CONSTITUTION AGAINST GOD’S ETERNAL COVENANT

BY WHOSE AUTHORITY WERE YOU ORDAINED OF GOD TO FOUND ISRAEL’S ENEMY JURISDICTION

 

The Constitution of the United States was supposedly created to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens without the people understanding that behind the scenes there were men who knew precisely which way they intended to steer the new fledgling nation which the scriptures speaks out against. The Constitution basically states that there is an argument: If I violate your rights you may or may not know about it. If you know about it you may or may not be able to do something about it. If you may have the ability to do something about it, you may or may not have the financial wherewithal to go to a finished program. If you do have the financial wherewithal you may or may not have the intestinal fortitude to go to a finished program. So most of the time your governments and your abusive personalities in government, or corporations pretty much have carte blanche to injure you; because in 99 % of the cases most people will not proceed. It is important to understand that the Constitution was in writing and is a legal document and that it was ratified by a majority of the members of the Constitutional Congress. It is also important to understand that there was an OFFER, and the government OFFERED to govern; there was a CONSIDERATION, the people CONSIDERED to be a citizen CONSIDERED how they were going to be governed and government PROMISED that they would govern according to the Constitution. And there was an AGREEMENT the citizens AGREED that if the government promised that there would a government by the Constitution that they would AGREE to allow the Constitution into full force. Now there is a unique situation here; it is very rare when you find a party of the first part, which is the congressmen, officer of the government, who are also parties of the second part, as representatives of we the people of the republic. The proposed founding fathers, when they signed the document as the officers of the government agreeing to the Constitution also signed simultaneously as officers of the represented people in the republican form of government. And when they signed that document that constituted a iron-clad contract in writing enforceable in a court of law according to the statute of frauds. Each state of the union basically has a compiled laws act, which basically states that anything in writing is enforceable in a court laws pursuant to the statute of frauds. Now all we are asking is that they enforce the contract, in other words if we read something in the Constitution and we’ve got a good reason for why we believe it is the way it is, then they should honor that, and they should honor it in favor of you, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.

 

The program that you should understand especially is Article VI Paragraph II of the Constitution. This is called the supremacy clause of the Constitution and it reads:   

 

Paragraph 1 - All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. (The amount debt of the fledgling nation made prior to the Constitution is of almost nil significance in comparison to the debts made thereafter, or more precisely, since the passage of the Federal Reserve Act granting private enterprise the authority to print currency and for private corporate banking thugs to loan money toward a national debt where there has not been one thin dime paid upon the principal, in other words for nearly a full century there has not been any payment made toward paying off the national debt we chain to our descendants. Looking at this once more and real closely we see that all that was valid against the United States under this constitution referred to as what was owed prior to the signing of this Constitution and any other debt then is invalid)

 

Paragraph 2 - This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (Now why would the supposed founders of the constitution capitalize the word constitution except that they intended to make it the God the wee people serve rather than the truthful and original Constitution which created ALL MEN PERFECTLY EQUAL before these alleged founding fathers destroyed the Abrahamic Constitution, where every man is accountable in his heart for the sins committed by permitting the human mind to run amuck and therewith forcing the heart and soul to be accountable as flesh without spiritual constitution that causes all sin to remain accountable beyond death. Just because some ring-knocker chooses not to worship the One True God does not mean that every other citizen of that nation should be held accountable for the murderous acts by those who prefer to keep silent by false witness  

 

).

 

Now a very important case: Marbury vs. James Madison [Secretary of State of the United States] 5 U.S. 137[a Feb. 1803 case[ is recorded at Volume V - Page 137 and basically what this case states is what makes it one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court where the Chief Justice John Marshall presided – his opinion given by the court was that anything that is in conflict is null and void of law. Clearly, he said that for a secondary law to come into conflict with the supreme law was illogical for certainly the supreme law would prevail over all other law and that the founding fathers clearly intended that the supreme law would be the basis of all law and for any other law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law not from the date so granted in an open court of law. No courts are bound to support it and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a mere fiction of law, which means it does not exist as a law.

 

   The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test

shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

 

 

COVENANT WITH A SATANIC AGENCY OF DEATH

Unitalicized is the Original Text – But Italicized is the Truth

106th CONGRESS, 2nd SESSION / HOUSE DOCUMENT 106-215

 

The Declaration of Independence was the promise; the Constitution was

the fulfillment. {The True Promise came to Abraham, the father of many nations, or the Original Ten Tribes of Israel that later were numbered at approx. 500 nations speaking some 21 specifically different languages, after the confounding of man’s tongue at the Tower of Babel. These later came to be recognized as the following languages: 1). Algonquin/Ritwan/Kutenai, 2). Iroquois/Caddoan, 3). Gulf/Muskegan, 4). Siouan/Yuchi, 5). Utaztecan/ Tanoan/Kiowa, 6). Mosan/Salishan/Wakashan, 7). Penutian/Chinook/Tsimshian/ Coos/Takelman/Klamath/Sahaptin/California-Penutian, 8). Yukian, 9). Hoakaltecan/Hokan/Coahuiltecan, 10). Keres/Zuni. Okay, let’s get back to the text; the covenant between man and his man-made government was enacted in defiance of Godly Dominion, or the Kingdom of Heavenly Government and Jurisdiction, which still reigns supreme today even though the Masonic New World Order would have you think that a majority acting in unison against God’s Kingdom should hold sway over the minds of men. There was but one promise to Abraham, that God should make his children as many as the stars. God also guarantees certain inalienable rights, which are beyond the power of men to fulfill. The alleged constitution then is not the fulfillment of the promise or the law, but God’s Word IS! The principality of dark powers comes from the clouded minds of men who presume to hold authority over all the earth. Natural law is not the governing institution then for it is within the Creationary Law, that of the Holy Spirit working in and through the lives of men. Do not be deceived but the foundation laid by the proud founding fathers for long before that God made a Covenant with Abraham that still remains in absolute power, dominion, authority and jurisdiction to this very day. Therefore, the constitution is the covenant supposedly between men and those ruling, or actually ordering him around, by terrible forces of fear, terror and tyranny. Murder and non-stop war is then the result, not the way to everlasting peace}.

 

In 1775, Alexander Hamilton said: "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."

{The truth is God set His children upon the Earth with the command to ask, seek and knock, thus meaning that somewhere upon God’s green Earth is God’s Most Holy of Holies, His refuge, His safe-haven, His Sanctuary. Rummaging around trying to supposedly find ways to disprove Creationary Law, like the thoughts of evolving from cave apes is then thusly taught in the schoolyards to make men selfish, insufficient and empowered by pride in a flag raised high over the heads of the citizenship. Old parchments can then only mean “The Holy Bible or biblical scrolls” or musty records like the Dead Sea Scrolls. Divine Creation was where all sacred rights were granted, secured and blessed with absolute authority. These GOD-GIVEN rights can never be taken away by the principality of darkness being forced down the throats of unsuspecting Americans, by the powers that reside within the alleged authority to print money. JFK on June 4, 1963 signed an Executive Order that would result in his own death by murder. This Executive Order took the power to print money out of the hands of the Federal Reserve and thus cost him his life. So, who then was to blame for such an act of cruelty? There exists a power that smells strongly of illuminated masonry. The Rothschilds and all the money-changers were the descendants of ancient Nimrod, the founder of the principality of darkness and they are to blame for Kennedy’s murder. Mortal power rising up to allegedly rule the world by a New World Order. They are those who destroyed Divine Authority and set the proud and blood-soaked flag before the citizens of this Promised Land for them to worship. God forbid these usurpers from deceiving us any further}.

The Constitution of the United States with Index and The Declaration of Independence

First Edition, 1986 - Second Edition, 1987 - Third Edition (with index), 1987 - Fourth Edition, 1988 - Fifth Edition, 1988 - Sixth Edition, 1988 - Seventh (Special Limited Inaugural) Edition, 1989 - Eighth (Special Military) Edition, 1989 - Ninth (Limited Eastern European) Edition, 1990 - Tenth (Special Boy Scout) Edition, 1990 - Eleventh (Special Girl Scout) Edition, 1990 - Twelfth Edition (with Declaration of Independence), 1990 - Thirteenth Edition, 1991 - Fourteenth (HMS Rose/Bill of Rights Tour) Edition, 1991 -

Fifteenth Edition, 1991 - Sixteenth (Seville Expo '92) Edition, 1992 - Seventeenth (Seville Expo '92, Spanish) Edition, 1992 - Eighteenth (with Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Edition, 1992 - Nineteenth (Reprint) 1997 - Twentieth (Reprint) 2000

 

 

ALLEGED CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

   We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect

Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the

common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of

Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this

Constitution for the United States of America. {The wee people of this land overshadowed by mutiny on behalf of those supposedly empowered to rule over US have formed an alleged more perfect union than that of Divine Authority. Justice was not established upon demand by an allegedly illumined group who holds no authority to tranquilize the public understanding of domesticated or civilized beasts. In Jahweh/Jehovah rests our defense, our refuge and our sanctuary. To promote the general welfare means to create a socialist state where everybody allegedly can find comfort, such as the 47 percent who now look to the federal government for their livelihood. The blessing of True Liberty cannot be granted by an alleged outside authority; for it quite simply is granted at birth, a Divine Miracle in itself. No man, not even all men joined into a perfected union to stand against Godly Authority, has the right to give any indebtedness unto the succeeding generation collectively. MAN ordained these Unified States because God would never grant any authority to a principality of men in darkness. God has already set forth His Godly Nation of Israel and He shall not turn His back on the humble sheep to grant hungry wolves the alleged satisfaction of a united statistical governance over His People even after they were so devastatingly humbled by one broken covenant of peace after another. The Native Remnant of Israel, God’s Holiest and Humblest were those oppressed, suppressed and murdered at the hands of Gentile Theology, a government established outside of Godly Principles. Do you trust in the never-ending chains of restrained liberty? Do you trust man with having the understanding that comes with peace? Do you pray for God to bless America and thus forsake His truly chosen tribe of people? Do you underestimate that Godly Authority shall exact judgment upon those who are too proud to ever be humbled unto righteousness? God forbid any power on Earth should ever be capable of grasping the reigns of God’s Holy Chariot}.

 

                              Article. I.

 

Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. {God grant us the wisdom to understand and the courage it takes to change that which needs changing. All power of law came not unto men by unification but by Holy Unction and no representation of power exists outside the realm of Heavenly Dominion}.

 

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. {The House of Jahweh/Jehovah has its Elect, its High Priest and its Elders and no other authority on Earth exists by a supposed unification against truth}.

 

   No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the

Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United

States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State

in which he shall be chosen. {There exists not one human being who inhabits a land not his own, for he is but a sojourners encamped before the Most High and should be seeking after a righteous life rather than taking pride in a constitutional convening, a blood-soaked flag or a civilized Gentile devouring of the meek}.

 

   [Representatives and direct Taxes, {Taxation passed while in adjournment}, shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free, {not one in America is truly free}, Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, {there does exist a separation between freedom and taxation}, three fifths of all other Persons.]* The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten,

North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

*Changed by section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

   When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the

Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such

Vacancies. {What executive authority in a realm of supposition. If voting truly mattered then why did Bush win in His brother’s own state of florida, even though the majority voted for Al Gore? Of what value is a Writ of Election after the abolishing of the power of an alleged citizen to compose a Writ of Habeus Corpus. The reason these writs were abolished was because it empowered the people not the government and then they could simply scream “Terrorist” and that would end any person’s right, or write, to express the truth in the face of acute suppression. The Operation Manual for the Antichrist is found within the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion where they, the rebellious Jews who refused to accept that they were no longer the Chosen of God and thus they laid claim to be the Zionist regime, all mighty, all powerful, all deceived and all sons of satanic possession. They possess earth, all her natural resources and in this they are surely possessed by an evil spirit. Get cross-ways and they shall have you smudged out. Go against their stolen authority and they shall expunge your breath and thus remove any further threat to their usurped authority}.

 

   The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other

Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. {Let’s set a date for all the past and present presidents of these allegedly unified states and deliver them up to Jahweh/Jehovah’s Court in TRUE ZION where they can be tried for crimes against humanity. Impeach is much too kind for what acts of evil they have pharaohically imposed upon the conquered nations. Let them speak only when it is in response to charges of inhumane misrepresentation. Do we need any more alleged further representation? The White House, with white allegedly symbolizing purity yet this house is “THE” den of thieves}.

 

 

   Section. 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two

Senators from each State, [chosen by the Legislature thereof,]* for six

Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote. *Changed by the Seventeenth Amendment. {Any power vested in the people was taken away by oppression}.

 

   Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first

Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes.

The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the

Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of

the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth

Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; [and if

Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the

Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary

Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then

fill such Vacancies.]* - *Changed by the Seventeenth Amendment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age

of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and

who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he

shall be chosen.

 

   The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the

Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

 

   The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro

tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise

the Office of President of the United States.

 

   The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When

sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the

President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:

And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds

of the Members present.

 

   Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to

removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office

of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party

convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial,

Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

 

 

   Section. 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for

Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the

Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or

alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

 

   The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such

Meeting shall be [on the first Monday in December,]* unless they shall

by Law appoint a different Day.

 

*Changed by section 2 of the Twentieth Amendment.

 

   Section. 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns

and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall

constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn

from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of

absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House

may provide.

 

   Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its

Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two

thirds, expel a Member.

 

   Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to

time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment

require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on

any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be

entered on the Journal.

 

   Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the

Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other

Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

 

   Section. 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a

Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out

of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except

Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest

during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and

in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in

either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

 

   No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was

elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the

United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof

shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any

Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during

his Continuance in Office.

 

   Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House

of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments

as on other Bills.

 

   Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and

the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President

of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall

return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have

originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal,

and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds

of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together

with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be

reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall

become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be

determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and

against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House

respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within

ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him,

the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless

the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it

shall not be a Law.

 

   Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the

Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question

of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States;

and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or

being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate

and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations

prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

 

   Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,

Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common

Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,

Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

   To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

 

   To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several

States, and with the Indian Tribes;

 

   To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on

the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

 

   To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and

fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

 

   To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and

current Coin of the United States;

 

   To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

 

   To promote the Progress of Science and use ful Arts, by securing for

limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their

respective Writings and Discoveries;

 

   To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

 

   To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,

and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

 

   To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules

concerning Captures on Land and Water;

 

   To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that

Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

 

   To provide and maintain a Navy;

 

   To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval

Forces;

 

   To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the

Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

   To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and

for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the

United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of

the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the

discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

   To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such

District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of

particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of

the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over

all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in

which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,

dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And

 

   To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying

into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this

Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any Department

or Officer thereof.

 

   Section. 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of

the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be

prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred

and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not

exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

 

   The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,

unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may

require it.

 

   No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

 

   No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in

Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be

taken.*

 

*See Sixteenth Amendment.

 

   No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

 

   No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue

to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound

to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in

another.

 

   No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of

Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the

Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from

time to time.

 

   No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no

Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without

the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office,

or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

 

   Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or

Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit

Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in

Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law

impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

 

   No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts

or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary

for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties

and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the

Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be

subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

 

   No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of

Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any

Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or

engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as

will not admit of delay.

 

                              Article. II.

 

   Section. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the

United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of

four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same

Term, be elected, as follows

 

   Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof

may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators

and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:

but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust

or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

 

   [The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by

Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant

of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the

Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they

shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the

Government of the United States, directed to the President of the

Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate

and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes

shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes

shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number

of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such

Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of

Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for

President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest

on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But

in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the

Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this

Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the

States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice.

In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the

greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President.

But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate

shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.]*

 

*Changed by the Twelfth Amendment.

 

   The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the

Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same

throughout the United States.

 

   No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United

States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be

eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be

eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty

five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

   [In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death,

Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said

Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress

may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or

Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what

Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act

accordingly, until the Disa bility be removed, or a President shall be

elected.]*

 

*Changed by the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

 

   The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a

Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the

Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive

within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of

them.

 

   Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the

following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I

will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,

and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the

Constitution of the United States."

 

   Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and

Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,

when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require

the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the

executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their

respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and

Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of

Impeachment.

 

   He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,

to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the

Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,

Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United

States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and

which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the

Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the

President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

   The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may

happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which

shall expire at the End of their next Session.

 

   Section. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information

of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such

Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on

extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in

Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of

Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;

he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take

Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the

Officers of the United States.

 

   Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of

the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and

Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

                            Article. III.                             

 

   Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall

be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the

Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of

the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good

Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a

Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in

Office.

 

   Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and

Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,

and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all

Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all

Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which

the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more

States;--[between a State and Citizens of another State;--]* between

Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State

claiming Lands under Grants of different States, [and between a State,

or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.]*

 

*Changed by the Eleventh Amendment.

 

   In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and

Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court

shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned,

the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and

Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress

shall make.

 

   The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by

Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes

shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the

Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have

directed.

 

   Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in

levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them

Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the

Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in

open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of

Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or

Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

                             Article. IV.

 

   Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the

public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And

the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such

Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

 

   Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all

Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

   A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime,

who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on

Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be

delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the

Crime.

 

   [No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws

thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or

Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall

be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may

be due.]*

 

*Changed by the Thirteenth Amendment.

 

   Section. 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this

Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the

Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction

of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the

Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

 

   The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful

Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property

belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall

be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of

any particular State.

 

   Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this

Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them

against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the

Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic

Violence.

 

                              Article. V.

 

   The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it

necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the

Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,

shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case,

shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this

Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the

several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one

or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One

thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first

and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that

no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage

in the Senate.

 

                             Article. VI.

 

   All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption

of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under

this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

 

   This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be

made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,

under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of

the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any

Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary

notwithstanding.

 

   The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of

the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,

both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by

Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test

shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust

under the United States.

 

                            Article. VII.

 

   The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be

sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States

so ratifying the Same.

 

   done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the

Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven

hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of

America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our

Names,

 

 

                       G . Washington--Presid .                       

                       and deputy from Virginia                       

 

 

New Hampshire       John Langdon

                    Nicholas Gilman

 

Massachusetts       Nathaniel Gorham

                    Rufus King

 

Connecticut         Wm. Saml. Johnson

                    Roger Sherman

 

 

New York            Alexander Hamilton

 

New Jersey                Wil: Livingston

                    David Brearley

                    Wm. Paterson

                    Jona: Dayton

 

Pennsylvania        B Franklin

                    Thomas Mifflin

                    Robt Morris

                    Geo. Clymer

                    Thos. FitzSimons

                    Jared Ingersoll

                    James Wilson

                    Gouv Morris

 

Delaware            Geo: Read

                    Gunning Bedford jun

                    John Dickinson

                    Richard Bassett

                    Jaco: Broom

 

Maryland            James McHenry

                    Dan of St Thos. Jenifer

                    Danl Carroll

 

Virginia            John Blair--

                    James Madison Jr.

