The following information is available in the book Moslem v Muslim.
Moslem v Muslim - PDF
$14.99
As-Salaamu Alakum. (Peace unto you).
Dear reader, I would like to first inform you that all knowledge is from Allah. The ability to comprehend, seek and acquire knowledge is bestowed upon us by none other than Allah اللَّٰه and Allah guides whom he wills and leads astray whom he wills. Therefore, it is necessary to say, that this information I am presenting, is being made to the best of my ability, based on research and cross-referencing various material, for the specific purpose of informing: foremost, my kin, my fellow Moors, and any others who may have the question “Who are the Moors?”. I make note that I do not claim any titles as I prepare this particular piece of reading material; other than: “an individual, who under military occupation by a foreign power, has been stripped of his national identity, true history, culture, language and religion. Who, in seeking to find his identity, found individuals like Taj Tarik Bey and Professor Kaba Hiawatha Kamene, who then lead me to the Moorish-American-Prophet, Noble Drew Ali, and his teachings that all those branded Blacks, Negros and Colored are truly Moors.” In studying his teachings, which I honestly believe are 100% true and without error, I have found many beautiful things about who I am and who my people are. I therefore, present this material as simply “study material” and hope that it will inspire all Moors to learn more about themselves and dig themselves out of the grave of historical and national ignorance about who they / we are.
I will address: (1) The Biblical / Torah תּוֹרָה / Tawrat التوراة / Septuagint origin of the Moorish nation.
(2) The “differences” between the Holy Koran of the Moorish Holy Temple of Science, which was divinely prepared by the Noble Prophet النبي Drew Ali, by the guiding of his father God, Allah; the great God of the universe. For the specific purpose of bringing Moors (blacks) from our sinful and fallen stage of humanity back to a national-political standing and submission to Allah: originally printed in 1926 when Drew Ali was 40; and the Holy Qur’an / Koran / القرآن, the central religious text of Islam reveled to Prophet النبي Muhammad by the angel Gabriel / Jabril / جبريل, in the year 610 when Muhammad was 40; and concluding in 632, the year of his death, by permission and authority of his father God, Allah; the great God of the universe.
(3) How Prophet Noble Drew Ali could be a “Prophet of Allah” if Prophet Muhammad was the “last and final Prophet and Messenger of Allah”.
(4) Who is Sultan Abdul Aziz and why is he in the opening pages of the Koran of Drew Ali
(5) Principles of nationality & core terms and phrases.
46 F.3d 988 Abdi DULANE, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 94-9504. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. Jan. 26, 1995. The basic terms of nationality law are matters of common knowledge and understanding… We know that nationality and citizenship are legal and political terms, denoting a status which confers important rights and responsibilities… Black's Law dictionary defines "nationality" as "[t]hat quality or character which arises from the fact of a person's belonging to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance;
English v. Misys International Banking Systems, Inc. Civil Action No. 05-2540 (DRD). July 19, 2005. DICKINSON DEBEVOISE, Senior District Judge What, then, does "nationality" encompass if it is not to be construed as being synonymous and coextensive with "national origin"? "Nationality" has several definitions, one of which appears to embrace the national origin concept — "a people having a common origin, tradition, and language and capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state" or "an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit." WEBSTER'S NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 788 (1983). In addition to the national origin definition, "nationality" is also defined as "a legal relationship involving allegiance on the part of an individual and usually protection on the part of the state" and "membership in a particular nation." Id. "Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1025 (6th ed. 1990). The "legal relationship" or "political status" definition, although not coterminous with citizenship, approaches such an understanding. See WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY 243 (defining citizenship as being the status of being a citizen, who is a member of a state or a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it).
[Note: 8 USC 1481 (a)(2) States that citizenship in the United States is lost when a formal declaration is made regarding allegiance to a nation, including military or militia service in said nation or declaration of nationality.]
Scales v. I.N.S. No. 97-70915. Argued and Submitted August 10, 2000. Filed November 21, 2000. B. FLETCHER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, and DUPLANTIER, District Judge. The Honorable Adrian G. Duplantier, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. TASHIMA, Circuit Judge: Although "[n]ationality and citizenship are not entirely synonymous . . . [t]he distinction has little practical impact today. . . . Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 467 n. 2, 118 S.Ct. 1428, 140 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998)
United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit. Kairi Abha SHEPHERD, a/k/a Kara Shepherd, a/k/a Kairi A. Shepherd, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent. No. 11–9520. Decided: May 08, 2012 Before HARTZ, O'BRIEN, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. Alan L. Smith, Salt Lake City, UT, for Petitioner. Jesse M. Bless, Trial Attorney, (David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, with him on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent Because nationality includes citizenship… nationality claims is understood to include citizenship claims.
