of the government and in so far as may not be clearly inconsistent with the constitution.” – 16 American Jurisprudence 2nd Sec. 98.

      Constitutions Must be Construed To Reference The Common Law: “As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, an important cannon of construction is that constitutions must be construed to reference to the Common Law.” The Common Law, so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings and it was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle and although there is no common law of the United States in a sense of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England, adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the Common Law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood.”  16 American Jurisprudence 2nd Sec. 114.

      Supreme Law is The Basis of All Law: Civil law which is fiction of law seeks to control the behavior of the sovereign people, who are under common law and who ordained and established the Constitution. Therefore, legislators cannot legislate the behavior of the people. “No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect, Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law, Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the basis of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bear no power to enforce, in would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.” – 16th American Jurisprudence 2nd

      No One is Bound to Obey an Unconstitutional Law: “The general rule is that a unconstitutional statute, whether Federal or State, though having the form and name of law as in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the enactment and not merrily from the date of the decision so braining it. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. Such a statute lives a question that is purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted. No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since an unconstitutional law is void. The general principles follows that it imposes no duty, converse no rights, creates no office, bestows no power of authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. No courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal, or in any way effect an existing one, if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal, remains in full force and effect and where a statute in which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect and where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in the act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. The general principle stated above applied to the constitution as well as the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States.” – 16th American Jurisprudence 2nd

      Irreconcilable Conflict Between Statute and Constitution: “In all instances, where the court exercises its power to invalidate legislation on constitutional grounds, the conflict of the statute, with the constitution must be irreconcilable. Thus a statute is not to be declared unconstitutional unless so inconsistent with the constitution that it cannot be enforced without a violation thereof. A clear incompatibility between law and the constitution must exist before the judiciary is justified holding the law unconstitutional. This principle is of course in line with the rule that doubts as the constitutionality should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality and the beneficiary.” – 16 American Jurisprudence 2nd, Sec. 255.


noncitizen's picture

I understand that many of these quotes are from American Jurisprudence, but who said all of the quotes? All the references only state that they are from American Jurisprudence. I would like to know who specifically said all these wonderful things.