 

North Carolina           Wm. Blount

                    Richd. Dobbs Spaight

                    Hu Williamson

 

South Carolina           J. Rutledge

                    Charles Cotesworth Pinckney

                    Charles Pinckney

                    Pierce Butler

 

Georgia             William Few

                    Abr Baldwin

 

 

 

Attest William Jackson Secretary

 

 

 

               In Convention Monday September 17th 1787.

 

                               Present

                            The States of

 

 

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mr. Hamilton from New York,

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,

South Carolina and Georgia.

 

Resolved,

    That the preceeding Constitution be laid before the United

States in Congress assembled, and that it is the Opinion of this

Convention, that it should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of

Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the

Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification;

and that each Convention assenting to, and ratifying the Same, should

give Notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled.

Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Convention, that as soon as the

Conventions of nine States shall have ratified this Constitution, the

United States in Congress assembled should fix a Day on which Electors

should be appointed by the States which shall have ratified the same,

and a Day on which the Electors should assemble to vote for the

President, and the Time and Place for commencing Proceedings under this

Constitution.

 

    That after such Publication the Electors should be appointed, and the

Senators and Representatives elected: That the Electors should meet on

the Day fixed for the Election of the President, and should transmit

their Votes certified, signed, sealed and directed, as the Constitution

requires, to the Secretary of the United States in Congress assembled,

that the Senators and Representatives should convene at the Time and

Place assigned; that the Senators should appoint a President of the

Senate, for the sole Purpose of receiving, opening and counting the

Votes for President; and, that after he shall be chosen, the Congress,

together with the President, should, without Delay, proceed to execute

this Constitution.

 

                               By the unanimous Order of the Convention

 

                                               G . WASHINGTON--Presid .

 

W.  JACKSON Secretary.

 

 

 

 

                    *Congress OF THE United States

 

 

                begun and held at the City of New-York,

                   on Wednesday the fourth of March,

              one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine

 

 THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their

adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent

misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and

restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of

public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent

ends of its institution:

 

 RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring,

that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the

several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States,

all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said

Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the

said Constitution; viz.t.

 

 ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United

States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the

Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the

original Constitution. . . .

 

   FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG

   Speaker of the House of Representatives.

   JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States,

                       and President of the Senate.

 

ATTEST,

    JOHN BECKLEY, Clerk of the House of Representatives.

    SAM. A. OTIS, Secretary of the Senate.

 

 

* On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the state legislatures

  twelve proposed amendments, two of which, having to do with

  Congressional representation and Congressional pay, were not adopted.

  The remaining ten amendments became the Bill of Rights.

 

 

    AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA    

 

                             Amendment I.*                            

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of

speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to

assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

                             Amendment II.

 

   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.

 

                            Amendment 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.

 

 

*The first ten Amendments (Bill of Rights) were ratified effective

December 15, 1791.

 

 

                             Amendment IV.

 

   The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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.

 

                             Amendment V.

 

   No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise

infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,

when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any

person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of

life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness

against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without

due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use

without just compensation.

 

                             Amendment VI.

 

   In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a

speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district

wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have

been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and

cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against

him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

 

                            Amendment VII.

 

   In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed

twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no

fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the

United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

 

                            Amendment VIII.

 

   Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,

nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

                             Amendment IX.

 

   The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be

construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

                             Amendment X.

 

   The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,

nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States

respectively, or to the people.

 

                            Amendment XI.*

 

*The Eleventh Amendment was ratified February 7, 1795.

 

  The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to

extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one

of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or

Subjects of any Foreign State.

 

                            Amendment XII.*

 

*The Twelfth Amendment was ratified June 15, 1804.

 

   The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot

for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an

inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their

ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the

person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists

of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as

Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they

shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the

government of the United States, directed to the President of the

Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate

and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes

shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes

for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of

the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such

majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding

three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of

Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But

in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the

representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this

purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the

states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

[And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President

whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth

day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as

President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional

disability of the President--]* The person having the greatest number of

votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be

a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person

have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the

Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall

consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of

the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person

constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible

to that of Vice-President of the United States.

 

* Superseded by section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment.

 

                            Amendment XIII.**

 

**The Thirteenth Amendment was ratified December 6, 1865.

 

   Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a

punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,

shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their

jurisdiction.

 

   Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by

appropriate legislation.

 

                           Amendment XIV.***

 

***The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified July 9, 1868.

 

   Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and

subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any

law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the

United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,

or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within

its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

   Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several

States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number

of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right

to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and

Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the

Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the

Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such

State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States,

or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other

crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the

proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the

whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

   Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress,

or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or

military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having

previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of

the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an

executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution

of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion

against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But

Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such

disability.

 

   Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States,

authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and

bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall

not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall

assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or

rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or

emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims

shall be held illegal and void.

 

   Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate

legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

                            Amendment XV.*

 

*The Fifteenth Amendment was ratified February 3, 1870.

 

   Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall

not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on

account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

 

   Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by

appropriate legislation.

 

                           Amendment XVI.**

 

**The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified February 3, 1913.

 

   The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,

from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several

States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

                           Amendment XVII.***

 

***The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified April 8, 1913.

 

   The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators

from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each

Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the

qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the

State legislatures.

 

   When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the

Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of

election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any

State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments

until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may

direct.

 

   This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or

term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the

Constitution.

 

                           Amendment XVIII.*

 

*The Eighteenth Amendment was ratified January 16, 1919. It was repealed

by the Twenty-First Amendment, December 5, 1933.

 

   [Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the

manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the

importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United

States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for

beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

 

   Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent

power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

   Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have

been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of

the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years

from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.]

 

                            Amendment XIX.*

 

*The Nineteenth Amendment was ratified August 18, 1920.

 

   The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied

or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

 

   Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate

legislation.

 

                            Amendment XX.**

 

**The Twentieth Amendment was ratified January 23, 1933.

 

   Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end

at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and

Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which

such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and

the terms of their successors shall then begin.

 

   Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year,

and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless

they shall by law appoint a different day.

 

   Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the

President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect

shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before

the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect

shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as

President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may

by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice

President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as

President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected,

and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice

President shall have qualified.

 

   Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death

of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose

a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them,

and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate

may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have

devolved upon them.

 

   Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of

October following the ratification of this article.

 

   Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have

been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures

of three fourths of the several States within seven years from the date

of its submission.

 

                            Amendment XXI.*

 

*The Twenty-First Amendment was ratified December 5, 1933.

 

   Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of

the United States is hereby repealed.

 

   Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State,

Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein

of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby

prohibited.

 

   Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have

been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the

several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from

the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

 

                            Amendment XXII*

 

*The Twenty-Second Amendment was ratified February 27, 1951.

 

   Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President

more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or

acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some

other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the

President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person

holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the

Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office

of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this

Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting

as President during the remainder of such term.

 

   Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have

been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of

threefourths of the several States within seven years from the date of

its submission to the States by the Congress.

 

                          Amendment XXIII.**

 

**The Twenty-Third Amendment was ratified March 29, 1961.

 

   Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the

United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

 

   A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the

whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the

District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than

the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed

by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the

election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a

State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as

provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

 

   Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by

appropriate legislation.

 

                           Amendment XXIV.*

 

*The Twenty-Fourth Amendment was ratified January 23, 1964.

 

   Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any

primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors

for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in

Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any

State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

 

   Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by

appropriate legislation.

 

                           Amendment XXV.**

 

**The Twenty-Fifth Amendment was ratified February 10, 1967.

 

   Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of

his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

 

   Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice

President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take

office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

 

   Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro

tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives

his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and

duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written

declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged

by the Vice President as Acting President.

 

   Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the

principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as

Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of

the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written

declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and

duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the

powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

 

   Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore

of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written

declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and

duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either

the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body

as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the

President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of

Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable

to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress

shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that

purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after

receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in

session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble,

determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is

unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice

President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President;

otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his

office.

 

                            Amendment XXVI*

 

*The Twenty-Sixth Amendment was ratified July 1, 1971.

 

   Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are

eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged

by the United States or by any State on account of age.

 

   Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by

appropriate legislation.

 

                           Amendment XXVII**

 

**Congress submitted the text of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the

States as part of the proposed Bill of Rights on September 25, 1789. The

Amendment was not ratified together with the first ten Amendments, which

became effective on December 15, 1791. The Twenty-Seventh Amendment was

ratified on May 7, 1992, by the vote of Michigan.

 

   No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and

Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives

shall have intervened.

 

                                   Appendix

 

                    THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

 

          Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776

  The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America  

 

   WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one

People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with

another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and

equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle

them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they

should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

 

   WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created

equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable

Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of

Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among

Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that

whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is

the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new

Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its

Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their

Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments

long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes;

and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed

to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by

abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train

of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces

a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it

is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards

for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these

Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter

their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of

Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all

having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over

these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for

the public Good. HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of

immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation

till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has

utterly neglected to attend to them.

 

   HE has refused to passother Laws for the Accommodation of large

Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of

Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and

formidable to Tyrants only.

 

   HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual,

uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records,

for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his

Measures.

 

   HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with

manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

 

   HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause

others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of

Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise;

the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of

Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.

 

   HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for

that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners;

refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and

raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

 

   HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his

Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

 

   HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of

their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

 

   HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of

Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

 

   HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace Standing Armies, without the

consent of our Legislatures.

 

   HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to

the Civil Power.

 

   HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign

to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent

to their Acts of pretended Legislation: FOR quartering large Bodies of

Armed Troops among us:

 

   FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders

which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

 

   FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

 

   FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: FOR depriving us, in

many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

 

   FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:

 

   FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring

Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging

its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument

for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies:

 

   FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and

altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

 

   FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested

with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

 

   HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection

and waging War against us.

 

   HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and

destroyed the Lives of our People.

 

   HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries

to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun

with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the

most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

 

   HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas

to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their

Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

 

   HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured

to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian

Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction,

of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.

 

   IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in

the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by

repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act

which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

 

   NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We

have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to

extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of

the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed

to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the

Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would

inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have

been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must,

therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation,

and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace,

Friends.

 

   WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the

World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by

Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and

Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE

AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to

the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and

the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and

that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War,

conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all

other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for

the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection

of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our

Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

 

                           DATES TO REMEMBER

 

May 25, 1787: The Constitutional Convention opens with a quorum of seven

states in Philadelphia to discuss revising the Articles of

Confederation. Eventually all states but Rhode Island are represented.

 

Sept. 17, 1787: All 12 state delegations approve the Constitution, 39

delegates sign it of the 42 present, and the Convention formally

adjourns.

 

June 21, 1788: The Constitution becomes effective for the ratifying

states when New Hampshire is the ninth state to ratify it.

 

March 4, 1789: The first Congress under the Constitution convenes in New

York City.

 

April 30, 1789: George Washington is inaugurated as the first President

of the United States.

 

June 8, 1789: James Madison introduces proposed Bill of Rights in the

House of Representatives.

 

Sept. 24, 1789: Congress establishes a Supreme Court, 13 district

courts, three ad hoc circuit courts, and the position of Attorney

General.

 

Sept. 25, 1789: Congress approves 12 amendments and sends them to the

states for ratification.

 

Feb. 2, 1790: Supreme Court convenes for the first time after an

unsuccessful attempt February 1.

 

Dec. 15, 1791: Virginia ratifies the Bill of Rights, and 10 of the 12

proposed amendments become part of the U.S. Constitution.

 

 

                 INDEX TO CONSTITUTION AND AMENDMENTS

 

                                             Article, Section         Page

Admiralty & maritime cases                   III,2                   13

Advice and consent                           II,2                    11

Age, as qualification for public office

  president                                  II,1                    10

  representatives                            I,2                      1

  senators                                   I,3                      3

  voting                                     A26                     34

Ambassadors

  Case controversies                         III,2                   13

  President's power                          II,2-3               11-12

Amendment procedure                          V                       15

Appellate jurisdiction                       III,2                   13

Appointment power                            II,2                 11-12

Appointments, temporary                      A17                     28

Apportionment of representatives             I,2;A14,2           1-2,26

Appropriations(s)                            I,8,9                  7,8

Arms, right to bear                          A2                      21

Army                                         II,2                    11

Assembly, right of                           A1                      21

Authors                                      I,8                      6

Bail, excessive                              A8                      23

Bankruptcy, Congress' power                  I,8                      6

Bill of Rights (Amends. 1-10)                A1-A10               21-23

Bills                                        I,7                    5-6

Bills of attainder                           I,9-10                   8

Borrowing, Congress' power                   I,8                      6

Cabinet officers' reports                    II,2                    11

Census                                       I,2                    1-2

Chief Justice, role in impeachment trials    I,3                      3

Commander in Chief                           II,2                    11

Commerce, Congress' power                    I,8                      6

Commission of officers                       II,3                    12

Compact                                      I,10                     9

Congress

  annual meetings                            I,4;A20,2           3-4,29

  declaring war                              I,8                      6

  legislative proceedings                    I,5                      4

  members' compensation and privileges       I,6;A27             4-5,34

  organization                               I,1                      1

  powers                                     I,8;A12          6-7,24-25

  special sessions                           II,3                    12

Congressional Record (Journal)               I,5                      4

Constitution, purpose                        Preamble                 1

Contracts, interference by states            I,10                     8

Controversies, court cases                   III,2                   13

Conventions                                  V;VII;A21         15,16,30

Copyrights & patents, Congress' power        I,8                      6

Counsel, right to                            A6                      22

Counterfeiting, Congress' power to punish    I,8                      6

Courts (see Judiciary)

Criminal proceedings, rights of accused      A5;A6                   22

Currency, Congress' power                    I,8                      6

Defense, Congress' power                     I,8                      6

District of Columbia                         I,8;A23               7,31

Double jeopardy                              A5                      22

Due process of law                           A5;A14,1          22,25-16

Electoral College                            II,1;A12;A23    9-11,24-25

                                                                  31-32

Equal protection of laws                     A14,1                25-26

Equity                                       III,2;A11            13,23

Ex post facto laws                           I,9-10                   8

Extradition of fugitives by states           IV,2                    14

Fines, excessive                             A8                      23

Foreign affairs, President's power           II,2                 11-12

Foreign commerce, Congress' power            I,8                      6

"Full faith and credit" clause               IV,1                    14

General welfare, Congress' power             I,8                      6

Grand jury indictments                       A5                      22

Grievances, redress of                       A1                      21

Habeas corpus                                I,9                      8

House of Representatives election to

  & eligibility for                          I,2                      1

  members' terms of office                   I,2;I,6                1,4

  Speaker of                                 I,2;A24;A25,3-4    2,32-33

  special powers

    impeachment                              I,2                      2

    Presidential elections                   II,1;A12        9-10,24-25

    revenue bills                            I,7                      5

  states' representation in                  I,2                    1-2

  vacancies                                  I,2                      2

Immunities (see Privileges and immunities)

Impeachment

  officials subject to                       II,4                    12

  penalties                                  I,3                      3

  power of, lodged in House                  I,2                      2

  reasons                                    II,4                    12

  trials, Senate                             I,3                      3

Indians, commerce with, Congress' power      I,8                      6

Inhabitant (see Resident)                    I,2;I,3                1,3

International law, Congress' power           I,8                      6

Inventors                                    I,8                      6

Judiciary inferior courts                    I,8;III,1             6,12

judicial review                              III,2                   13

jurisdiction                                 III,2                   13

nomination & confirmation of judges          II,2                 11-12

Supreme Court                                III,1                   12

terms of office & compensation               III,1                   12

Jury trials                                  III,2;A6;A7       13,22,23

"Lame duck" amendment                        A20                     29

Liquor                                       A18;A21              28,30

Marque and reprisal, letters of              I,8,10                 6,8

Men (see Persons) Militia (Military)         A2;A5                21,22

congressional powers                         I,8                      7

presidential powers                          II,2                 11-12

Money                                        I,8                      6

National debt                                VI                   15-16

Native Americans (see Indians)

Naturalization                               I,8                      6

Navy                                         I,8;II,2              7,11

"Necessary and proper" clause                I,8                      7

Nominate                                     II,2;A25             11,32

Oath of office, federal and state            II,1;VI              11,16

Original Jurisdiction                        III,2                   13

Pardons and reprieves, President's power     II,2                    11

People, powers reserved to                   A10                     23

Persons                                      A14                  25-26

Petition the government, right to            A1                      21

"Pocket veto"                                I,7                      5

Poll tax, prohibition                        A24,1                   32

Post offices & roads, Congress' power        I,8                      6

Presidency, succession to                    II,1;A20;A25   10-11,29-30

President                                                         32-33

  disability                                 A25,3                32-33

  election                                   II,1;A12;A22   9-10,24-25,

                                             A23               31,31-32

  eligibility for office                     II,1                    10

  legislation, role in                       I,7                      5

  oath of office                             II,1                    11

  powers & duties                            II,2-3               11-12

  term of office & compensation              II,1                  9-11

Press, freedom of                            A1                      21

Privileges and immunities (of citizens)      IV,2;A14,1        14,25-26

Prohibition                                  A18;A21              28,30

Property, taking for public use              A5                      22

Punishments, cruel and unusual               A8                      23

Race                                         A15                     27

Ratification of Constitution                 V;VII                15,16

Religion, freedom of                         A1                      21

Religious oaths                              VI                      16

Resident (see Inhabitant)                    II,1                    10

Search and seizure                           A4                      22

Seas, Congress' power                        I,8                      6

Secrecy                                      I,5                      4

Self-incrimination                           A5                      22

Senate

  election to & eligibility for              I,3                      3

  equal representation of states             V                       15

  officers                                   I,3                      3

  President of                               I,3;A12            3,24-25

  President of, pro tempore                  I,3;A25,3-4            3,32-33

  special powers

    impeachment trials                       I,3                      3

    Presidential appointments                II,2                 11-12

    treaties                                 II,2                 11-12

  terms of office                            I,3;I,6                2,4

  vacancies                                  A17                  27-28

Slavery, prohibition                         A13;A14,4         25,26-27

Soldiers, quartering of                      A3                      21

Speech, freedom of                           A1                      21

Spending, Congress' power                    I,8                      6

State of Union message                       II,3                    12

States

  and federal elections                      I,4                      3

  formation & admission to Union             IV,3                    14

  powers requiring consent of Congress       I,10                   8-9

  powers reserved to                         A10                     23

  protection against invasion, violence      IV,4                    15

  republican form of government guaranteed   IV,4                    15

  suits against                              III,2;A11         13,23-24

Sundays                                      I,7                      5

Supreme law of the land (Constitution)       VI                   15-16

Taxing power, in general                     I,7-8                  5-6

  direct taxes prohibited                    I,9                      8

  income taxes permitted                     A16                     27

Territories                                  IV,3                 14-15

Titles of nobility                           I,9                      8

Treason                                      III,3                   13

Treaty(ies)                                  I,10;II,2;         8,11,13

                                             III,2;VI             15-16

Trial                                        I,3;III,2;      3,13,22,23

                                             A6;A7

Veto, President's power                      I,7                      5

Vice-Presidency, succession to               A20;A25        29-30,32-33

Vice-President conditions for assuming

  Presidency                                 II,1;A20;A25      10,29-30

                                                                  32-33

  declaring President disabled, role in      A25,4                   33

  Senate, role in                            I,3;A12            3,24-25

  term of office                             II,1                     9

Voting rights                                A14;A24           25-27,32

  blacks, former slaves                      A15,1                   27

  eighteen-years-old                         A26                     34

  women                                      A19                     29

War powers (see Congress, declaring,

  war powers; President, powers & duties;

  States, protection against invasion)

Warrants                                     A4                      22

Weights and measures standards of            I,8                      6

Women (see Persons)

 

 

 

 

". . . a constitution, intended to endure for ages to come, and

consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."