United States Supreme Court. TROP v. DULLES(1958) No. 70 Argued: May 2, 1957 Decided: March 31, 1958 THE CHIEF JUSTICE, in an opinion joined by MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER, concluded that:
1. Citizenship is not subject to the general powers of the National Government and therefore cannot be divested in the exercise of those powers. Pp. 91-93.
2. Even if citizenship could be divested in the exercise of some governmental power, 401 (g) violates the Eighth Amendment, because it is penal in nature and prescribes a "cruel and unusual" punishment. Pp. 93-104.
In Perez v. Brownell, supra, I expressed the principles that I believe govern the constitutional status of United [356 U.S. 86, 92] States citizenship. It is my conviction that citizenship is not subject to the general powers of the National Government and therefore cannot be divested in the exercise of those powers. The right may be voluntarily relinquished or abandoned either by express language or by language and conduct that show a renunciation of citizenship.
[Note: There can be no argument of absolute certainty that by one claiming to be an “American citizen” that one means “Citizen of the United States.” As the Americas and American people existed before the United States. The Americas are continents, large bodies of land which are inhabited by several nations, states, body politics etc. People born in Mexico who are Americans are not U.S. Citizens; people born in Haiti, Cuba, Brazil, Chile, Argentina etc., are all Americans and NOT U.S. citizens absent any formal decleration of allegiance and application for U.S. citizenship.
The United States of America, identified by the Star-Spangled-Banner is a European body-politic who colonized North America, who “in their collective and corporate capacity” acting in unit as “the united States of America” – “namely the continental congress, composed of delegates from the thirteen colonies… declared the united States colonies to be free and independent… and have via their European descendants, fully colonized North America. But this does not mean they are the Americans. See United States v Curtis-Wright Export Corp supra.
SFF-TIR, LLC v Stepherson 262, F Supp 3d 1165. Britain’s thirteen colonies on the Atlantic seaboard… the American colonies… the English North American Colonies…
Deering v Parker 4 U.S. 23 United States Supreme Court. July 1st, 1760. …the New England colonies…
The United States are still European Colonies, albeit separate from the British Crown, those who haven’t mixed with the national bloodlines of aboriginal and indigenous Americans are still foreign European colonists and or their descendants and NOT Americans. Similarly, China, or the peoples republic of China, nor the Chinese people themselves can claim to be the only Asians in the way the U.S. implies as if they are the only Americans. Similarly, a German who otherwise does not mix and mate with the aboriginal and indigenous people of Asia, will never be an Asian national. No matter how many thousands of German descendants remain in or are born in Asia. German European individuals born to German parents in Asia, are still European Germans, not Asians. Same stands for the Europeans born on American soil. Their national origin lay in the nations of Europe. Individuals may be able to claim naturalized citizenship based on jus soli principles if the government acknowledges those principles, but they are never jus sanguine. Unless, again, they mate or mix with the nationals of the land and then their children become nationals. Thus, citizens of the United States may be American citizens, but they are not American nationals. Moors are American citizens, just as Brazilians and Cubans are American citizens and NOT citizens of the united States.]
U.S. Supreme Court. Talbot v. Jansen, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 133 133 (1795) Talbot v. Jansen 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 133
…the right of expatriation… It is implied, likewise, in the nature and object of the social compact, which was formed to shield the weakness, and to supply the wants of individuals--to protect the acquisitions of human industry, and to promote the means of human happiness. Whenever these purposes fail, either the whole society is dissolved, or the suffering individuals are permitted to withdraw from it.… Will it be said that the renunciation of allegiance to the former implies or draws after it a renunciation of allegiance to the latter? The sovereignties are different; the allegiance is different; the right too, may be different… The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of withdrawing allegiance from a previous, sovereign.
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/3/133
[Note: Hence, the decleration of ones Moorish / Moroccan nationality and allegiance to the same, severs, withdraws an terminates any preconceived notions, claims or beliefs of U.S. citizenship or US allegiance other than treaty obligations, to any other nation, state, quasi-nation, kingdom, sovereign, country, corporation, political body, union, federation et alia. Subsequently severing or removing any jurisdictional claims or assertions of anyone over a Moor. See the Act of State Doctrine in Hudson v Guestier, 4 Cranch 293, 294 where Chief Justice Marshall declared that one nation must recognize the acts and powers of another nation. The act of state doctrine appears as early as 1674 and appears in US jurisprudence as early as the 18th century. See Ware v Hylton, 3 Wheat 283, 336 and found in Underhill v Hernandez 168 U.S. 250, Where Chief Justice Fuller said for a unanimous court (p. 252) “Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgement on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory.”