 

                                                          John Marshall

 

 

At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention,

 

Benjamin Franklin was asked,

 

"What have you wrought?"

 

He answered,

 

". . . a Republic, if you can keep it."

 

 

_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment 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.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

 

 

 

Declaration of Independence

 

 

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

 

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident: 

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government.  The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. 

 

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. 

 

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. 

 

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only. 

 

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. 

 

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people. 

 

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within. 

 

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. 

 

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. 

 

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. 

 

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. 

 

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures. 

 

He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power. 

 

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: 

 

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us; 

 

For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states; 

 

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world; 

 

For imposing taxes on us without our consent; 

 

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury; 

 

For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses; 

 

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies; 

 

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments; 

 

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. 

 

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us. 

 

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. 

 

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. 

 

He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. 

 

He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions. 

 

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. 

 

Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.  We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. 

 

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.  And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. 

 

[Signed by]            JOHN HANCOCK [President] 

 

New Hampshire

JOSIAH BARTLETT,

WM. WHIPPLE,

MATTHEW THORNTON.

 

Massachusetts Bay

SAML. ADAMS,

JOHN ADAMS,

ROBT. TREAT PAINE,

ELBRIDGE GERRY

 

Rhode Island

STEP. HOPKINS,

WILLIAM ELLERY.

 

Connecticut

 ROGER SHERMAN,

SAM'EL HUNTINGTON,

WM. WILLIAMS,

OLIVER WOLCOTT.

 

New York

WM. FLOYD,

PHIL. LIVINGSTON,

FRANS. LEWIS,

LEWIS MORRIS.

 

New Jersey

RICHD. STOCKTON,

JNO. WITHERSPOON,

FRAS. HOPKINSON,

JOHN HART,

ABRA. CLARK.

 

Pennsylvania

ROBT. MORRIS

BENJAMIN RUSH,

BENJA. FRANKLIN,

JOHN MORTON,

GEO. CLYMER,

JAS. SMITH,

GEO. TAYLOR,

JAMES WILSON,

GEO. ROSS.

 

Delaware

CAESAR RODNEY,

GEO. READ,

THO. M'KEAN.

 

Maryland

SAMUEL CHASE,

WM. PACA,

THOS. STONE,

CHARLES CARROLL of Carrollton.

 

Virginia

GEORGE WYTHE,

RICHARD HENRY LEE,

TH. JEFFERSON,

BENJA. HARRISON,

THS. NELSON, JR.,

FRANCIS LIGHTFOOT LEE,

CARTER BRAXTON.

 

North Carolina

WM. HOOPER,

JOSEPH HEWES,

JOHN PENN.

 

South Carolina

EDWARD RUTLEDGE,

THOS. HAYWARD, JUNR.,

THOMAS LYNCH, JUNR.,

ARTHUR MIDDLETON.

 

Georgia

BUTTON GWINNETT,

LYMAN HALL,

GEO. WALTON.

 

 

NOTE.-Mr. Ferdinand Jefferson, Keeper of the Rolls in the Department of State, at Washington, says: " The names of the signers are spelt above as in the facsimile of the original, but the punctuation of them is not always the same; neither do the names of the States appear in the facsimile of the original. The names of the signers of each State are grouped together in the facsimile of the original, except the name of Matthew Thornton, which follows that of Oliver Wolcott."-Revised Statutes of the United States, 2d edition, 1878, p.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copied from - APPENDIX # 315 – THE LAW OF THE LAND

 

Deed

  

The original 1636 deed creating the State of Rhode Island signed by Native American Chief Canonicus to Roger Williams 

 

A deed is a legal instrument used to grant a right. Deeds are part of the broader category of documents under seal. Deeds can be described as contract-like, as they require the mutual agreement of more than one person. Deeds can therefore be distinguished from covenants, which being also under seal, are unilateral promises. The deed is best known as the method of transferring title to real estate from one person to another, often using a description of its " metes and bounds." However, by the general definition, powers of attorney, commissions, patents, and even diplomas conferring academic degrees are also deeds. Historically at common law, for an instrument to be a valid deed it needed six things:

 

1) - It must indicate that the instrument itself conveys some privilege or thing to someone. This is indicated by using the word hereby or the phrase by these presents in the sentence indicating the gift.

 

2) - The grantor must have the legal ability to grant the thing or privilege.

 

3) - The person receiving the privilege or thing must have the legal capacity to receive it.

 

4) - A seal must be affixed to it.

Most jurisdictions have eliminated this requirement and replaced it with the signature of the grantor. However, for conveyances of real estate, most jurisdictions require that the deed be acknowledged before a notary public or a civil law notary and some may require a witness or witnesses in addition.

 

5) - It must be delivered to and accepted by the recipient.

 

 6) - There must be a witness that also signs the deed. Conditions attached to the acceptance of a deed are known as covenants.

 

 

 

Types of deeds 

General warranty and special warranty 

 

Warranty deed  

In the transfer of real estate, a deed conveys ownership from the old owner (the grantor) to the new owner (the grantee), and can include various warranties. The precise name of these warranties differ by jurisdiction. However the basic difference between them is the degree to which the grantor warrants the title. The grantor may give a general warranty of title against any claims, or the warranty may be limited only to claims which occurred after the grantor obtained the real estate. The latter type of deed is usually known as a  special  warranty deed  . While a  general warranty deed  is normally used for residential real estate sales and transfers, special warranty deeds are more commonly used in commercial transactions.

   

Bargain and sale deed 

A third type of deed, known as a bargain and sale deed, implies that the grantor has the right to convey title but makes no warranties against encumbrances. This type of deed is most commonly used by court officials or fiduciaries that hold the property by force of law rather than title, such as properties seized for unpaid taxes and sold at sheriff's sale, or an Executor.

   

Quitclaim deed 

A so-called quitclaim deed is (in most states) actually not a deed at all--it is actually an estoppel disclaiming rights of the person signing it to property.

   

Deed of trust 

In some jurisdictions, a deed of trust is used as an equivalent to a mortgage. A trust deed isn’t like the other types of deeds; it’s not used to transfer property directly. It is commonly used in some states (California, for example) to transfer title to land to a “trustee,” usually a trust or title company, which holds the title as security ("in escrow ") for a loan. When the loan is paid off, title is transferred to the borrower by recording a release of the obligation and the trustee's contingent ownership is extinguished. Otherwise (upon default), the trustee will liquidate the property (with a new deed) and offset the lender's loss with the proceeds.

   

Recording 

Usually the transfer of ownership of real estate is registered at a cadastre in the United Kingdom. In most parts of the United States, deeds must be submitted to the Recorder of deeds, who acts as a cadastre, to be registered. An unrecorded deed may be valid proof of ownership between the parties, but may have no effect upon third-party claims until disclosed or recorded. A local statute may prescribe a period beyond which unrecorded deeds become void as to third-parties, at least as to intervening acts.

   

Joint ownership 

Ownership transfer may also be crafted within deeds to pass by demise, as where a property is held in concurrent estate such as "joint tenants with right of survivorship" (JTWROS), "tenants by the entirety", or as a life estate. In each case, the title to the property immediately and automatically vests in the named survivor(s) upon the death of the other tenant(s).

   

Pardons as deeds 

In the United States of America, a pardon of the President was at one time considered to be a deed and thus needed to be accepted by the recipient. This made it impossible to grant a pardon posthumously. However, in the case of Henry Ossian Flipper, this view was altered when President Bill Clinton pardoned him in 1999.

   

Title Deeds 

In the United Kingdom, England and Wales operate a 'property register'. Title deeds are documents evidencing ownership and extent of a property, also sets out any rights or obligations that affect the property, also show whether there are any mortgages on the property. In more modern times (since 2000) compulsory registration has come into effect, all properties mortgaged or transferred since 2000 must become registered. The details of rights, obligations covenants and the like referred to in your deeds will be transferred to your register.

   

Beneficial owner

Beneficial owner is a legal term where specific property rights ("use and title") in equity belong to a person even though legal title of the property belongs to another person. Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Pocket ed. 2001 pg. 508). This often relates where the legal title owner has implied trustee duties to the beneficial owner. Under US copyright law, an author may transfer some rights to the copyright owner (often an employer) while retaining a future "reversionary interest," such as that of copyright renewal. For example, "the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright . . . to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it."   17 U.S.C. & § 501(b) A common example of a beneficial owner is the real owner of funds held by a nominee bank or for stocks held in the name of a brokerage firm.

   

 

Civil law (legal system)

 Civil law or Romano-Germanic law or Continental law is the predominant system of law in the world. Civil law as a legal system is often compared with common law. The main difference that is usually drawn between the two systems is that common law draws abstract rules from specific cases, whereas civil law starts with abstract rules, which judges must then apply to the various cases before them.

 Civil law has its roots in Roman law, Canon law and the Enlightenment, alongside influences from other religious laws such as Islamic law. The legal systems in many civil law countries are based around one or several codes of law, which set out the main principles that guide the law. The most famous example is perhaps the French Civil Code, although the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch  (or BGB) and the Swiss Civil Code are also landmark events in the history of civil law. The civil law systems of Scotland and South Africa are uncodified, and the civil law systems of Scandinavian countries remain largely uncodified. The so-called Socialist law is considered in post-socialist states not as an independent system of law but rather as a particular case of the Romano-Germanic civil law.

 

History 

Legal systems across the world, civil law, common law, mixed civil and common law, customary law. The civil law system is based on Roman law, especially the Corpus Juris Civilis of Emperor Justinian, as later developed by medieval legal scholars. The acceptance of Roman law had different characteristics in different countries. In some of them its effect resulted from legislative act, i.e. it became positive law, whereas in other ones it became accepted by way of its processing by legal theorists.

 Consequently, Roman law did not completely dominate in Europe. Roman law was a secondary source that was applied only as long as local customs and local laws lacked a pertinent provision on a particular matter. However, local rules too were interpreted primarily according to Roman law (it being a common European legal tradition of sorts), resulting in its influencing the main source of law also. A second characteristic, beyond Roman law foundations, is the extended codification of the adopted Roman law, i.e. its inclusion into civil codes. The concept of codification dates back to the Code of Hammurabi in ancient Babylon. The concept of codification was further developed during the 17th and 18th century, as an expression of both Natural Law and the ideas of the Enlightenment. The political ideal of that era was expressed by the concepts of democracy, protection of property and the rule of law. That ideal required the creation of certainty of law, through the recording of law and through its uniformity. So, the aforementioned mix of Roman law and customary and local law ceased to exist, and the road opened for law codification, which could contribute to the aims of the above mentioned political ideal. Another reason that contributed to codification was that the notion of the nation state, which was born during the 19th century, required the recording of the law that would be applicable to that state. Certainly, there was also reaction to the aim of law codification. The proponents of codification regarded it as conducive to certainty, unity and systematic recording of the law; whereas its opponents claimed that codification would result in the ossification of the law. At the end, despite whatever resistance to codification, the codification of European private laws moved forward. The French Napoleonic Code (code civil) of 1804, the German civil code (  Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) of 1900 and the Swiss codes were the most influential national civil codes. Because Germany was a rising power in the late 19th century and its legal system was well organized, when many Asian nations were developing, the German Civil Code became the basis for the legal systems of Japan and South Korea. In China, the German Civil Code was introduced in the later years of the Qing Dynasty and formed the basis of the law of the Republic of China, which remains in force in Taiwan. Some authors consider civil law to have served as the foundation for socialist law used in Communist countries, which in this view would basically be civil law with the addition of Marxist–Leninist ideas. Several legal institutions  in civil law were also adapted from similar institutions in Islamic law and jurisprudence during the Middle Ages. For example, the Islamic Hawala institution is the basis of the Avallo in Italian civil law and the Aval in French civil law.  

   

Civil versus common law 

Civil law is primarily contrasted against common law, which is the legal system developed among Anglophone people, especially in England. The original difference is that, historically, common law was law developed by custom, beginning before there were any written laws and continuing to be applied by courts after there were written laws, too, whereas civil law developed out of the Roman law of Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law). In later times, civil law became codified as droit coutumier or customary law that were local compilations of legal principles recognized as normative. Sparked by the age of enlightenment, attempts to codify private law began during the second half of the 18th century (see civil code), but civil codes with a lasting influence were promulgated only after the French Revolution, in jurisdictions such as  France  (with its Napoleonic Code), Austria  (see ABGB), Quebec (see Civil Code of Quebec),  Italy (Codice Civile), Portugal  (Código Civil), Spain  (Código Civil), the Netherlands (see   Burgerlijk Wetboek), and Germany ( see Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch). However, codification is by no means a defining characteristic of a civil law system, as e.g. the civil law systems of Scandinavian countries remain largely uncodified, whereas common law jurisdictions have frequently codified parts of their laws, e.g. in the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code. There are also mixed systems, such as the laws of Scotland, Louisiana, Quebec, the Philippines, Namibia and South Africa. Thus, the difference between civil law and common law lies not just in the mere fact of codification, but in the methodological approach to codes and statutes. In civil law countries, legislation is seen as the primary source of law. By default, courts thus base their judgments on the provisions of codes and statutes, from which solutions in particular cases are to be derived. Courts thus have to reason extensively on the basis of general rules and principles of the code, often drawing analogies from statutory provisions to fill lacunae and to achieve coherence. By contrast, in the common law system, cases are the primary source of law, while statutes are only seen as incursions into the common law and thus interpreted narrowly. The underlying principle of separation of powers is seen somewhat differently in civil law and common law countries. In some common law countries, especially the United States, judges are seen as balancing the power of the other branches of government. By contrast, the original idea of separation of powers in France was to assign different roles to legislation and to judges, with the latter only applying the law (the judge as la bouche de la loi; 'the mouth of the law'). This translates into the fact that many civil law jurisdictions reject the formalistic notion of binding precedent  (although paying due consideration to settled case-law), or restrict the power to set precedents to a competent Supreme Court.

There are other notable differences between the legal methodologies of various civil law countries. For example, it is often said that common law opinions are much longer and contain elaborate reasoning, whereas legal opinions in civil law countries are usually very short and formal in nature. This is in principle true in France, where judges cite only legislation, but not prior case law. (However, this does not mean that judges do not consider it when drafting opinions.) By contrast, court opinions in German-speaking countries can be as long as English ones, and normally discuss prior cases and academic writing extensively.

There are, however, certain sociological differences. In some Civil law countries judges are trained and promoted separately from attorneys, whereas common law judges are usually selected from accomplished and reputable attorneys. In the  Scandinavian  countries judges are attorneys who have applied for the position, whereas  France  has a specialized graduate school for judges. With respect to criminal procedure, certain civil law systems are based upon a variant of the inquisitorial system rather than the adversarial system. In common law countries, this kind of judicial organization is sometimes criticized as lacking a presumption of innocence. Most European countries, however, are parties to the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 6 guarantees "the right to a fair trial" and the presumption of innocence. The Convention is ratified by all the members and as such part of their national legislation. Some Civil law nations also have legislation that predates the Convention and secures the defendant the presumption of innocence. Amongst them Norway where the presumption is guaranteed by uncodified customary law and validated theory recognized by the Supreme Court in plenary (effectively forming a precedent).

While the presumption of innocence is present, what distinguishes the more inquisitorial system is the frequent lack of a jury of peers, which is guaranteed in many common law jurisdictions. Inquisitorial systems tend to have something akin to a "bench" trial made up of a single judge or a tribunal. Some Scandinavian nations have a tribunal that consists of one civilian and two trained legal professionals. One result of the inquisitorial system's lack of jury trial is a significant difference in the rules of trial evidence. Common law rules of evidence are founded on a concern that juries will misuse, or give inappropriate weight to unreliable evidence. In inquisitorial systems the rules of evidence are sometimes less complicated because legal professionals are considered capable of identifying reliable evidence. Most noteworthy of these is the lack of a hearsay rule. The common law hearsay rule has roughly 32 exceptions to its ban on the use of out-of-court statements.  

   

Subgroups 

The term "civil law" as applied to a legal tradition actually originates in English-speaking countries, where it was used to lump all non-English legal traditions together and contrast them to the English common law. However, since continental European traditions are by no means uniform, scholars of comparative law and economists promoting the legal origins theory usually subdivide civil law into four distinct groups:

French civil law: in France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Canadian Province of Quebec, the  U.S. state of Louisiana, Italy, Spain and former colonies of those countries;

German civil law: in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Greece, Portugal, Turkey, Japan, South Korea and the Republic of China (Taiwan);

Scandinavian civil law: in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.

Chinese law is a mixture of civil law and socialist law.

Portugal, Brazil and Italy have evolved from French to German influence, as their 19th century   civil codes were close to the Napoleonic Code and their 20th century civil codes are much closer to the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch. Legal culture and law schools have also come near to the German system. The other law in these countries is often said to be of a hybrid nature.

The  Dutch law, or at least the Dutch civil code (the Burgerlijk Wetboek) cannot be easily placed in one of the mentioned groups, and it has itself influenced the modern  private law of other countries. The present Russian civil code is in part a translation of the Dutch one.

Law in the state of Louisiana is based in part on civil law. Louisiana is the only U.S. state partially based on French and Spanish. In Louisiana, private law is based on the Louisiana Civil Code.

   

Common law

Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals, rather than through legislative statutes or executive action.

The common law is created and refined by judges: a decision in the case currently pending depends on decisions in previous cases and affects the law to be applied in future cases. When there is no authoritative statement of the law, judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.  The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In future cases, when parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as   stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases, it will decide as a " matter of first impression." Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts under the principle of stare decisis.

 In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the idealized system described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction, and even within a given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. For example, in most jurisdictions, decisions by appellate courts are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction and on future decisions of the same appellate court, but decisions of non-appellate courts are only non-binding persuasive authority. Interactions between common law, constitutional law, statutory law and regulatory law also give rise to considerable complexity. However stare decisis, the principle that similar cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that they will reach similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.

 Common law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in those nations which trace their legal heritage to Britain, including the United Kingdom, most of the United States and Canada, and other former colonies of the British Empire.

 

 Primary definitions 

 The term common law has three main connotations and several historical meanings worth mentioning:

1. Common law as opposed to statutory law and regulatory law 

This connotation distinguishes between the authorities that promulgate a law. For example, in most areas of law in most jurisdictions in countries that trace their legal heritage to Britain (members of the Commonwealth of Nations and the United States), there are " statutes " enacted by a legislature, " regulations " promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to a delegation of rule-making authority from a legislature, and common law or " case law ", i.e. decisions issued by courts  (or quasi-judicial tribunals within agencies). This first connotation can be further differentiated, into (A) law arising purely from the common law with no express statutory authority, e.g. most criminal law and procedural law before the 20th century, and even today, most of contract law and the law of torts, and (B) decisions that discuss and decide the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies, such as the Constitution, statutes and regulations.

   

 

2. Common law legal systems as opposed to civil law legal systems  

This connotation differentiates "common law" jurisdictions and legal systems from " civil law " or " code " jurisdictions. Common law systems place great weight on court decisions, which are considered "law" with the same force of law as statutes. By contrast, in civil law jurisdictions (the legal tradition that prevails in, or is combined with common law in, almost all non-Islamic, non-common law countries), judicial precedent is given relatively less weight, and scholarly literature is given relatively more. For example, the Napoleonic code expressly forbade French judges from pronouncing the law.   

   

3. Law as opposed to equity 

This connotation differentiates "common law" (or just "law") from " equity ". Before 1873, England had two parallel court systems: courts of "law" that could only award money damages and recognized only the legal owner of property, and courts of "equity" that could issue injunctive relief and recognized trusts of property. This split propagated to many of the colonies, including the United States (see "Reception Statutes," below). The distinction between "law" and "equity" was important in: (a) categorizing and prioritizing rights to property; (b) in the United States, determining whether the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial applies (a determination of a fact necessary to resolution of a "common law" claim) or whether the issue may be decided by a  judge  (issues of what the law is, and all issues relating to equity); and (c) in the principles that apply to the grant of  equitable remedies  by the courts. For most purposes, most jurisdictions, including those within the US, have merged the two courts. Additionally, even before the separate courts were merged together, most courts were permitted to apply both law and equity (though under potentially different procedural law). Even so, the split survives and remains relevant for determining at least these three classes of issues. Other exceptions are discussed in "Common Law Systems," below.

   

4. Historical uses 

In addition, there are several historical uses of the term that provide some background as to its meaning. The English Court of Common Pleas dealt with lawsuits in which the king had no interest, i.e. between commoners. Additionally, from at least the 11th century and continuing for several centuries after that, there were several different circuits in the royal court system, served by itinerant judges who would travel from town to town dispensing the King's justice. The term "common law" was used to describe the law held in common between the circuits and the different stops in each circuit. The more widely a particular law was recognized, the more weight it held, whereas purely local customs were generally subordinate to law recognized in a plurality of jurisdictions. These definitions are archaic, their relevance having dissipated with the development of the English legal system over the centuries, but they do explain the origin of the term.

   

Basic principles of common law 

Common law adjudication 

 In a common law jurisdiction several stages of research and analysis are required to determine what "the law is" in a given situation. First, one must ascertain the facts. Then, one must locate any relevant statutes and cases. Then one must extract the principles, analogies and statements by various courts of what they consider important to determine how the next court is likely to rule on the facts of the present case. Later decisions, and decisions of higher courts or legislatures carry more weight than earlier cases and those of lower courts. Finally, one integrates all the lines drawn and reasons given, and determines what "the law is". Then, one applies that law to the facts.

 The common law is more malleable than statutory law. First, common law courts are not absolutely bound by precedent, but can (when extraordinarily good reason is shown) reinterpret and revise the law, without legislative intervention, to adapt to new trends in political, legal and social philosophy. Second, the common law evolves through a series of gradual steps, that gradually works out all the details, so that over a decade or more, the law can change substantially but without a sharp break, thereby reducing disruptive effects. In contrast, the legislative process is very difficult to get started: legislatures do not act until a situation is totally intolerable. Because of this, legislative changes tend to be large, jarring and disruptive (either positively or negatively).

 One example of the gradual change that typifies the common law is the gradual change in liability for negligence. For example, the traditional common law rule through most of the 19th century was that a plaintiff could not recover for a defendant's negligence unless the two were in privity of contract. Thus, only the immediate purchaser could recover for a product defect, and if a part was built up out of parts from parts manufacturers, the ultimate buyer could not recover for injury caused by a defect in the part. Winterbottom vs. Wright , 10 M & W 109, 152 Eng.Rep. 402, 1842 WL 5519 (Exchequer of pleas 1842). In  Winterbottom , the postal service had contracted with Wright to maintain its coaches. Winterbottom was a driver for the post. When the coach failed and injured Winterbottom, he sued Wright. The Winterbottom court recognized that there would be "absurd and outrageous consequences" if an injured person could sue any person peripherally involved, but could not find a good place to draw a line around the causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury other than to limit liability to only the immediate person in contract with the negligent party. A first exception to this rule arose in   Thomas vs. Winchester, 6 N.Y. 397 (N.Y. 1852) which held that mislabeling a poison as an innocuous herb, and then selling the mislabeled poison through a dealer who would be expected to resell it, put "human life in imminent danger."  Thomas used this as a reason to create an exception to the "privity" rule. In  Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co. , 195 N.Y. 478, 480 (N.Y. 1909) held that a coffee urn manufacturer was liable to a person injured when the urn exploded, because the urn "was of such a character inherently that, when applied to the purposes for which it was designed, it was liable to become a source of great danger to many people if not carefully and properly constructed."

 Yet the privity rule survived. In Cadillac Motor Car Co. vs Johnson , 221 F. 801 (2nd Cir. 1915) (decided by the federal appeals court for New York and several neighboring states), the court held that a car owner could not recover for injuries from a defective wheel, when the automobile owner only had a contract with the automobile dealer, not with the manufacturer, even though there was "no question that the wheel was made of dead and ‘dozy‘ wood, quite insufficient for its purposes."

 Finally, in the famous case of MacPherson vs. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (N.Y. 1916), Judge Cardozo pulled a broader principle out of these predecessor cases. The facts were almost identical to Cadillac a year earlier: a wheel from a wheel manufacturer was sold to Buick, to a dealer, to MacPherson, and the wheel failed, injuring MacPherson. Judge Cardozo held:

 

 We hold, then, that the principle of Thomas vs. Winchester  is not limited to poisons, explosives, and things of like nature, to things which in their normal operation are implements of destruction. If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. Its nature gives warning of the consequences to be expected. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully. ... There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable.

 

 Note that Cardozo's new "rule" exists in no prior case, but is inferable as a synthesis of the "thing of danger" principle stated in them, merely extending it to "foreseeable danger" even if "the purposes for which it was designed" were not themselves "a source of great danger."  MacPherson takes some care to present itself as foreseeable progression, not a wild departure: note that Judge Cardozo continues to adhere to the original principle of   Winterbottom, that "absurd and outrageous consequences" must be avoided, and he does so by drawing a new line in the last sentence quoted above: "There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable." But while adhering to the underlying principle that  some  boundary is necessary,   MacPherson overruled the prior common law by rendering the formerly dominant factor in the boundary, that is, the privity formality arising out of a contractual relationship between persons, totally irrelevant. Rather, the most important factor in the boundary would be the nature of the thing sold and the foreseeable uses that downstream purchasers would make of the thing.

   

Interaction of constitutional, statutory and common law 

In common law legal systems, the common law is crucial to understanding almost all important areas of law. For example, in England and Wales and in most states of the United States, the basic law of contracts,  torts and property do not exist in statute, but only in common law (though there may be isolated modifications enacted by statute). In almost all areas of the law (even those where there is a statutory framework, such as contracts for the sale of goods, or the criminal law), legislature-enacted statutes generally give only terse statements of general principle, and the fine boundaries and definitions exist only in the common law. To find out what the precise law is that applies to a particular set of facts, one has to locate precedential decisions on the topic, and reason from those decisions by analogy. To consider but one example, the  First Amendment to the United States Constitution  states " Congress  shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" – but interpretation (that is, determining the fine boundaries, and resolving the tension between the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses) of each of the important terms was delegated by Article III of the Constitution to the judicial branch, so that the current legal boundaries of the Constitutional text can only be determined by consulting the common law.

 In common law jurisdictions, legislatures operate under the assumption that statutes will be interpreted against the backdrop of the pre-existing common law case law and custom, and so may leave a number of things unsaid. For example, in most U.S. states, the criminal statutes are primarily codification of pre-existing common law. (Codification is the process of enacting a statute that collects and restates pre-existing law in a single document - when that pre-existing law is common law, the common law remains relevant to the interpretation of these statutes.) In reliance on this assumption, modern statutes often leave a number of terms and fine distinctions unstated -- for example, a statute might be very brief, leaving the precise definition of terms unstated, under the assumption that these fine distinctions will be inherited from pre-existing common law. For this reason, even today American law schools teach the common law of crime as practiced in England in 1789, because the backdrop of centuries-old English common law is necessary to interpret and fully understand the literal words of the modern criminal statute.

 With the transition from English law, which had common law crimes, to the new legal system under the U.S. Constitution, which prohibited ex post facto laws at both the federal and state level, the question was raised whether there could be common law crimes in the United States. It was settled in the case of United States vs. Hudson and Goodwin, which decided that common law crimes were prohibited (at least at the Federal level), and that there must always be a (constitutional) statute defining the offense and the penalty for it.

 However, many states retain selected common law crimes. Virginia, for example, recognizes robbery as a common law crime and the statute referencing robbery as a crime exists to set the punishment. Virginia Code section 1-200 establishes the continued existence and vitality of common law principles and provides that "The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly".

 By contrast to statutory codification of common law, some statutes displace common law, for example to create a new cause of action that did not exist in the common law, or to legislatively overrule the common law. An example is the tort of wrongful death, which allows certain persons, usually a spouse, child or estate, to sue for damages on behalf of the deceased. There is no such tort in English common law; thus, any jurisdiction that lacks a wrongful death statute will not allow a lawsuit for the wrongful death of a loved one. Where a wrongful death statute exists, the compensation or other remedy available is limited to the remedy specified in the statute (typically, an upper limit on the amount of damages). Courts generally interpret statutes that create new causes of action narrowly – that is, limited to their precise terms – because the courts generally recognize the legislature as being supreme in deciding the reach of judge-made law unless such statute should violate some "second order" constitutional law provision (confer.  judicial activism ).

Where a tort is rooted in common law, then all traditionally recognized damages for that tort may be sued for, whether or not there is mention of those damages in the current statutory law. For instance, a person who sustains bodily injury through the negligence of another may sue for medical costs, pain, suffering, loss of earnings or earning capacity, mental and/or emotional distress, loss of quality of life, disfigurement and more. These damages need not be set forth in statute as they already exist in the tradition of common law. However, without a wrongful death statute, most of them are extinguished upon death.

 In the United States, the power of the federal judiciary to review and invalidate unconstitutional acts of the federal executive branch was established in Marbury vs. Madison (Feb. 1803). Later cases extended the "judicial power" of Article III and Marbury to establish the power of federal courts to consider or overturn any unconstitutional action of congress or of any state.

   

Contrasting role of treatises and academic writings in common law and civil law systems 

In many subject matter areas, legal treatises compile common law decisions, and state overarching principles that (in the author's opinion) explain the results of the cases. However, in common law jurisdictions, treatises are not the law, and lawyers and judges tend to use these treatises as only "finding aids" to locate the relevant cases. This is one of the "cultural" differences between common law and civil law jurisdictions: in civil law jurisdictions, the writings of law professors are given significant weight by courts. In common law jurisdictions, scholarly work is seldom cited as authority for what the law is. When common law courts rely on scholarly work, it is almost always only for factual findings, policy justification, or the  history and evolution of the law , but the court's legal conclusion is reached through analysis of relevant statutes and common law, seldom scholarly commentary.

   

Common law as a foundation for commercial economies 

This reliance on judicial opinion is a strength of common law systems, and is a significant contributor to the robust commercial systems in the United Kingdom and United States. Because there is common law to give reasonably precise guidance on almost every issue, parties (especially commercial parties) can predict whether a proposed course of action is likely to be lawful or unlawful. This ability to predict gives more freedom to come close to the boundaries of the law.  For example, many commercial contracts are more economically efficient, and create greater wealth, because the parties know ahead of time that the proposed arrangement, though perhaps close to the line, is almost certainly legal. Newspapers, taxpayer-funded entities with some religious affiliation, and political parties can obtain fairly clear guidance on the boundaries within which their freedom of expression rights apply. In contrast, in non-common-law countries, fine questions of law are redetermined anew each time they arise, making consistency and prediction more difficult. Thus, in jurisdictions that do not have a strong allegiance to a large body of precedent, parties have less a priori guidance must often leave a bigger "safety margin" of unexploited opportunities. This is the reason for the frequent choice of the law of the State of New York in commercial contacts from throughout the United States. In particular, English law and New York law are often used in contracts throughout the world, even where the relationship of the contact parties and transaction to England or New York is quite attenuated. Because of its history as the nation's commercial center, English and New York common law have a depth and predictability not (yet) available in any other jurisdiction.

   

History of the common law 

Common law originally developed under the inquisitorial system in England during the 12th and 13th centuries, as the collective judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom and precedent. Such forms of legal institutions and culture bear resemblance to those which existed historically in societies where precedent and custom have at times played a substantial role in the legal process, including Germanic law and particularly Islamic law. The form of reasoning used in common law is known as casuistry or case-based reasoning. The common law, as applied in civil cases  (as distinct from criminal cases), was devised as a means of compensating someone for wrongful acts known as torts , including both intentional torts and torts caused by  negligence, and as developing the body of law recognizing and regulating  contracts . The type of procedure practiced in common law courts is known as the adversarial system; this is also a development of the common law.

   

Before the Norman conquest in 1066, justice was administered primarily by county courts , presided by the diocesan bishop and the sheriff, exercising both  ecclesiastical  and civil jurisdiction. Trial by jury began in these courts. In 1154, Henry II became the first Plantagenet king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalized common law by creating a unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies and reinstating a jury system – citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliable criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its verdict through evaluating common local knowledge, not necessarily through the presentation of evidence, a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems. Henry II developed the practice of sending judges from his own central court to hear the various disputes throughout the country. His judges would resolve disputes on an ad hoc basis according to what they interpreted the customs to be. The king's judges would then return to London and often discuss their cases and the decisions they made with the other judges. These decisions would be recorded and filed. In time, a rule, known as stare decisis (also commonly known as precedent) developed, which is where a judge would be bound to follow the decision of an earlier judge; he was required to adopt the earlier judge's interpretation of the law and apply the same principles promulgated by that earlier judge if the two cases had similar facts to one another. By this system of precedent, decisions 'stuck' and became ossified, and so the pre-Norman system of disparate local customs was replaced by an elaborate and consistent system of law that was common throughout the whole country, hence the name, "common law."

Henry II's creation of a powerful and unified court system, which curbed somewhat the power of canonical  (church) courts, brought him (and England) into conflict with the church, most famously with Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Eventually, Becket was murdered inside Canterbury Cathedral by four knights who believed themselves to be acting on Henry's behalf. Whether Henry actually intended to bring about the assassination of Becket is doubtful, but there is no question that at the time of the murder, the two men were embroiled in a bitter dispute regarding the power of Royal Courts to exercise jurisdiction over former clergymen. The murder of the Archbishop, who was immediately venerated as a martyr and later as a saint, gave rise to a wave of popular outrage against the King. Henry was forced to repeal the disputed laws and to abandon his efforts to hold church members accountable for secular crimes.

 In spite of this setback, judge-made common law endured for centuries as the primary source of criminal and civil law throughout the realm. Later, after Parliament acquired legislative powers, statutory law began to limit the scope of the common law in some areas. Even today, however, common law retains its status as an essential element of the British legal system.

   

Possible influence of medieval Islamic law 

Main articles:  Sharia  and  Fiqh  

Some scholars have argued that several fundamental common law instutitions may have been adapted from similar legal instututions in medieval  Islamic law  and  jurisprudence , and introduced to England after the  Norman conquest of England  by the  Normans , who conquered and inherited the Islamic legal administration of the  Emirate of Sicily. In a 1999 paper, legal scholar John Makdisi drew comparisons between the "royal English contract protected by the action of debt " and the "Islamic Aqd ", the "English assize of novel disseisin " and the "Islamic Istihqaq ", and the "English jury " and the "Islamic Lafif " in classical Maliki jurisprudence, and argued that these institutions were transmitted to England by the Normans,    "through the close connection between the Norman kingdoms of  Roger II in Sicily  — ruling over a conquered Islamic administration — and  Henry II in England ." Makdisi also argued that English legal institutions such as "the scholastic method, the license to teach,"the" law schools known as Inns of Court" in England (which he asserts are parallel to Madrasas in Islam) and the "European commenda " (parallel to Islamic Qirad) may have also originated from Islamic law.  He states that the methodology of legal precedent and reasoning by analogy  (Qiyas) are also similar in both the Islamic and common law systems. Makdisi claims these similarities and influences suggest that Islamic law may have laid the foundations for "the common law as an integrated whole". Other legal scholars such as Monica Gaudiosi, Gamal Moursi Badr and A. Hudson have argued that the English trust and agency institutions in common law, which were introduced by Crusaders, may have been adapted from the Islamic   Waqf   and   Hawala   institutions they came across in the Middle East. It is worth noting, however, that transferring property to another for the "use" of another developed largely in response to the requirements of feudal inheritance law. Trust law, in particular, is a creature of equity , which derived from the parallel jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor to decide matters independently to the Royal Courts.

   

Propagation of the common law to the colonies and commonwealth by Reception Statutes 

Following the American Revolution, one of the first legislative acts undertaken by each of the newly independent states was to adopt "reception statutes" that gave legal effect to the existing body of English Common Law. Some states enacted reception statutes as legislative statutes, while other states received the English common law through provisions of the state's constitution.

 For example, the New York Constitution of 1777 provides that:

 “ Such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.

 ”

 

 

  Alexander Hamilton emphasized in The Federalist that this New York constitutional provision expressly made the common law subject “to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same.” Thus, even when reception was effected by a constitution, the common law was still subject to alteration by a legislature's statute.