See House Resolution 0689 – State of Illinois and House Resolution 1203 – State of Georgia recognizing Moorish American Week: “The Moorish Americans, being aboriginal to the territories of North, Central and South Americas have formed a sovereign theocratic government…”]
PACIFIC STATES TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF OREGON.
Supreme Court 223 U.S. 118 32 S.Ct. 224 56 L.Ed. 377 PACIFIC STATES TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF OREGON. No. 36. Argued November 3, 1911. Decided February 19, 1912. Messrs. E. S. Pillsbury and Oscar Sutro for plaintiff in error. [Argument of Counsel from pages 119-129 intentionally omitted]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/223/118
1. The guaranty of article IV, section 4, of the Federal Constitution is to the people of the States, and to each citizen, as well as to the States as political entities.
2. Section 4 of article IV therefore prohibits the majority in any State from adopting an unrepublican constitution.
[2] 1. Difference between a republic and democracy.
2. In ascertaining the meaning of the phrase "republican form of government" the debates of the constitutional conventions and the federalist papers are of great importance, if not conclusive.
3. The framers of the Constitution recognized the distinction between the republican and democratic form of government, and carefully avoided the latter.
4. The extent of territory of the States alone sufficed, in the judgment of the framers of the Constitution, to condemn the establishment of a democratic form of government.
Here is what Cornell University omitted from the plaintiff’s argument - https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep223/usrep223118/usrep223118.pdf :
U.S. Supreme Court Rose v. Himeley 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 241 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
A war de facto then unquestionably existed between France and St. Domingo. It has been argued that the colony, having declared itself a sovereign state and having thus far maintained its sovereignty by arms, must be considered and treated by other nations as sovereign in fact and as being entitled to maintain the same intercourse with the world that is maintained by other belligerent nations.
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research. Shimari v. Caci Premier Tech., Inc. Opinion 1:08-cv-827 (LMB/JFA) 2019-03-22 Suhail Najim Abdullah AL SHIMARI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CACI PREMIER TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Third-Party Defendant. Leonie M. Brinkema, United States District Judge For example, in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793), superseded by constitutional amendment, U.S. Const. amend XI, Chief Justice Jay wrote: … the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects ... and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.
Missouri v. Missouri Public Health & Welfare of Missouri No. 71-1021 Argued January 15, 1973. Decided April 18, 1973 411 U.S. 279 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT DOUGLAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which STEWART, J., joined, post, p. 411 U. S. 287. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 411 U. S. 298. Page 411 U. S. 280 MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. "We the People" formed the governments of the several States. Under our constitutional system, therefore, a State is not the sovereign of its people. Rather, its Page 411 U. S. 323 people are sovereign. Our discomfort with sovereign immunity, born of systems of divine right that the Framers abhorred, is thus entirely natural. The discomfort has markedly increased since subsidence of the controversy over judicial review of state decisions that was fought out in terms of the amenability of States to suit in federal court.
U.S. Supreme Court Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893) Nos. 1345, 1346, 1347 Argued May 10, 1893 Decided May 15, 1893 149 U.S. 698 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK There is a great deal of confusion in the use of the word "sovereignty" Page 149 U. S. 758 by law writers. Sovereignty or supreme power is in this country vested in the people, and only in the people. - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/149/698/
United States Supreme Court SMITH v. TURNER (1849) No. 42 Decided: January 1, 1849
We talk a great deal of the sovereignty of the United States and of the sovereignty of the several States. I hold that the only sovereignty in this country is in the people. From them, humanly speaking, proceed all the powers possessed by those who govern them. I know and acknowledge no other sovereign than the people. Whatever powers the general government possess are given to them by the people. Whatever powers the State governments possess are given by the people in the several States. The whole sovereignty of the country being in the people, they have the right to parcel it out, and to place it in the hands of such agents as they, in their wisdom, think proper.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/48/283.html
United States Supreme Court LUTHER v. BORDEN (1849) No. 39 Decided: January 1, 1849
Let us all admit that the people are sovereign… every man [has a] portion of sovereign power.