 The Northwest Ordinance, which was approved by the Congress of the Confederation in 1787, guaranteed "judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law."  Nathan Dane, the primary author of the Northwest Ordinance, viewed this provision as a default mechanism in the event that federal or territorial statutes were silent about a particular matter; he wrote that if "a statute makes an offence, and is silent as to the mode of trial, it shall be by jury, according to the course of the common law.” In effect, the provision operated as a reception statute, giving legal authority to the established common law in the vast territories where no states had yet been established. Over time, as new states were formed from federal territories, these territorial reception statutes became obsolete and were re-enacted as state law. For example, a reception statute enacted by legislation in the state of Washington requires that "the common law, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of the state of Washington nor incompatible with the institutions and condition of society in this state, shall be the rule of decision in all the courts of this state." In this way, the common law was eventually incorporated into the legal systems of every state except Louisiana (which inherited its civil law system from France 's Napoleonic Code). A similar statute exists in Article 8 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong.

   

1870 through 20th century, and the merger of law and equity 

As early as the 15th century, it became the practice that litigants who felt they had been cheated by the common-law system would petition the King in person. For example, they might argue that an award of damages (at common law) was not sufficient redress for a trespasser occupying their land, and instead request that the trespasser be evicted. From this developed the system of equity, administered by the Lord Chancellor, in the courts of chancery. By their nature, equity and law were frequently in conflict and litigation would frequently continue for years as one court countermanded the other, even though it was established by the 17th century that equity should prevail. A famous example is the fictional case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce in Bleak House , by  Charles Dickens. In England, courts of law and equity were combined by the  Judicature Acts  of 1873 and 1875, with equity being supreme in case of conflict.

In the United States, parallel systems of law (providing money damages, with cases heard by a jury upon either party's request) and equity (fashioning a remedy to fit the situation, including injunctive relief, heard by a judge) survived well into the 20th century. The United States federal courts procedurally separated law and equity: the same judges could hear either kind of case, but a given case could only pursue causes in law or in equity, and the two kinds of cases proceeded under different procedural rules. This became problematic when a given case required both money damages and injunctive relief. In 1937, the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure combined law and equity into one form of action, the "civil action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 2. The distinction survives to the extent that issues that were "common law" as of 1791 (the date of adoption of the Seventh Amendment) are still subject to the right of either party to request a jury, and "equity" issues are decided by a judge.  Alabama, Delaware, Mississippi and New Jersey still have separate courts of law and equity, for example, the Court of Chancery. In many states there are separate divisions for law and equity within one court.

 

The common law constitutes the basis of the legal systems of: England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, federal law in the United States, the law of individual U.S. States (except Louisiana), federal law in Canada and the individual Provinces  (except Quebec civil law), Australia  (both federal and individual states), New Zealand, South Africa, India, Malaysia, Brunei, Pakistan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and many other generally English-speaking countries or Commonwealth countries (except Malta and Scotland). Essentially, every country which has been colonized at some time by England,  Great Britain , or the  United Kingdom  uses common law except those that had been formerly colonized by other nations, such as Quebec (which follows French law to some extent), South Africa and Sri Lanka (which follow Roman Dutch law), where the prior civil law system was retained to respect the civil rights of the local colonists.  India 's system of common law is also a mixture of English law and the local Hindu law, except in the state of Goa which retains the Portuguese civil code. Nicaragua's legal system also is a mixture of the English Common Law and the Civil Law through the influence of British administration of the Eastern half of the country from the mid-1600s until about 1905, the William Walker period from about 1855 through 1857, USA interventions/occupations during the period from 1909 to 1933, the influence of USA institutions during the Somoza family administrations (1933 through 1979) and the considerable importation between 1979 and the present of USA culture and institutions.

 The main alternative to the common law system is the civil law system, which is used in Continental Europe, and most of the rest of the world. The former Soviet Bloc and other Socialist countries used a Socialist law system (some of them use civil law system, for example, Lithuania).

The opposition between civil law and common law legal systems has become increasingly blurred, with the growing importance of jurisprudence  (almost like case law but in name) in civil law countries, and the growing importance of statute law and codes in common law countries. An example of this is the United States, where matters of criminal law, commercial law (the Uniform Commercial Code in the early 1960s) and procedure (the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the 1930s and the Federal Rules of Evidence in the 1970s) have been codified.

Scotland is often said to use the civil law system but in fact it has a unique system  that combines elements of an uncodified civil law dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis with an element of common law long predating the Treaty of Union with England in 1707. Scots common law differs in that the use of precedents is subject to the courts seeking to discover the principle which justifies a law rather than to search for an example as a precedent and that the principles of natural justice and fairness have always formed a source of Scots Law. Comparable pluralistic (or 'mixed') legal systems operate in Quebec, Louisiana and South Africa.

Israel has a mixed system of common law and civil law. While Israeli law is undergoing codification, its basic principles resemble those of British and American law, namely: the role of courts in creating the body of law and the authority of the supreme court in overturning legislative and executive decisions.

The U.S. state of California has a system based on common law, but it has codified the law in the manner of the civil law jurisdictions. The reason for the enactment of the codes in California in the nineteenth century was to replace a pre-existing system based on Spanish civil law with a system based on common law, similar to that in most other states. California and a number of other Western states, however, have retained the concept of community property derived from civil law. The California courts have treated portions of the codes as an extension of the common-law tradition, subject to judicial development in the same manner as judge-made common law. (Most notably, in the case Liv. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975), the California Supreme Court adopted the principle of comparative negligence in the face of a California Civil Code provision codifying the traditional common-law doctrine of contributory negligence.)

 The state of New York, which also has a civil law history from its Dutch colonial days, also began a codification of its law in the 19th century. The only part of this codification process that was considered complete is known as the Field Code applying to civil procedure. The original colony of New Netherlands was settled by the Dutch and the law was also Dutch. When the  English captured pre-existing colonies they continued to allow the local settlers to keep their civil law. However, the Dutch settlers revolted against the English and the colony was recaptured by the Dutch. When the English finally regained control of New Netherland they forced, as a punishment unique in the history of the British Empire, the English common law upon all the colonists, including the Dutch. This was problematic, as the patroonsystem of land holding, based on the feudal system and civil law, continued to operate in the colony until it was abolished in the mid-nineteenth century. The influence of Roman Dutch law continued in the colony well into the late nineteenth century. The codification of a law of general obligations shows how remnants of the civil law tradition in New York continued on from the Dutch days.

The United States federal government (as opposed to the states) has a variant on a common law system. United States federal courts only act as interpreters of statutes and the constitution (to elaborate and precisely define the broad language, but, unlike state courts, do not act as an independent source of common law. Before 1938, the federal courts, like almost all other common law courts, decided the law on any issue where the relevant legislature (either the U.S. Congress or state legislature, depending on the issue), had not acted, by looking to courts in the same system, that is, other federal courts, even on issues of state law, and even where there was no express grant of authority from Congress or the Constitution. In 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. vs. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938), overruled earlier precedent, and held "There is no federal general common law," thus confining the federal courts to act only as interpreters of law originating elsewhere.  E.g., Texas Industries vs. Radcliff, 451 U.S. 630  (1981) (without an express grant of statutory authority, federal courts cannot create rules of intuitive justice, for example, a right to contribution from co-conspirators). Post-1938, federal courts deciding issues that arise under state law are required to defer to state court interpretations of state statutes, or reason what a state's highest court would rule if presented with the issue, or to certify the question to the state's highest court for resolution. Later courts have limited Erie slightly, to create a few situations where United States federal courts are permitted to create federal common law rules without express statutory authority, for example, where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests.  See, e.g., Clearfield Trust Co. vs. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943) (giving federal courts the authority to fashion common law rules with respect to issues of federal power, in this case negotiable instruments backed by the federal government); see also International News Service vs. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215  (1918) (creating a cause of action for misappropriation of "hot news" that lacks any statutory grounding, but that is one of the handful of federal common law actions that survives today). Except on Constitutional issues, Congress is free to legislatively overrule federal courts' common law. 

   

Works on the common law 

William Blackstone as illustrated in his Commentaries on the Laws of England.

The definitive historical treatise on the common law is Commentaries on the Laws of England, written by Sir William Blackstone and first published in 1765 - 1769. Since 1979 a facsimile edition of that first edition has been available in four paper-bound volumes. Today it has been superseded in the English part of the United Kingdom by Halsbury's Laws of England that covers both common and statutory English law.

 While he was still on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and before being named to the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. published a short volume called   The Common Law, which remains a classic in the field. Unlike Blackstone and the Restatements, Holmes' book only briefly discusses what the law is; rather, Holmes describes the common law process. Law professor John Chipman Gray 's The Nature and Sources of the Law, an examination and survey of the common law, is also still commonly read in U.S. law schools.

In the United States, Restatements  of various subject matter areas (Contracts, Torts, Judgments, etc.), edited by the American Law Institute, collect the common law for the area. The ALI Restatements are often cited by American courts and lawyers for propositions of uncodified common law, and are considered highly-persuasive authority, just below binding precedential decisions. The Corpus Juris Secundum is an encyclopedia whose main content is a compendium of the common law and its variations throughout the various state jurisdictions.

Scots common law covers matters including murder and theft, and has sources in custom, in legal writings and previous court decisions. The legal writings used are called Institutional Texts and come mostly from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Examples include Craig, Jus Feudale  (1655) and Stair, The Institutions of the Law of Scotland  (1681).

   

References 

Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.")

 

The differences between common and civil law jurisdictions are gradually becoming smaller, as common law jurisdictions enact statutes that cover areas formerly left to the common law, and civil law courts give increasing weight to precedent. Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health (Corte suprema di Cassazione, Italy, 1982) , in which Italy's Supreme Court of Cassation held that questions it has already answered need not be resubmitted. This brought in a distinctly common law principle into an essentially civil law jurisdiction. As the Italian courts continue to follow this precedent and assume that the Supreme Court's rulings have precedential value, the distance between civil law and common law jurisdictions is shrinking.

"In Suits at common law ... the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

 

E.g. ,  Ex parte Holt , 19 USPQ2d 1211, 1214 (Bd. Patent App. & Interf. 1991) (explaining the hierarchy of precedent binding on tribunals of the United States Patent Office)

 

E.g. ,  Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2, on Contracts for the Sales of Goods 

 

Model Penal Code  as adopted in several states, for example,  New York's Penal Law 

 

Lemon v. Kurtzman , 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2125, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971) (a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause if: (1) it does not have a secular purpose; (2) its principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion; or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion.)

 

11 U.S. 32  (1812) .

 

Johnson v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 291, 293, 163 S.E.2d 570, ___ (1968)

At least in the U.S., practicing lawyers tend to use "law professor" or "law review article" as a pejorative to describe a person or work that is insufficiently grounded in reality or practicality - every young lawyer is admonished repeatedly by senior lawyers not to write "law review articles," but instead to focus on the facts of the case and the practical effects of a given outcome.

 

See, e.g., Yeo Tiong Min, " A Note on Some Differences in English Law, New York Law, and Singapore Law " (2006). This is not to say that common law is better in every situation. For example, civil law can be clearer than case law when the legislature has had the foresight and diligence to address the precise set of applicable facts in a particular situation. For that reason, civil law statutes tend to be somewhat more detailed than statutes written by common law legislatures – but, conversely, that tends to make the statute more difficult to read. As a practical matter, no civil law legislature can ever address the full spectrum of factual possibilities in the breadth, depth and detail of the case law of the common law courts of even a smaller jurisdiction.

 

Clarence Ray Jeffery, "The Development of Crime in Early English Society",  The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science , Vol. 47, No. 6. (Mar. - Apr., 1957), pp. 647-666. See   Oliver Wendell Holmes ,  The Common Law , Lecture I, sec. 2, "In Massachusetts today...there are some (rules) which can only be understood by reference to the infancy of procedure among the German tribes."

 

Makdisi, John A. (June 1999), "The Islamic Origins of the Common Law", North Carolina Law Review    77 (5): 1635-1739 

 

"Common Law", Catholic Encyclopedia. (1913). New York: Robert Appleton Company.  

 

Hussain, Jamila (2001), "Book Review:  The Justice of Islam  by Lawrence Rosen",   Melbourne University Law Review

 

El-Gamal, Mahmoud A. (2006), Islamic Finance: Law, Economics, and Practice, Cambridge University Press, p. 16, ISBN 0521864143

 

Gaudiosi, Monica M. (April 1988), "The Influence of the Islamic Law of Waqf on the Development of the Trust in England: The Case of Merton College", University of Pennsylvania Law Review  136 1231-1261 

 

Badr, Gamal Moursi (Spring, 1978), "Islamic Law: Its Relation to Other Legal Systems",  The American Journal of Comparative Law   26 (2 - Proceedings of an International Conference on Comparative Law, Salt Lake City, Utah, February 24-25, 1977): 187-198 [196-8] 

 

Hudson, A. (2003), Equity and Trusts (3rd ed.), Cavendish Publishing, 32, ISBN 1-85941-729-9  

 

Glenn Lammi and James Chang, " Michigan High Court Ruling Offers Positive Guidance on Challenges to Tort Reform Laws " (December 17, 2004).

 

New York Constitution of 1777  via Avalon Project at Yale Law School.

 

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 84 (1788).

Ironically, one of the first acts of many of the newly-independent states was to give effect to the law of a foreign sovereign.

 

Nathan Dane, 6 General Abridgment and Digest of American Law §182, art. 5, 230 (Cummings, Hilliard & Co. 1823).

 

Washington Legal Foundation vs. Legal Foundation of Washington, 271 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2001).

Markman vs. Westview Instruments, Inc. , 517 U.S. 370, 376 (1996) ("We the U.S. Supreme Court have understood that the right of trial by jury thus preserved is the right which existed under the English common law when the Amendment was adopted. In keeping with our longstanding adherence to this 'historical test,' we ask, first, whether we are dealing with a cause of action that either was tried at law at the time of the founding or is at least analogous to one that was. If the action in question belongs in the law category, we then ask whether the particular trial decision must fall to the jury in order to preserve the substance of the common-law right as it existed in 1791." citations and quotations omitted, holding that interpretation of the scope of a patent had no analogy in 1790, and is thus a question to be decided by a judge, not a jury)

 

Swift vs. Tyson,  41 U.S. 1 (1842). In Swift, the United States Supreme Court had held that federal courts hearing cases brought under their diversity jurisdiction  (allowing them to hear cases between parties from different states) had to apply the statutory law of the states, but not the common law developed by state courts. Instead, the Supreme Court permitted the federal courts to make their own common law based on general principles of law.  Erie vs. Tompkins,  304 U.S. 64  (1938).  Erie over-ruled Swift vs. Tyson, and instead held that federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction had to use all of the same substantive law as the courts of the states in which they were located. As the Erie Court put it, there is no "general federal common law", the key word here being general. This history is elaborated in federal common law.

 

City of Boerne vs. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (invalidating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, in which Congress had attempted to redefine the court's jurisdiction to decide constitutional issues); Milwaukee vs. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304 (1981)

 

 The Common Law   by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

 

 

 

 

Supposed American History according to modern rebels

who desire no part of Godly freedom.

The history of the Americas is the collective history of North and South America, including Central America and the Caribbean. It begins with people migrating to these areas from Asia during the height of an Ice Age. These groups are generally believed to have been isolated from peoples of the "Old World" until the coming of Europeans in the 10th and 15th centuries.

The ancestors of today's Native American were hunter-gatherers who migrated into North America. The most popular theory asserts that migrants came to the Americas via the Bering Land Bridge, Beringia, the land mass covered by the cold ocean waters in the Bering Strait. Small Paleo-Indian groups probably followed the mammoth and other prey animals. It is possible that groups of people may also have traveled into North America on shelf or sheet ice along the northern Pacific coast.

Cultural traits brought by the first immigrants later evolved and spawned such cultures as Iroquois on North America and Piraha of South America. These cultures later developed into civilizations. In many cases, these cultures expanded at a later date than their Old World counterparts. Cultures that may be considered advanced or civilized include: Cahokia, Zapotec, Toltecs, Olmec, Maya, Aztecs, Purepecha, Chimor, and the Inca.

Prehistoric ALLEGED Migration into the North American Continent:

The timeframe for the of arrival of the first group of people to enter the Americas has been subject to much debate. It is generally believed that the first migrants were Asian nomads who crossed the Bering Land Bridge to reach North America. For most of the 20th century, scientists considered the first culture in the Americas to be the Clovis culture, with sites dating from some 13,500 years ago.

Recent archaeological finds suggest multiple waves of migration, some of which have been tentatively dated to as early as 40,000 BCE. Evidence at the Monte Verde site in southern Chile indicates a human presence in southern South America by 12,500 BCE. Several other early Paleo-Indian artifacts have been found in both North and South America. Radiocarbon dating tests are still inconclusive on some archaeological sites identified as earlier than the Clovis remains.

 

Many theories hold that the Inuit and related peoples arrived separately and at a much later date, probably around the 5th or 6th century CE, moving across the glaciers from Siberia into Canada.

Archaic Period

Several thousand years after the first migrations, the first complex civilizations arose as hunter-gatherers settled into semi-agricultural communities. Identifiable sedentary settlements began to emerge in the so-called Middle Archaic period around 6000 BCE. Particular archaeological cultures can be identified, with some of the classifications including the Paleo-Indian period, Archaic Period and Woodland Period.

Civilizations were established long after migration. Several large, centralized civilizations developed in the Western Hemisphere: Norte Chico, Chavin, Nazca, Moche, Huari, Quitus, Canaris, Chimu, Pachacamac, Tiahuanaco, Aymara and Inca in the Central Andes (Ecuador,Peru and Bolivia); Muisca in Colombia; Olmecs, Toltecs, Mixtecs, Zapotecs, Purepecha, Aztecs and the Maya in southern North America).

Cities of the Aztecs, Mayas, and Incas were as large and organized as the largest in the Old World, with an estimated population of 200,000 to 350,000 in Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec empire. The market established in the city was said to have been the largest ever seen by the conquistadors when they arrived. The capital of the Cahokians, Cahokia - located near modern East St. Louis, IL may have reached a population of over 20,000. At its peak, between the 12th and 13th centuries, Cahokia may have been the most populous city in North America. Monk’s Mound, the major ceremonial center of Cahokia, remains the largest earthen construction of the prehistoric New World.

These civilizations developed agriculture as well, breeding maize (corn) from having ears 2-5 cm in length to perhaps 10-15 cm in length. Potatoes, tomatoes, pumpkins, beans, avocados and chocolate are now the most popular of the pre-Columbian agricultural products. The civilizations did not develop extensive livestock as there were few suitable species, although alpacas and llamas were domesticated for use as beasts of burden and sources of wool and meat in the Andes. By the 15th century CE, maize was being farmed in the Mississippi River Valley after introduction from Mexico. The course of further agricultural development was greatly altered by the arrival of Europeans.

Oasisamerica - Pueblo people

The Pueblo people of what is now the Southwestern United States and northern Mexico, living conditions were that of large stone apartment like adobe structures. They live in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, and possibly surrounding areas.

Aridoamerica - Chichimeca

Chichimeca was the name that the Mexica (Aztecs) generically applied to a wide range of semi-nomadic peoples who inhabited the north of modern-day Mexico, and carried the same sense as the European term "barbarian". The name was adopted with a pejorative tone by the Spaniards when referring especially to the semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer peoples of northern Mexico.

Haudenosaune - Iroquois

Mesoamerica - Zapotec

The Zapotec emerged around 1500 years BCE. Their writing system influenced the later Olmec. They left behind the great city Monte Alban.

Olmec

The Olmec civilization emerged around 1200 BCE in Mesoamerica and ended around 400 BCE. Olmec art and concepts influenced surrounding cultures after their downfall. This civilization was thought to be the first in America to develop a writing system. After the Olmecs abandoned their cities for unknown reasons, the Maya, Zapotec and Teotihuacan arose.

Purepecha

The Purepecha civilization emerged around 1000 AD in Mesoamerica . They flourished from 1100 AD to 1530 AD. They continue to live on in the state of Michaocan. Fierce warriors, they were never conquered and in their glory years, successfully sealed off huge areas from Aztec domination.

Maya

Maya history spans 3,000 years. The Maya may have collapsed due to changing climate in the end of the 10th century.

Toltec

The Toltec were a nomadic people, dating from the 10th - 12th century, whose language was also spoken by the Aztecs.

Teotihuacan

Teotihuacan (4th century BCE - 7/8th century CE) was both a city, and an empire of the same name, which, at its zenith between 150 and the 5th century, covered most of Mesoamerica.

Aztec

The Aztec having started to build their empire around 14th century found their civilization abruptly ended by the Spanish conquistadors. They lived in Mesoamerica, and surrounding lands. Their capital city Tenochtitlan was one of the largest cities of all time.

South America

Norte Chico

The oldest known civilization of the Americas was established in the Norte Chico region of modern Peru. Complex society emerged in the group of coastal valleys, between 3000 and 1800 BCE. The Quipu, a distinctive recording device among Andean civilizations, apparently dates from the era of Norte Chico's prominence.

Chavín

The Chavin established a trade network and developed agriculture by as early as (or late compared to the Old World) 900 BCE according to some estimates and archaeological finds. Artifacts were found at a site called Chavín in modern Peru at an elevation of 3,177 meters. Chavín civilization spanned from 900 BCE to 300 BCE.

Inca

Holding their capital at the great city of Cusco, the Inca civilization dominated the Andes region from 1438 to 1533. Known as Tahuantinsuyu, or "the land of the four regions," in Quechua, the Inca culture was highly distinct and developed. Cities were built with precise, unmatched stonework, constructed over many levels of mountain terrain. Terrace farming was a useful form of agriculture. There is evidence of excellent metalwork and even successful brain surgery in Inca civilization.

European rediscovery and colonization

Thousands of years after the Indians arrived, the continent was rediscovered by Europeans. Initially the Vikings established a short-lived settlement in Newfoundland, known as L’Anse aux Meadows. Speculations exist about other Old World discoveries of the New World, but none of these are considered proven. For further information, see Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact.

The voyage of Christopher Columbus in 1492 that led to extensive European colonization of the Americas and the genocide of its inhabitants. Columbus came at a time in which many technical developments in sailing techniques and communication made it possible to report his voyages easily and to spread word of them throughout western Europe. It was also a time of growing economic rivalries that led to a competition for the establishment of colonies.

The mass death of the Native Americans from slavery, disease and war led to severe changes in the population and ethnic identity of America's inhabitants. The slave labor of Americans killed by European incursions was replaced by that of sub-Saharan African peoples through the slave trade. Native populations became increasingly minor as the European and African slave populations grew rapidly. The dominance of White Americans continued through the period of widespread independence from European rule, begun in the late 18th century by the United States.

There is a substantial difference though, between the English and SpanishSpanish areas and models of colonization. While Native Americans suffered death, slavery and exploitation throughout the Americas and were virtually exterminated almost everywhere, Native Americans, along with Mestizos, now make up the majority of the population in many Central and South American countries. More importantly, the Southern parts were much more populated before European colonization (50m) compared to the North (2m).

The number of Native Americans is increasing now in the U.S. by actual population growth, changing enrollment laws, and from the immigration from Spanish America, especially from Mexico, though the definition being applied to them is Hispanic.

Modern history

Colonial period

Decolonization

The formation of sovereign states in the New World begins with the United States Declaration of Independence of 1776. The American Revolutionary War lasted until 1783.

The Spanish colonies won their independence in the first quarter of the 19th century, in the South American Wars of Independence. Simon Bolivar and Jose’ de San Martin led their independence struggle. Although Bolivar attempted to keep the Spanish-speaking parts of the continent politically unified, they rapidly became independent of one another as well, and several further wars were fought, such as the War of the Triple Alliance and the War of the Pacific. In the Portuguese colony Dom Pedro I (also Pedro IV of Portugal), son of the Portuguese king Dom Joao VI, proclaimed the country's independence in 1822 and became Brazil's first Emperor. This was peacefully accepted by the crown in Portugal, upon compensation.

Effects of slavery

Slavery has had a significant role in the economic development the New World after the colonization of the Americas by the Europeans. Slaves helped build the roads upon which they were transported. The cotton, tobacco, and sugar cane harvested by slaves became important exports for the United States and the Caribbean countries.

20th century

North America

As a part of the British Empire Canada immediately was at war in 1914. Canada bore the brunt of several major battles during the early stages of the war including the use of poison gas attacks at Ypres. Losses became grave, and the government eventually brought in conscription, despite the fact this was against the wishes of the majority of French Canadians. In the ensuing Conscription Crisis of 1917, riots broke out on the streets of Motreal. In neighboring Newfoundland, the new dominion suffered a devastating loss on July 1, 1916, the First day on the Somme.

The United States stayed apart from the conflict until 1917, joining the Entente powers. The United States was then able to play a crucial role at the paris Peace Conference of 1919 that shaped interwar Europe.

Mexico was not part of the war as the country was embroiled in the Mexican Revolution at the time.

The 1920s brought an age of great prosperity in the United States, and to a lesser degree Canada. But the Wall Street Crash of 1929 combined with drought ushered in a period of economic hardship in the United States and Canada.

From 1936 to 1949, this was a popular uprising against the anti-Catholic Mexican government of the time, set off specifically by the anti-clerical provisions of the Mexican Constitution of 1917.

Once again Canada found herself at war before her neighbours, however even Canadian contributions were slight before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

The entry of the United States into the war helped to tip the balance in favour of the allies.

Two Mexican tankers, transporting oil to the United States, were attacked and sunk by the Germans in the Gulf of Mexico waters, in 1942. The incident happened in spite of Mexico's neutrality at that time. This led Mexico to declare war to the Axis nations and entered the conflict.

The destruction of Europe wrought by the war vaulted all North American countries to more important roles in world affairs. The United States especially emerged as a "superpower".

The early Cold War era saw the United States as the most powerful nation in a Western coalition of which Mexico and Canada were also a part. At home, the United States witnessed convulsive change especially in the area of race relations. In Canada this was mirrored by the Quiet Revolution and the emergence of Quebec nationalism.

Mexico experienced an era of huge economic growth after World War II, a heavy industrialization process and a growth of its middle class, a period known in Mexican history as the "El Milagro Mexicano" (Mexican miracle).

The Caribbean saw the beginnings of decolonization, while on the largest island the Cuban Revolution introduced Cold War rivalries into Latin America.

During this time the United States become involved in the Vietnam War as part of the global Cold War. This war would latter prove to be highly divisive in American society, and American troops were withdrawn.

Canada during this era was dominated by the leadership of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Eventually in 1982 at the end of his tenure, Canada received a new constitution.

Canada's Brian Mulroney not only ran on a similar platform but also favored closer trade ties with the United States. This led to the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement in January 1989.

Mexican presidents Miguel de la Madrid, in the early 80s and Carlos Salinas de Gortari in the late 80s, started implementing liberal economic strategies that were seen as a good move. However, Mexico experienced a strong economic recession in 1982 and the Mexican peso suffered a devaluation. Presidential elections held in 1988 were forecast to be very competitive and they were. Leftist candidate Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, son of Lazaro Cardenas one of the most beloved Mexican presidents, created a successful campaign and was reported as the leader in several opinion polls. On July 6, 1988, the day of the elections, a system shutdown of the IBM AS/400 that the government was using to count the votes occurred, presumably by accident. The government simply stated that "se cayó el sistema" ("the system crashed"), to refer to the incident. When the system was finally restored, the PRI candidate Carlos Salinas was declared the official winner. It was the first time that a non-PRI candidate was so close to win the presidency.

In the United States president Ronald Reagan attempted to move the United States back towards a hard anti-communist line in foreign affairs, in what his supporters saw as an attempt to assert moral leadership (compared to the Soviet Union) in the world community. Domestically, Reagan attempted to bring in a package of privitization and regulation to stimulate the economy.

The End of the Cold War and the beginning of the era of sustained economic expansion coincided during the 1990s. On January 1, 1994 Canada, Mexico and the United States signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, creating the world's largest free trade area. At same time the EZLN, an indigenous guerilla movement declared war on the Mexican government and neo-liberalism in protest of the North American Free Trade Agreement. In 2000, Vicente Fox became the first non-PRI candidate to win the Mexican presidency in over 70 years.

The optimism of the 1990s was shattered by the 9/11 attacks of 2001 on the United States, which prompted military intervention in Afghanistan, which also involved Canada. Canada did not support the United States' later move to invade Iraq, however.

Central America

Despite the failure of a lasting political union, the concept of Central American reunification, though lacking enthusiasm from the leaders of the individual countries, rises from time to time. In 1856-1857 the region successfully established a military coalition to repel an invasion by U.S. adventurer William Walker. Today, all five nations fly flags that retain the old federal motif of two outer blue bands bounding an inner white stripe. (Costa Rica, traditionally the least committed of the five to regional integration, modified its flag significantly in 1848 by darkening the blue and adding a double-wide inner red band, in honor of the French tricolor).

In 1907 a Central American Court of Justice was created. On December 13, 1960, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua established the central American Common Market ("CACM"). Costa Rica, because of its relative economic prosperity and political stability, chose not to participate in the CACM. The goals for the CACM were to create greater political unification and success of Import Substitution Industrialization policies. The project was an immediate economic success, but was abandoned after the 1969 "Football War" between El Salvador and Honduras.

A Central American Parliament has operated, as a purely advisory body, since 1991. Costa Rica has repeatedly declined invitations to join the regional parliament, which seats deputies from the four other former members of the Union, as well as from Panama and the Dominican Republic.

South America

In the 1960s and 1970s, the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay were overthrown or displaced by U.S.-aligned military dictatorships. These dictatorships detained tens of thousands of political prisoners, many of whom were tortured and/or killed (on inter-state collaboration, see Operation Condor). Economically, they began a transition to neoliberal economic policies. They placed their own actions within the U.S. Cold War doctrine of "National Security" against internal subversion. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Peru suffered from an internal conflict (see Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement and Shining Path). Revolutionary movements and right-wing military dictatorships have been common, but starting in the 1980s a wave of democratization came through the continent, and democratic rule is widespread now. Allegations of corruption remain common, and several nations have seen crises which have forced the resignation of their presidents, although normal civilian succession has continued.

International indebtedness became a notable problem, as most recently illustrated by Argentina’s default in the early 21st century.

In recent years South American governments have drifted to the left, with socialist leaders being elected in Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, Venezuela, and a leftist president in Argentina and Uruguay. Despite the move to the left, South America is still largely capitalist.

With the founding of the Union of the South American Nations, South America has started down the road of economic integration, with plans for political inte

 

 

 

DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY

 

For thousands of years, Indigenous Nations and Peoples have lived in sacred relationship with their traditional lands and territories in North America and elsewhere. They have evolved their own languages, cultures, and spiritual traditions, and a profound comprehension of the inter-relatedness and interconnection of all life, including Mother Earth herself. Their original instructions teach them to live in a manner harmonized with the natural ecological systems of the planet, the plants, animals, and vital life-giving waters.

 

When, more than five centuries ago, Christian Europeans arrived in the lands now called “the Americas,” they believed they had a divine right to take over the hemisphere, and they issued documents based on this belief, including Vatican papal bulls and royal charters of discovery and dominance. This belief was later known in the United States as ‘Manifest Destiny’.

 

Those ancient religious documents were premised on the Doctrine of Discovery and what Indigenous Peoples are now calling the Framework of Dominance. That doctrine and framework are well illustrated by an 1823 U.S. Supreme Court ruling—Johnson & Graham’s Lessee vs. McIntosh—in which the Court said “Christian people” who “discovered” lands “inhabited by natives, who were heathens” asserted the “ultimate dominion to be in themselves,” on the basis of which the United States has “ultimate title” to all Indian lands within the geopolitical boundaries claimed by the United States.

 

The Johnson vs. McIntosh ruling is traced back to a number of Vatican documents from the 15th century calling for the enslavement and “subjugation” of “barbarous nations.” Those documents authorized the monarchs of Portugal and Spain to assume a right and title to all Indigenous non-Christian lands. Later monarchs of Christendom adopted the same attitude of a right to seize Indigenous lands and assume a right of dominance over non-Christian nations and their lands, territories, and resources, such as the John Cabot Charter from the English Crown authorizing the “discovery” and “conquest” of lands previously “unknown to all Christian people”.

 

The legacy of dehumanization that Indigenous nations and peoples are challenging today can be traced back to the tradition of those Vatican and royal documents.

 

Today, a global Indigenous Peoples movement is challenging the Doctrine of Discovery and the Framework of Dominance, and a number of Christian denominations, including the Episcopal Church and the Quakers, are joining in solidarity with Indigenous Peoples. UU congregations nationwide are now also calling for the UUA to align itself with Indigenous Peoples to repudiate the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and the Framework of Dominance. 

Steven T. Newcomb, Indigenous Law Institute

 

ACTION To Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery

Pass a resolution repudiating the use of the Doctrine of Discovery in U.S. laws and policies.

 

 

 

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

(UNDRIP) Adopted by the UN General Assembly 13 September 2007

 

In the late 1970’s, traditional American Indian elders and activists journeyed to Geneva, Switzerland, to advocate on behalf of American Indian nations. They entered the international arena because of a lack of redress for Indian nations and peoples within the domestic legal and political system of the United States and other countries.  This lack of redress is traced back to Vatican papal documents and royal colonial charters premised on claims of Christian European dominance over non-Christian Indigenous nations, peoples, and territories. Those documents institutionalized in law and policy the dehumanization of Indigenous Peoples. 

 

The lack of redress for Indigenous Peoples was a result of five centuries of laws and policies designed to dispossess Indian nations of their traditional territories and to take indigenous lands, territories, and resources for the benefit of the United States and other countries under  the Doctrine of Discovery.

 

From 1982 until 2007, Indigenous peoples’ representative’s legal scholars, and allies worked to develop and advocate for an international framework to affirm the human rights of Indigenous nations and peoples. Eventually, a document with 46 Articles was taken up by the United Nations General Assembly.

 

On 13 September 2007, 143 Member States of the United Nations voted to adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Eleven Member States abstained and 4 voted against the Declaration. (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States).

 

Most Indigenous representatives now consider the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to be the best international means of supporting Indigenous nations and peoples in protection of their fundamental human rights, including rights to lands, territories, and resources, and to free, prior, and informed consent regarding “development” projects on Indigenous lands.

 

Since the Declaration’s adoption in 2007, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have formally endorsed the Declaration, leaving only the United States as the lone remaining 'no' vote.

  Steven T. Newcomb, Indigenous Law Institute

 

 

 

This article is about the discovery of land under public international law. For pre-trial phase of a lawsuit, see discovery law.

 

 

The Discovery doctrine is a concept of public international law expounded by the U.S. Supreme Court in a series of decisions, most notably Johnson vs. McIntosh in 1823. Chief Justice John Marshall justified the way in which colonial powers laid claim to lands belonging to sovereign indigenous nations during the Age of Discovery. Under it, title to lands lay with the government whose subjects explored and occupied a territory whose inhabitants were not subjects of a European Christian monarch. The doctrine has been primarily used to support decisions invalidating or ignoring aboriginal possession of land in favor of colonial or post-colonial governments.

The 1823 case was the result of collusive lawsuits where land speculators worked together to make claims to achieve a desired result. John Marshall explained the Court's reasoning. The supposedly inferior character of native cultures was a reason for the doctrine having been used

Colonial History

The origins of the doctrine can be traced to Pope Nicholas V's issuance of the papal bull Romanus Pontifex in 1452. The bull allowed Portugal to claim and conquer lands in West Africa. Pope Alexander VI extended to Spain the right to conquer newly-found lands in 1493, with the papal bull Inter caetera, after Christopher Columbus had already begun doing so. Arguments between Portugal and Spain led to the Treaty of Tordesillas which clarified that only non-Christian lands could thus be taken, as well as drawing a line of demarcation to allocate potential discoveries between the two powers.

United States Law

According to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Johnson vs. McIntosh, this theory of Christian expansion and possession of newly discovered lands, despite native presence, was one by which all colonial powers operated. Chief Justice Marshall, writing the decision, held that the United Kingdom had taken title to the lands, which constituted the United States when the British discovered them. Marshall pointed to the exploration charters given to John Cabot as proof that the British had operated under the doctrine. The tribes which occupied the land were, at the moment of discovery, no longer completely sovereign and had no property rights but rather merely held a right of occupancy. Further, only the discovering nation or its successor could take possession of the land from the natives by conquest or purchase. Natives could not sell the land to private citizens but only to the discovering government. The doctrine was used in numerous other cases as well. With Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, it supported the concept that tribes were not independent states but "domestic dependent nations". The decisions in Oliphant vs. Suquamish Indian Tribe and Duro vs. Reina used the doctrine to prohibit tribes from criminally prosecuting first non-Indians, then Indians who weren't a member of the prosecuting tribe.

 

Manifest Destiny was the 19th century American belief that the United States was destined to expand across the North American continent, from the

CORRECT ALL BELOW

 

 Atlantic Seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. It was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico; the concept was denounced by Whigs, and fell into disuse after the mid-19th century.

Advocates of Manifest Destiny believed that expansion was not only wise but that it was readily apparent (manifest) and inexorable (destiny).