U.S. Supreme Court MCILVAINE v. COXE'S LESSEE, 6 U.S. 280 (1805) 6 U.S. 280 (Cranch) M'ILVAINE v. COXE'S LESSEE. * February Term, 1805
But not so is that principle which would transfer the sacred duty of allegiance, formerly due to the king, with equal force and effect to the new sovereign, the people themselves.
U.S. Supreme Court Glass v. The Betsey, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 6 6 (1794)
Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821) Full case name: P.J. Cohen and M.J. Cohen v. Commonwealth of Virginia Majority: Marshall, joined by unanimous
But we deny, that since the establishment of the national constitution, there is any such thing as a sovereign State… The people of the United States are the sole sovereign authority of this country. https://casetext.com/case/cohens-v-virginia
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994
Syllabus u. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., ET AL. v. THORNTON ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 93-1456. Argued November 29, 1994-Decided May 22,1995*
Second, we recognized the critical postulate that sovereignty is vested in the people…
U.S. Supreme Court Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 2 Cranch 445 445 (1805) ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION OF THE JUDGES OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF THE DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
The states are not absolutely sovereigns, but (if I may use the expression) they are demi-sovereigns. https://casetext.com/case/hepburn-dundas-v-ellzey
Chrysafis v. James Summary of this case from Weisshaus v. Cuomo 21-cv-998 (JS)(ARL) 2021-04-14 SEYBERT, United States District Judge
…the people in their sovereign capacity may be immune from suit, it does not follow that officers of the state should share this aspect of sovereignty when they violate the laws of the people.
English v. Misys International Banking Systems, Inc. Civil Action No. 05-2540 (DRD). July 19, 2005. DICKINSON DEBEVOISE, Senior District Judge What, then, does "nationality" encompass if it is not to be construed as being synonymous and coextensive with "national origin"? "Nationality" has several definitions, one of which appears to embrace the national origin concept — "a people having a common origin, tradition, and language and capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state" or "an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit." WEBSTER'S NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 788 (1983). In addition to the national origin definition, "nationality" is also defined as "a legal relationship involving allegiance on the part of an individual and usually protection on the part of the state" and "membership in a particular nation." Id. "Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1025 (6th ed. 1990). The "legal relationship" or "political status" definition, although not coterminous with citizenship, approaches such an understanding. See WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY 243 (defining citizenship as being the status of being a citizen, who is a member of a state or a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it).
[Note: 8 USC 1481 (a)(2) States that citizenship in the United States is lost when a formal declaration is made regarding allegiance to a nation, including military or militia service in said nation or declaration of nationality.]
Scales v. I.N.S. No. 97-70915. Argued and Submitted August 10, 2000. Filed November 21, 2000. B. FLETCHER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, and DUPLANTIER, District Judge. The Honorable Adrian G. Duplantier, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. TASHIMA, Circuit Judge: Although "[n]ationality and citizenship are not entirely synonymous . . . [t]he distinction has little practical impact today. . . . Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 467 n. 2, 118 S.Ct. 1428, 140 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998)
United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit. Kairi Abha SHEPHERD, a/k/a Kara Shepherd, a/k/a Kairi A. Shepherd, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent. No. 11–9520. Decided: May 08, 2012 Before HARTZ, O'BRIEN, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. Alan L. Smith, Salt Lake City, UT, for Petitioner. Jesse M. Bless, Trial Attorney, (David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, with him on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent Because nationality includes citizenship… nationality claims is understood to include citizenship claims.
United States Supreme Court. TROP v. DULLES(1958) No. 70 Argued: May 2, 1957 Decided: March 31, 1958 THE CHIEF JUSTICE, in an opinion joined by MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER, concluded that:
1. Citizenship is not subject to the general powers of the National Government and therefore cannot be divested in the exercise of those powers. Pp. 91-93.
2. Even if citizenship could be divested in the exercise of some governmental power, 401 (g) violates the Eighth Amendment, because it is penal in nature and prescribes a "cruel and unusual" punishment. Pp. 93-104.
In Perez v. Brownell, supra, I expressed the principles that I believe govern the constitutional status of United [356 U.S. 86, 92] States citizenship. It is my conviction that citizenship is not subject to the general powers of the National Government and therefore cannot be divested in the exercise of those powers. The right may be voluntarily relinquished or abandoned either by express language or by language and conduct that show a renunciation of citizenship.
[Note: There can be no argument of absolute certainty that by one claiming to be an “American citizen” that one means “Citizen of the United States.” As the Americas and American people existed before the United States. The Americas are continents, large bodies of land which are inhabited by several nations, states, body politics etc. People born in Mexico who are Americans are not U.S. Citizens; people born in Haiti, Cuba, Brazil, Chile, Argentina etc., are all Americans and NOT U.S. citizens absent any formal decleration of allegiance and application for U.S. citizenship.
The United States of America, identified by the Star-Spangled-Banner is a European body-politic who colonized North America, who “in their collective and corporate capacity” acting in unit as “the united States of America” – “namely the continental congress, composed of delegates from the thirteen colonies… declared the united States colonies to be free and independent… and have via their European descendants, fully colonized North America. But this does not mean they are the Americans. See United States v Curtis-Wright Export Corp supra.
SFF-TIR, LLC v Stepherson 262, F Supp 3d 1165. Britain’s thirteen colonies on the Atlantic seaboard… the American colonies… the English North American Colonies…
Deering v Parker 4 U.S. 23 United States Supreme Court. July 1st, 1760. …the New England colonies…
The United States are still European Colonies, albeit separate from the British Crown, those who haven’t mixed with the national bloodlines of aboriginal and indigenous Americans are still foreign European colonists and or their descendants and NOT Americans. Similarly, China, or the peoples republic of China, nor the Chinese people themselves can claim to be the only Asians in the way the U.S. implies as if they are the only Americans. Similarly, a German who otherwise does not mix and mate with the aboriginal and indigenous people of Asia, will never be an Asian national. No matter how many thousands of German descendants remain in or are born in Asia. German European individuals born to German parents in Asia, are still European Germans, not Asians. Same stands for the Europeans born on American soil. Their national origin lay in the nations of Europe. Individuals may be able to claim naturalized citizenship based on jus soli principles if the government acknowledges those principles, but they are never jus sanguine. Unless, again, they mate or mix with the nationals of the land and then their children become nationals. Thus, citizens of the United States may be American citizens, but they are not American nationals. Moors are American citizens, just as Brazilians and Cubans are American citizens and NOT citizens of the united States.]
U.S. Supreme Court. Talbot v. Jansen, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 133 133 (1795) Talbot v. Jansen 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 133
…the right of expatriation… It is implied, likewise, in the nature and object of the social compact, which was formed to shield the weakness, and to supply the wants of individuals--to protect the acquisitions of human industry, and to promote the means of human happiness. Whenever these purposes fail, either the whole society is dissolved, or the suffering individuals are permitted to withdraw from it.… Will it be said that the renunciation of allegiance to the former implies or draws after it a renunciation of allegiance to the latter? The sovereignties are different; the allegiance is different; the right too, may be different… The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of withdrawing allegiance from a previous, sovereign.
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/3/133
[Note: Hence, the decleration of ones Moorish / Moroccan nationality and allegiance to the same, severs, withdraws an terminates any preconceived notions, claims or beliefs of U.S. citizenship or US allegiance other than treaty obligations, to any other nation, state, quasi-nation, kingdom, sovereign, country, corporation, political body, union, federation et alia. Subsequently severing or removing any jurisdictional claims or assertions of anyone over a Moor. See the Act of State Doctrine in Hudson v Guestier, 4 Cranch 293, 294 where Chief Justice Marshall declared that one nation must recognize the acts and powers of another nation. The act of state doctrine appears as early as 1674 and appears in US jurisprudence as early as the 18th century. See Ware v Hylton, 3 Wheat 283, 336 and found in Underhill v Hernandez 168 U.S. 250, Where Chief Justice Fuller said for a unanimous court (p. 252) “Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgement on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory.”
See House Resolution 0689 – State of Illinois and House Resolution 1203 – State of Georgia recognizing Moorish American Week: “The Moorish Americans, being aboriginal to the territories of North, Central and South Americas have formed a sovereign theocratic government…”]
PACIFIC STATES TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF OREGON.
Supreme Court 223 U.S. 118 32 S.Ct. 224 56 L.Ed. 377 PACIFIC STATES TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF OREGON. No. 36. Argued November 3, 1911. Decided February 19, 1912. Messrs. E. S. Pillsbury and Oscar Sutro for plaintiff in error. [Argument of Counsel from pages 119-129 intentionally omitted]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/223/118
1. The guaranty of article IV, section 4, of the Federal Constitution is to the people of the States, and to each citizen, as well as to the States as political entities.
2. Section 4 of article IV therefore prohibits the majority in any State from adopting an unrepublican constitution.
[2] 1. Difference between a republic and democracy.
2. In ascertaining the meaning of the phrase "republican form of government" the debates of the constitutional conventions and the federalist papers are of great importance, if not conclusive.