The concept of American expansion is much older, but John L. O'Sullivan coined the exact term "Manifest Destiny" in the July/August 1845 issue of the United States Magazine and Democratic Review in an article titled "Annexation."^[1][2] It was primarily used by Democrats to support the expansion plans of the Polk Administration, but the idea of expansion faced opposition from Whigs like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and Abraham Lincoln who wanted to deepen the economy rather than broaden its expanse. John C. Calhoun was a notable Democrat who generally opposed his party on the issue, which fell out of favor by 1860.^[3]

The belief in an American mission to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, as expounded by Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson, continues to have an influence on American political ideology.^[4]

Contents [hide] 1 Context and interpretations 2 Themes and influences 3 Era of continental expansion 3.1 Continentalism 3.1.1 All Oregon 3.2 Mexico and Texas 3.2.1 All Mexico 3.3 Filibustering in the South 3.4 Native Americans 4 Beyond North America 4.1 Spanish–American War and the Philippines 4.2 Later usage 5 German Lebensraum 6 See also 7 Notes 8 References 9 Further reading 9.1 Journal articles 9.2 Books 10 External links

[edit] Context and interpretations

Manifest Destiny was always a general notion rather than a specific policy. The term combined a belief in expansionism with other popular ideas of the era, including American exceptionalism, Romantic nationalism, and a belief in the natural superiority of people of English descent. While many writers focus primarily upon American expansionism when discussing Manifest Destiny, others see in the term a broader expression of a belief in America's "mission" in the world, which has meant different things to different people over the years. This variety of possible meanings was summed up by Ernest Lee Tuveson, who wrote:

A vast complex of ideas, policies, and actions is comprehended under the phrase 'Manifest Destiny'. They are not, as we should expect, all compatible, nor do they come from any one source.^[5]

John L. O'Sullivan, sketched in 1874, was an influential columnist as a young man, but is now generally remembered only for his use of the phrase "Manifest Destiny" to advocate the annexation of Texas and Oregon.

Journalist John L. O'Sullivan, an influential advocate for the Democratic Party, wrote an article in 1839 which, while not using the term "Manifest Destiny", did predict a "divine destiny" for the United States based upon values such as equality, rights of conscience, and personal enfranchisement-- "to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man". This destiny was not explicitly territorial, but O'Sullivan predicted that the United States would be one of a "Union of many Republics" sharing those values.^[6]

Six years later O'Sullivan wrote another essay which first used the phrase Manifest Destiny. In 1845, he published a piece entitled Annexation in the Democratic Review,^[7] in which he urged the U.S. to annex the Republic of Texas, not only because Texas desired this, but because it was "our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions".^[8] Amid much controversy, Texas was annexed shortly thereafter, but O'Sullivan's first usage of the phrase "Manifest Destiny" attracted little attention.^[9]

O'Sullivan's second use of the phrase became extremely influential. On December 27, 1845 in his newspaper the New York Morning News, O'Sullivan addressed the ongoing boundary dispute with the United Kingdom in the Oregon Country. O'Sullivan argued that the United States had the right to claim "the whole of Oregon":

And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.^[10]

That is, O'Sullivan believed that Providence had given the United States a mission to spread republican democracy ("the great experiment of liberty") throughout North America. Because Britain would not use Oregon for the purposes of spreading democracy, thought O'Sullivan, British claims to the territory should be overruled. O'Sullivan believed that Manifest Destiny was a moral ideal (a "higher law") that superseded other considerations.^[11]

O'Sullivan's original conception of Manifest Destiny was not a call for territorial expansion by force. He believed that the expansion of the United States would happen without the direction of the U.S. government or the involvement of the military. After "Anglo-Saxons" emigrated to new regions, they would set up new democratic governments, and then seek admission to the United States, as Texas had done. In 1845, O'Sullivan predicted that California would follow this pattern next, and that Canada would eventually request annexation as well. He disapproved of the outbreak of the Mexican-American War in 1846, although he came to believe that the outcome would be beneficial to both countries.^[12]

Ironically, O'Sullivan's term became popular only after it was criticized by Whig opponents of the Polk administration. Whigs denounced Manifest Destiny, arguing, "that the designers and supporters of schemes of conquest, to be carried on by this government, are engaged in treason to our Constitution and Declaration of Rights, giving aid and comfort to the enemies of republicanism, in that they are advocating and preaching the doctrine of the right of conquest."^[13] On January 3, 1846, Representative Robert Winthrop ridiculed the concept in Congress, saying "I suppose the right of a manifest destiny to spread will not be admitted to exist in any nation except the universal Yankee nation." Winthrop was the first in a long line of critics who suggested that advocates of Manifest Destiny were citing "Divine Providence" for justification of actions that were motivated by chauvinism and self-interest. Despite this criticism, expansionists embraced the phrase, which caught on so quickly that its origin was soon forgotten. O'Sullivan died in obscurity in 1895, just as his phrase was being revived. In 1927, a historian determined that the phrase had originated with him.^[14]

[edit] Themes and influences

Historian William E. Weeks has noted that three key themes were usually touched upon by advocates of Manifest Destiny:

1. the virtue of the American people and their institutions;
2. the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the U.S.; and
3. the destiny under God to do this work.^[15]

The origin of the first theme, later known as American Exceptionalism, was often traced to America's Puritan heritage, particularly John Winthrop's famous "City upon a Hill" sermon of 1630, in which he called for the establishment of a virtuous community that would be a shining example to the Old World. In his influential 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine echoed this notion, arguing that the American Revolution provided an opportunity to create a new, better society:

We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand...

Many Americans agreed with Paine, and came to believe that the United States had embarked upon a special experiment in freedom and democracy—and a rejection of Old World monarchy in favor of republicanism—an innovation of world historical importance. President Abraham Lincoln's description, in his December 1, 1862 message to Congress, of the United States as "the last, best hope of Earth" is a well-known expression of this idea. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in which he interpreted the Civil War as a struggle to determine if any nation with democratic ideals could survive, has been called by historian Robert Johannsen "the most enduring statement of America's Manifest Destiny and mission".^[16] Lincoln opposed Southern sectionalism, anti-immigrant nativism, and the imperialism of Manifest Destiny as both unjust and unreasonable. He believed each of these disordered forms of love threatened the inseparable moral and fraternal bonds of liberty and Union that he sought to perpetuate through a patriotic love of country guided by wisdom and critical self-awareness. Lincoln's "Eulogy to Henry Clay", June 6, 1852 provides the most cogent expression of his reflective patriotism.^[17]

Not all Americans who believed that the United States was a divinely favored nation thought that it ought to expand. Whigs especially argued that the "mission" of the United States was only to serve as virtuous example to the rest of the world. If the United States was successful as a shining "city on a hill," people in other countries would seek to establish their own democratic republics. Thomas Jefferson initially did not believe it necessary that the United States should grow in size, since he predicted that other, similar republics would be founded in North America, forming what he called an "empire for liberty." However, with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which doubled the size of the United States, Jefferson set the stage for the continental expansion of the United States. Many began to see this as the beginning of a new "mission"—what Andrew Jackson in 1843 famously described as "extending the area of freedom." As more territory was added to the United States in the following decades, whether or not "extending the area of freedom" also meant extending the institution of slavery became a central issue in a growing divide over the interpretation of America's mission.

[edit] Era of continental expansion

John Quincy Adams, painted above in 1816 by Charles Robert Leslie, was an early proponent of continentalism. Late in life he came to regret his role in helping U.S. slavery to expand, and became a leading opponent of the annexation of Texas.

The phrase "Manifest Destiny" is most often associated with the territorial expansion of the United States from 1812 to 1860. This era, from the end of the War of 1812 to the beginning of the American Civil War, has been called the "Age of Manifest Destiny." During this time, the United States expanded to the Pacific Ocean—"from sea to shining sea"—largely defining the borders of the contiguous United States as they are today.^[18]

[edit] Continentalism

The 19th century belief that the United States would eventually encompass all of North America is known as "continentalism".^[19] An early proponent of this idea was John Quincy Adams, a leading figure in U.S. expansion between the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the Polk administration in the 1840s. In 1811, Adams wrote to his father:

The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union.^[20]

Adams did much to further this idea. He orchestrated the Treaty of 1818, which established the United States-Canada border as far west as the Rocky Mountains, and provided for the joint occupation of the region known in American history as the Oregon Country and in British and Canadian history as the New Caledonia and Columbia Districts. He negotiated the Transcontinental Treaty in 1819, purchasing Florida from Spain and extending the U.S. border with Spanish Mexico all the way to the Pacific Ocean. And he formulated the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which warned Europe that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open for European colonization.

The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny were closely related ideas: historian Walter McDougall calls Manifest Destiny a corollary of the Monroe Doctrine, because while the Monroe Doctrine did not specify expansion, expansion was necessary in order to enforce the Doctrine. Concerns in the United States that European powers (especially Great Britain) were seeking to acquire colonies or greater influence in North America led to calls for expansion in order to prevent this. In his influential 1935 study of Manifest Destiny, Albert Weinberg wrote that "the expansionism of the [1830s] arose as a defensive effort to forestall the encroachment of Europe in North America."^[21]

[edit] All Oregon

Manifest Destiny played its most important role in, and was coined during the course of, the Oregon boundary dispute with Britain. The Anglo-American Convention of 1818 had provided for the joint occupation of the Oregon Country, and thousands of Americans migrated there in the 1840s over the Oregon Trail. The British rejected a proposal by President John Tyler to divide the region along the 49th parallel, and instead proposed a boundary line further south along the Columbia River, which would have made what is now the state of Washington part of British North America. Advocates of Manifest Destiny protested and called for the annexation of the entire Oregon Country up to the Alaska line (54°40ʹ N). Presidential candidate James K. Polk used this popular outcry to his advantage, and the Democrats called for the annexation of "All Oregon" in the 1844 U.S. Presidential election.

As president, however, Polk sought compromise and renewed the earlier offer to divide the territory in half along the 49th parallel, to the dismay of the most ardent advocates of Manifest Destiny. When the British refused the offer, American expansionists responded with slogans such as "The Whole of Oregon or None!" and "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!", referring to the northern border of the region. (The latter slogan is often mistakenly described as having been a part of the 1844 presidential campaign.) When Polk moved to terminate the joint occupation agreement, the British finally agreed to divide the region along the 49th parallel in early 1846, keeping the lower Columbia basin as part of the United States, and the dispute was settled by the Oregon Treaty of 1846, which the administration was able to sell to congress because the United States was about to begin the Mexican-American war, and the president and others argued it would be foolish to also fight the British Empire.

American westward expansion is idealized in Emanuel Leutze's famous painting Westward the Course of Empire Takes its Way (1861). The title of the painting, from a 1726 poem by Bishop Berkeley, was a phrase often quoted in the era of Manifest Destiny, expressing a widely held belief that civilization had steadily moved westward throughout history. (more)

Despite the earlier clamor for "All Oregon," the treaty was popular in the U.S. and was easily ratified by the Senate. The most fervent advocates of Manifest Destiny had not prevailed along the northern border because, according to Reginald Stuart, "the compass of Manifest Destiny pointed west and southwest, not north, despite the use of the term 'continentalism'."^[22]

[edit] Mexico and Texas

Manifest Destiny proved to be more consequential in U.S. relations with Mexico. In 1836, the Republic of Texas declared independence from Mexico and, after the Texas Revolution, sought to join the United States as a new state. This was an idealized process of expansion which had been advocated from Aaron Burr to O'Sullivan: newly democratic and independent states would request entry into the United States, rather than the United States extending its government over people who did not want it. The annexation of Texas was controversial as it would add another slave state to the Union. Presidents Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren declined Texas's offer to join the United States in part because the slavery issue threatened to divide the Democratic Party.

Before the election of 1844, Whig candidate Henry Clay and the presumed Democratic candidate, former President Van Buren, both declared themselves opposed to the annexation of Texas, each hoping to keep the troublesome topic from becoming a campaign issue. This unexpectedly led to Van Buren being dropped by the Democrats in favor of Polk, who favored annexation. Polk tied the Texas annexation question with the Oregon dispute, thus providing a sort of regional compromise on expansion. (Expansionists in the North were more inclined to promote the occupation of Oregon, while Southern expansionists focused primarily on the annexation of Texas.) Although elected by a very slim margin, Polk proceeded as if his victory had been a mandate for expansion.

[edit] All Mexico

After the election of Polk, but before he took office, Congress approved the annexation of Texas. Polk moved to occupy a portion of Texas which was also claimed by Mexico, paving the way for the outbreak of the Mexican-American War on April 24, 1846. With American successes on the battlefield, by the summer of 1847 there were calls for the annexation of "All Mexico," particularly among Eastern Democrats, who argued that bringing Mexico into the Union was the best way to ensure future peace in the region.^[23]

This was a controversial proposition for two reasons. First, idealistic advocates of Manifest Destiny like John L. O'Sullivan had always maintained that the laws of the United States should not be imposed on people against their will. The annexation of "All Mexico" would be a violation of this principle. And secondly, the annexation of Mexico was controversial because it would mean extending U.S. citizenship to millions of Mexicans. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, who had approved of the annexation of Texas, was opposed to the annexation of Mexico, as well as the "mission" aspect of Manifest Destiny, for racial reasons. He made these views clear in a speech to Congress on January 4, 1848:

[W]e have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.... We are anxious to force free government on all; and I see that it has been urged ... that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake.^[24]

This debate brought to the forefront one of the contradictions of Manifest Destiny: on the one hand, while racist ideas inherent in Manifest Destiny suggested that Mexicans, as non-whites, were a lesser race and thus not qualified to become Americans, the "mission" component of Manifest Destiny suggested that Mexicans would be improved (or "regenerated," as it was then described) by bringing them into American democracy. Racism was used to promote Manifest Destiny, but, as in the case of Calhoun and the resistance to the "All Mexico" movement, racism was also used to oppose Manifest Destiny.^[25] Conversely, proponents of annexation of "All Mexico" regarded it as an anti-slavery measure.^[26]

The controversy was eventually ended by the Mexican Cession, which added the territories of Alta California and Nuevo México to the United States, both more sparsely populated than the rest of Mexico. Like the All Oregon movement, the All Mexico movement quickly abated. Historian Frederick Merk, in Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History: A Reinterpretation (1963), argued that the failure of the All Oregon and All Mexico movements indicates that Manifest Destiny had not been as popular as historians have traditionally portrayed it to have been. Merk wrote that, while belief in the beneficent mission of democracy was central to American history, aggressive "continentalism" were aberrations supported by only a very small (but influential) minority of Americans. Merk's interpretation is probably still a minority opinion; scholars generally see Manifest Destiny, at least in the 1840s, as a popular belief among Democrats and an unpopular one among Whigs.

[edit] Filibustering in the South

After the Mexican-American War ended in 1848, disagreements over the expansion of slavery made further territorial annexation too divisive to be official government policy. Many Northerners were increasingly opposed to what they believed to be efforts by Southern slave owners—and their friends in the North—to expand slavery at any cost. The proposal of the Wilmot Proviso during the war, and the emergence of various "Slave Power" conspiracy theories thereafter, indicated the degree to which Manifest Destiny had become controversial.

Without official government support, the most radical advocates of Manifest Destiny increasingly turned to military filibustering. While there had been some filibustering expeditions into Canada in the late 1830s, the primary target of Manifest Destiny’s filibusters was Latin America, particularly Mexico and Cuba. Though illegal, the filibustering operations in the late 1840s and early 1850s were romanticized in the U.S. press. Wealthy American expansionists financed dozens of expeditions, usually based out of New Orleans.

Filibuster William Walker, who launched several expeditions to Mexico and Central America, ruled Nicaragua, and was captured and executed in Honduras

The United States had long been interested in acquiring Cuba from the declining Spanish Empire. As with Texas, Oregon, and California, American policy makers were concerned that Cuba would fall into British hands, which, according to the thinking of the Monroe Doctrine, would constitute a threat to the interests of the United States. Prompted by John L. O'Sullivan, in 1848 President Polk offered to buy Cuba from Spain for $100 million. Polk feared that filibustering would hurt his effort to buy the island, and so he informed the Spanish of an attempt by the Cuban filibuster Narciso López to seize Cuba by force and annex it to the U.S., and the plot was foiled. Nevertheless, Spain declined to sell the island, which ended Polk's efforts to acquire Cuba. O'Sullivan, on the other hand, continued to raise money for filibustering expeditions, eventually landing him in legal trouble.^[27]

Filibustering continued to be a major concern for presidents after Polk. Whigs presidents Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore tried to suppress the expeditions. When the Democrats recaptured the White House in 1852 with the election of Franklin Pierce, a filibustering effort by John A. Quitman to acquire Cuba received the tentative support of the president. Pierce backed off, however, and instead renewed the offer to buy the island, this time for $130 million. When the public learned of the Ostend Manifesto in 1854, which argued that the United States could seize Cuba by force if Spain refused to sell, this effectively killed the effort to acquire the island. The public now linked expansion with slavery; if Manifest Destiny had once enjoyed widespread popular approval, this was no longer true.^[28]

Filibusters like William Walker continued to garner headlines in the late 1850s, but with the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1860, the "Age of Manifest Destiny" came to an end. Expansionism was among the various issues that played a role in the coming of the war. With the divisive question of the expansion of slavery, Northerners and Southerners, in effect, were coming to define Manifest Destiny in different ways, undermining nationalism as a unifying force. According to Frederick Merk, "The doctrine of Manifest Destiny, which in the 1840s had seemed Heaven-sent, proved to have been a bomb wrapped up in idealism."^[29]

[edit] Native Americans

Manifest Destiny had serious consequences for Native Americans and African Americans, since continental expansion implicitly meant the occupation and annexation of Native American land, sometimes to expand slavery. The United States continued the European practice of recognizing only limited land rights of indigenous peoples. In a policy formulated largely by Henry Knox, Secretary of War in the Washington Administration, the U.S. government sought to expand into the west through the nominally legal (by United States law) purchase of Native American land in treaties. Indians were encouraged to sell their vast tribal lands and become "civilized", which meant (among other things) for Native American men to abandon hunting and become farmers, and for their society to reorganize around the family unit rather than the clan or tribe. The United States therefore acquired lands by treaty from Indian nations, usually under circumstances which suggest a lack of voluntary and knowing consent by the native signers, and in many cases a lack of authority by the signers to make any such transaction.