3. The framers of the Constitution recognized the distinction between the republican and democratic form of government, and carefully avoided the latter.
4. The extent of territory of the States alone sufficed, in the judgment of the framers of the Constitution, to condemn the establishment of a democratic form of government.
Here is what Cornell University omitted from the plaintiff’s argument - https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep223/usrep223118/usrep223118.pdf :
U.S. Supreme Court Rose v. Himeley 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 241 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
A war de facto then unquestionably existed between France and St. Domingo. It has been argued that the colony, having declared itself a sovereign state and having thus far maintained its sovereignty by arms, must be considered and treated by other nations as sovereign in fact and as being entitled to maintain the same intercourse with the world that is maintained by other belligerent nations.
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research. Shimari v. Caci Premier Tech., Inc. Opinion 1:08-cv-827 (LMB/JFA) 2019-03-22 Suhail Najim Abdullah AL SHIMARI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CACI PREMIER TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Third-Party Defendant. Leonie M. Brinkema, United States District Judge For example, in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793), superseded by constitutional amendment, U.S. Const. amend XI, Chief Justice Jay wrote: … the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects ... and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.
Missouri v. Missouri Public Health & Welfare of Missouri No. 71-1021 Argued January 15, 1973. Decided April 18, 1973 411 U.S. 279 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT DOUGLAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which STEWART, J., joined, post, p. 411 U. S. 287. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 411 U. S. 298. Page 411 U. S. 280 MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. "We the People" formed the governments of the several States. Under our constitutional system, therefore, a State is not the sovereign of its people. Rather, its Page 411 U. S. 323 people are sovereign. Our discomfort with sovereign immunity, born of systems of divine right that the Framers abhorred, is thus entirely natural. The discomfort has markedly increased since subsidence of the controversy over judicial review of state decisions that was fought out in terms of the amenability of States to suit in federal court.
U.S. Supreme Court Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893) Nos. 1345, 1346, 1347 Argued May 10, 1893 Decided May 15, 1893 149 U.S. 698 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK There is a great deal of confusion in the use of the word "sovereignty" Page 149 U. S. 758 by law writers. Sovereignty or supreme power is in this country vested in the people, and only in the people. - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/149/698/
United States Supreme Court SMITH v. TURNER (1849) No. 42 Decided: January 1, 1849
We talk a great deal of the sovereignty of the United States and of the sovereignty of the several States. I hold that the only sovereignty in this country is in the people. From them, humanly speaking, proceed all the powers possessed by those who govern them. I know and acknowledge no other sovereign than the people. Whatever powers the general government possess are given to them by the people. Whatever powers the State governments possess are given by the people in the several States. The whole sovereignty of the country being in the people, they have the right to parcel it out, and to place it in the hands of such agents as they, in their wisdom, think proper.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/48/283.html
United States Supreme Court LUTHER v. BORDEN (1849) No. 39 Decided: January 1, 1849
Let us all admit that the people are sovereign… every man [has a] portion of sovereign power.
U.S. Supreme Court MCILVAINE v. COXE'S LESSEE, 6 U.S. 280 (1805) 6 U.S. 280 (Cranch) M'ILVAINE v. COXE'S LESSEE. * February Term, 1805
But not so is that principle which would transfer the sacred duty of allegiance, formerly due to the king, with equal force and effect to the new sovereign, the people themselves.
U.S. Supreme Court Glass v. The Betsey, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 6 6 (1794)
Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821) Full case name: P.J. Cohen and M.J. Cohen v. Commonwealth of Virginia Majority: Marshall, joined by unanimous
But we deny, that since the establishment of the national constitution, there is any such thing as a sovereign State… The people of the United States are the sole sovereign authority of this country. https://casetext.com/case/cohens-v-virginia
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994
Syllabus u. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., ET AL. v. THORNTON ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 93-1456. Argued November 29, 1994-Decided May 22,1995*
Second, we recognized the critical postulate that sovereignty is vested in the people…
U.S. Supreme Court Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 2 Cranch 445 445 (1805) ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION OF THE JUDGES OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF THE DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
The states are not absolutely sovereigns, but (if I may use the expression) they are demi-sovereigns. https://casetext.com/case/hepburn-dundas-v-ellzey
Chrysafis v. James Summary of this case from Weisshaus v. Cuomo 21-cv-998 (JS)(ARL) 2021-04-14 SEYBERT, United States District Judge
…the people in their sovereign capacity may be immune from suit, it does not follow that officers of the state should share this aspect of sovereignty when they violate the laws of the people.