Advocates of civilization programs believed that the process of settling native tribes would greatly reduce the amount of land needed by the Native Americans, making more land available for homesteading by white Americans. Thomas Jefferson believed that while American Indians were the intellectual equals of whites, they had to live like the whites or inevitably be pushed aside by them.^{[citation needed]}, Jefferson's belief, rooted in Enlightenment thinking, that whites and Native Americans would merge to create a single nation did not last his lifetime, and he began to believe that the natives should emigrate across the Mississippi River and maintain a separate society, an idea made possible by the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.^{[citation needed]}

In the age of Manifest Destiny, this idea, which came to be known as "Indian Removal", gained ground. Although some humanitarian advocates of removal believed that American Indians would be better off moving away from whites, an increasing number of Americans regarded the natives as nothing more than savages who stood in the way of American expansion. As historian Reginald Horsman argued in his influential study Race and Manifest Destiny, racial rhetoric increased during the era of Manifest Destiny. Americans increasingly believed that Native Americans would fade away as the United States expanded. As an example, this idea was reflected in the work of one of America's first great historians, Francis Parkman, whose landmark book The Conspiracy of Pontiac was published in 1851. Parkman wrote that Indians were "destined to melt and vanish before the advancing waves of Anglo-American power, which now rolled westward unchecked and unopposed."^[30]

[edit] Beyond North America

As the Civil War faded into history, the term Manifest Destiny experienced a brief revival. In the 1892 U.S. presidential election, the Republican Party platform proclaimed: "We reaffirm our approval of the Monroe doctrine and believe in the achievement of the manifest destiny of the Republic in its broadest sense." What was meant by "manifest destiny" in this context was not clearly defined, particularly since the Republicans lost the election. In the 1896 election, however, the Republicans recaptured the White House and held on to it for the next 16 years. During that time, Manifest Destiny was cited to promote overseas expansion. Whether or not this version of Manifest Destiny was consistent with the continental expansionism of the 1840s was debated at the time, and long afterwards.^[31]

For example, when President William McKinley advocated annexation of the Territory of Hawaii in 1898, he said that "We need Hawaii as much and a good deal more than we did California. It is manifest destiny." On the other hand, former President Grover Cleveland, a Democrat who had blocked the annexation of Hawaii during his administration, wrote that McKinley's annexation of the territory was a "perversion of our national destiny." Historians continued that debate; some have interpreted the overseas expansion of the 1890s of other Pacific island groups as an extension of Manifest Destiny across the Pacific Ocean. Others have regarded it as the antithesis of Manifest Destiny and merely imperialism.^[32]

[edit] Spanish–American War and the Philippines

In 1898, after the sinking of the USS Maine in the harbor at Havana, Cuba, the United States intervened on the side of Cuban rebels who were fighting the Spanish Empire, beginning the Spanish–American War. Although advocates of Manifest Destiny in the 1840s had called for the annexation of Cuba, the Teller Amendment, passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate before the war, proclaimed Cuba "free and independent" and disclaimed any U.S. intention to annex the island. After the war, the Platt Amendment (1902) established Cuba as a virtual protectorate of the United States. If Manifest Destiny meant the outright annexation of territory, it no longer applied to Cuba, since Cuba was never annexed.

Unlike Cuba, the United States did annex Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines after the war with Spain. The acquisition of these islands marked a new chapter in U.S. history. Traditionally, territories were acquired by the United States for the purpose of becoming new states, on equal footing with already existing states. These islands, however, were acquired as colonies rather than prospective states, a process validated by the Insular Cases, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that full constitutional rights did not automatically extend to all areas under American control. In this sense, annexation was a violation of traditional Manifest Destiny. According to Frederick Merk, "Manifest Destiny had contained a principle so fundamental that a Calhoun and an O'Sullivan could agree on it—that a people not capable of rising to statehood should never be annexed. That was the principle thrown overboard by the imperialism of 1899."^[33] (The Philippines was eventually given its independence in 1946; Guam and Puerto Rico have special status to this day, but all their people are full citizens of the United States.)

Rudyard Kipling's poem "The White Man's Burden", which was subtitled "The United States and the Philippine Islands", was a famous expression of imperialist sentiments,^[34] which were common at the time. The nascent revolutionary government desirous of independence, however, resisted the U.S. in the outbreak of the Philippine-American War in 1899. After the war began, William Jennings Bryan, an opponent of overseas expansion, wrote that "‘Destiny’ is not as manifest as it was a few weeks ago."^[35]

[edit] Later usage

After the turn of the nineteenth century to the twentieth, the phrase Manifest Destiny declined in usage, as territorial expansion ceased to be promoted as being a part of America's "destiny." Under President Theodore Roosevelt the role of the United States in the New World was defined, in the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, as being an "international police power" to secure American interests in the Western Hemisphere. Roosevelt's corollary contained an explicit rejection of territorial expansion. In the past, Manifest Destiny had been seen as necessary to enforce the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere, but now expansionism had been replaced by interventionism as a means of upholding the doctrine.

President Woodrow Wilson continued the policy of interventionism in the Americas, and attempted to redefine both Manifest Destiny and America's "mission" on a broader, worldwide scale. Wilson led the United States into World War I with the argument that "The world must be made safe for democracy." In his 1920 message to Congress after the war, Wilson stated:

...I think we all realize that the day has come when Democracy is being put upon its final test. The Old World is just now suffering from a wanton rejection of the principle of democracy and a substitution of the principle of autocracy as asserted in the name, but without the authority and sanction, of the multitude. This is the time of all others when Democracy should prove its purity and its spiritual power to prevail. It is surely the manifest destiny of the United States to lead in the attempt to make this spirit prevail.

This was the only time a president had used the phrase "Manifest Destiny" in his annual address. Wilson's version of Manifest Destiny was a rejection of expansionism and an endorsement (in principle) of self-determination, emphasizing that the United States had a mission to be a world leader for the cause of democracy. This U.S. vision of itself as the leader of the "Free World" would grow stronger in the 20th century after World War II, although rarely would it be described as "Manifest Destiny", as Wilson had done.^[36]

Today, in standard scholarly usage, Manifest Destiny describes a past era in American history, particularly the 1840s. However, the term is sometimes used by the political left and by critics of U.S. foreign policy to characterize interventions in the Middle East and elsewhere. In this usage, Manifest Destiny is interpreted as the underlying cause of what is perceived by some as "American imperialism."

[edit] German Lebensraum

German geographer Friedrich Ratzel visited North America beginning in 1873^[37] and saw the effects of American manifest destiny.^[38] Ratzel sympathized with the results of "manifest destiny", but he never used the term. Instead he relied on the Frontier Thesis of Frederick Jackson Turner.^[39] Ratzel promoted overseas colonies for Germany in Asia and Africa, but not an expansion into Slavic lands.^[40] Later German publicists misinterpreted Ratzel to argue for the right of the German race to expand within Europe; that notion was later incorporated into Nazi ideology, as Lebensraum.^[38] Harriet Wanklyn, (1961) argues that Ratzel's theory was designed to advance science, and that politicians distorted it for political goals.^[41]

[edit] See also

History of U.S. expansion and influence

Foreign policy

Military history

Timeline of military operations

List of bases

Manifest Destiny

Non-interventionism

Overseas interventions

Pax Americana

America's Backyard

Territorial acquisitions

view · talk · edit

• Colonialism
• Frontier Thesis — Frederick Jackson Turner conclusion that the wellsprings of American exceptionalism and vitality have always been the American frontier.
• The White Man's Burden — an influential poem by Rudyard Kipling advocating colonization by the United States
• Young America movement — a political and literary movement with connections to Manifest Destiny
• Expansionism — for expansionist ideas in other countries
• Frances Fuller Victor — prominent western historian and fiction writer who captured the spirit of western expansion
• Thomas Hart Benton — Missouri senator, proponent of western expansion
• Stephen A. Douglas — prominent spokesman of "Young America"
• Horace Greeley — helped popularize the phrase "Go West, young man."
• Duff Green — writer, politician, and prominent Manifest Destiny advocate
• American imperialism
• American exceptionalism
• Lebensraum

[edit] Notes

1.      ^ Adams 2008, p. 188.

2.      ^ See Julius Pratt, "The Origin Of "Manifest Destiny", American Historical Review, July 1927, pp. 795-98 in JSTOR. Linda S. Hudson has argued that it was coined by writer Jane McManus Storm; Greenburg, p. 20; Hudson 2001; O'Sullivan biographer Robert D. Sampson disputes Hudson's claim for a variety of reasons (See note 7 at Sampson 2003, pp. 244–245).

3.      ^ As shown by the wide ridicule of the Alaska Purchase in 1867. By Frederick Merk, Manifest destiny and mission in American history: a reinterpretation (1995) p. 229

4.      ^ Stephanson 1996, pp. 112–29 examines the influence of Manifest Destiny in the 20th century, particularly as articulated by Woodrow Wilson.

5.      ^ Tuveson 1980, p. 91.

6.      ^ O’Sullivan, John L., A Divine Destiny for America, 1845.

7.      ^ O'Sullivan, John L. (July–August 1845). "Annexation". United States Magazine and Democratic Review 17 (1): 5–10. http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/HIS/f01/HIS202-01/Documents/OSullivan.html. Retrieved 2008-05-20. 

8.      ^ Zinn 2005, p. 151.

9.      ^ Robert W. Johannsen, "The Meaning of Manifest Destiny", in Johannsen 1997.

10.  ^ McCrisken, Trevor B., Exceptionalism: Manifest Destiny (accessed 2008-05-20), in Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy, Vol. 2, p. 68. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York (2002). ISBN 0-684-80657-6.

11.  ^ Weinberg 1935, p. 145; Johannsen 1997, p. 9.

12.  ^ Johannsen 1997, p. 10.

13.  ^ "Prospectus of the New Series," The American Whig Review Volume 7 Issue 1 (Jan 1848) p 2

14.  ^ Winthrop quote: Weinberg 1935, p. 143; O'Sullivan's death, later discovery of phrase's origin: Stephanson 1996, p. xii.

15.  ^ Weeks 1996, p. 61.

16.  ^ Johannsen 1997, pp. 18–19.

17.  ^ Joseph R. Fornieri, "Lincoln's Reflective Patriotism," Perspectives on Political Science, Apr-June 2010, Vol. 39#2 pp 108-117

18.  ^ Stuart and Weeks call this period the "Era of Manifest Destiny" and the "Age of Manifest Destiny," respectively.

19.  ^ Continental and Continentalism, sociologyindex.com.

20.  ^ Adams quoted in McDougall 1997, p. 78.

21.  ^ McDougall 1997, p. 74; Weinberg 1935, p. 109.

22.  ^ Treaty popular: Stuart 1988, p. 104; compass quote p. 84.

23.  ^ Merk & Merk 1963, pp. 144–47; Fuller 1936; Hietala 2003.

24.  ^ Calhoun, John C. (1848). "Conquest of Mexico". TeachingAmericanHistory.org. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=478. Retrieved 2007-10-19. 

25.  ^ McDougall 1997, pp. 87–95.

26.  ^ Fuller 1936, pp. 119, 122, 162 and passim.

27.  ^ Crocker 2006, p. 150.

28.  ^ Weeks 1996, pp. 144–52.

29.  ^ Merk & Merk 1963, p. 214.

30.  ^ Fisher 1985, p. 26

31.  ^ Republican Party platform; context not clearly defined, Merk & Merk 1963, p. 241.

32.  ^ McKinley quoted in McDougall 1997, pp. 112–13; Merk & Merk 1963, p. 257.

33.  ^ Merk & Merk 1963, p. 257.

34.  ^ Kipling, Rudyard The White Man's Burden.

35.  ^ Bryan 1899.

36.  ^ "Safe for democracy"; 1920 message; Wilson's version of Manifest Destiny: Weinberg 1935, p. 471.

37.  ^ Mattelart 1996, pp. 212–216.

38.  ^ ^{a b} Klinghoffer 2006, p. 86.

39.  ^ The Atlantic Monthly, January 1895, pp. 124–128. "A German Appraisal of the United States." Retrieved on October 17, 2009.

40.  ^ Woodruff D. Smith, "Friedrich Ratzel and the Origins of Lebensraum," German Studies Review, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Feb., 1980), pp. 51-68 in JSTOR

41.  ^ Wanklyn 1961, pp. 36–40.

[edit] References

• Adams, Sean Patrick (2008). The Early American Republic: A Documentary Reader. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9781405160988. http://books.google.com/books?id=9SE_zwYlXrQC. 
• Bryan, William Jennings (1899). Republic or Empire?. http://books.google.com/books?id=lTk-B-lwmnUC. 
• Crocker, H. W. (2006). Don't tread on me: a 400-year history of America at war, from Indian fighting to terrorist hunting. Crown Forum. ISBN 9781400053636. http://books.google.com/books?id=tFYWAQAAIAAJ. 
• Fisher, Philip (1985). Hard facts: setting and form in the American novel. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195035285. http://books.google.com/books?id=NhvdAAAAIAAJ. 
• Fuller, John Douglas Pitts (1936). The movement for the acquisition of all Mexico, 1846-1848. Johns Hopkins Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=uTDJAAAAMAAJ. 
• Greenberg, Amy S. (2005). Manifest manhood and the antebellum American empire. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521840965. http://books.google.com/books?id=EQV6wPzlyOcC+. 
• Hietala, Thomas R. (February 2003). Manifest design: American exceptionalism and Empire. Cornell University Press. ISBN 9780801488467. http://books.google.com/books?id=hhMlmAM7tOYC.  Previously published as Hietala, Thomas R. (1985). Manifest design: anxious aggrandizement in late Jacksonian America. Cornell University Press. ISBN 9780801417351. http://books.google.com/books?id=iLXtAAAAMAAJ. 
• Hudson, Linda S. (2001). Mistress of Manifest Destiny: a biography of Jane McManus Storm Cazneau, 1807-1878. Texas State Historical Association. ISBN 9780876111796. http://books.google.com/books?id=FAELAAAAYAAJ. 
• Johannsen, Robert Walter (1997). Manifest destiny and empire: American antebellum expansionism. Published for the University of Texas at Arlington by Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 9780890967560. http://books.google.com/books?id=YumVQgAACAAJ. 
• Klinghoffer, Arthur Jay (2006). The power of projections: how maps reflect global politics and history. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780275991357. http://books.google.com/books?id=WhyPBHJV5VYC. 
• Mattelart, Armand (1996). The invention of communication. U of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9780816626977. http://books.google.com/books?id=kOduCi83O5QC. 
• McDougall, Walter A. (1997). Promised land, crusader state: the American encounter with the world since 1776. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 9780395830857. http://books.google.com/books?id=rwZ26AJl-0oC. 
• Merk, Frederick; Merk, Lois Bannister (1963). Manifest destiny and mission in American history: a reinterpretation. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674548053. http://books.google.com/books?id=GhYJTaZiuxwC. 
• Sampson, Robert (2003). John L. O'Sullivan and his times. Kent State University Press. ISBN 9780873387453. http://books.google.com/books?id=d1y5ew93xxIC. 
• Stephanson, Anders (1996). Manifest destiny: American expansionism and the empire of right. Hill and Wang. ISBN 9780809015849. http://books.google.com/books?id=J3m9ByBK-NIC. 
• Stuart, Reginald C. (1988). United States expansionism and British North America, 1775-1871. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9780807817674. http://books.google.com/books?id=C3B1AAAAMAAJ. 
• Tuveson, Ernest Lee (1980). Redeemer nation: the idea of America's millennial role. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226819211. http://books.google.com/books?id=-FM8cDl9g00C. 
• Weeks, William Earl (1996). Building the continental empire: American expansion from the Revolution to the Civil War. Ivan R. Dee. ISBN 9781566631358. http://books.google.com/books?id=vcsk8UsgNRsC. 
• Weinberg, Albert Katz; Walter Hines Page School of International Relations (1935). Manifest destiny: a study of nationalist expansionism in American history. The Johns Hopkins Press. ISBN 0404147062. http://books.google.com/books?id=F3N1AAAAMAAJ. 
• Wanklyn, Harriet (1961). Friedrich Ratzel: A Biographical Memoir and Bibliography. 
• Zinn, Howard (2005). A people's history of the United States, 1492-present. HarperPerennial. ISBN 9780060838652. http://books.google.com/books?id=DpQxAAAACAAJ. 

[edit] Further reading

[edit] Journal articles

• Dunning, Mike (2001). "Manifest Destiny and the Trans-Mississippi South: Natural Laws and the Extension of Slavery into Mexico.". Journal of Popular Culture 35 (2): 111–127. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3840.2001.00111.x. ISSN 0022-3840. Fulltext: Ebsco. 
• Pinheiro, John C (2003). "'Religion Without Restriction': Anti-catholicism, All Mexico, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo". Journal of the Early Republic 23 (1): 69–96. doi:10.2307/3124986. ISSN 0275-1275. 
• Sampson, Robert D (2002). "The Pacifist-reform Roots of John L. O'Sullivan's Manifest Destiny". Mid-America 84 (1-3): 129–144. ISSN 0026-2927. 

[edit] Books

• Brown, Charles Henry (January 1980). Agents of manifest destiny: the lives and times of the filibusters. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9780807813614. http://books.google.com/books?id=WNgMAAAAYAAJ. 
• Burns, Edward McNall (1957). The American idea of mission: concepts of national purpose and destiny. Rutgers University Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=25F1AAAAMAAJ. 
• Fresonke, Kris (2003). West of Emerson: the design of manifest destiny. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520231856. http://books.google.com/books?id=1ar_OqzDUJAC. 
• Gould, Lewis L. (1980). The Presidency of William McKinley. Regents Press of Kansas. ISBN 9780700602063. http://books.google.com/books?id=vnV3AAAAMAAJ. 
• Graebner, Norman A. (1968). Manifest destiny. Bobbs-Merrill. ISBN 0672509865. http://books.google.com/books?id=6z92AAAAMAAJ. 
• Heidler, David Stephen; Heidler, Jeanne T. (2003). Manifest destiny. Greenwood Press. ISBN 9780313323089. http://books.google.com/books?id=TEd2AAAAMAAJ. 
• Hofstadter, Richard (1965). "Cuba, the Philippines, and Manifest Destiny". The paranoid style in American politics: and other essays. Knopf. http://books.google.com/books?id=xSNPRAAACAAJ. 
• Horsman, Reginald (1981). Race and manifest destiny: the origins of American racial anglo-saxonism. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674948051. http://books.google.com/books?id=9TSc3iKP3ZkC. 
• May, Robert E. (2002). Manifest destiny's underworld: filibustering in antebellum America. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9780807827031. http://books.google.com/books?id=gpoMAAAAYAAJ. 
• Morrison, Michael A. (18 August 1999). Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse of Manifest Destiny and the Coming of the Civil War. UNC Press Books. ISBN 9780807847961. http://books.google.com/books?id=YTaxzMlkVEMC. 
• Sampson, Robert (2003). John L. O'Sullivan and his times. Kent State University Press. ISBN 9780873387453. http://books.google.com/books?id=d1y5ew93xxIC. 
• Smith, Gene A. (2000). Thomas Ap Catesby Jones: commodore of Manifest Destiny. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 9781557508485. http://books.google.com/books?id=moSfw360JOEC. 

[edit] External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Manifest Destiny

• Manifest Destiny and the U.S.-Mexican War: Then and Now
• President Polk's Inaugural Address

[show]v · d · eTerritorial expansion of the United States       Concept: Manifest Destiny Thirteen Colonies (1776) · Treaty of Paris (1783) · Louisiana Purchase (1803) · Red River Cession (1818) · Adams–Onís Treaty (1819) · Texas Annexation (1845) · Oregon Treaty (1846) · Mexican Cession (1848) · Gadsden Purchase (1853) · Guano Islands Act (1856) · Alaska Purchase (1867) · Annexation of Hawaii (1898) · Treaty of Paris (1898)