Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

Theophilus Parsons on the powers of Congress

Discuss anything that does not fit in anywhere in the forum

Theophilus Parsons on the powers of Congress

Postby Jethro! » Tue Aug 08, 2017 2:26 pm

"No power was given to Congress to infringe on any of the natural rights of the people."

- Theophilus Parsons, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention

Image
Jethro!
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:23 pm
Has thanked: 226 time
Have thanks: 200 time

 

Re: Theophilus Parsons on the powers of Congress

Postby PHOSPHENE » Tue Aug 08, 2017 2:45 pm

true, but misleading....

Congress just enacts the legislation. The enforcer class does the actual infringing....going village to village and shaking the coins out of your pockets.
"This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, Sir, they appear to me horribly frightful" - Patrick Henry (June 7, 1788)
User avatar
PHOSPHENE
Out of the State
 
Posts: 2827
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:31 pm
Location: Shell Beach
Has thanked: 104 time
Have thanks: 220 time

Re: Theophilus Parsons on the powers of Congress

Postby Nunya_Bizness » Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:08 pm

PHOSPHENE wrote:true, but misleading....

Congress just enacts the legislation. The enforcer class does the actual infringing....going village to village and shaking the coins out of your pockets.

then Tarring and feathering needs to be applied just like the people were doing @ the whisky rebellion.

But first people need to get a clue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs
Apistevist
noun
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense
The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
Theism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good reason.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." — Mark Twain.
Not a person
http://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... b3c912fb94
User avatar
Nunya_Bizness
Freeman
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:53 pm
Has thanked: 132 time
Have thanks: 58 time

Re: Theophilus Parsons on the powers of Congress

Postby country_hick » Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:32 pm

The US Supreme Court discarded the natural rights theory long ago.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2926579002341243719&q=Supreme+Court+of+NH+v.+Piper,+470+US+274&hl=en&as_sdt=10000006

Supreme Court of NH v. Piper, 470 US 274 - Supreme Court 1985
In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (No. 3,230) (CCED Pa. 1825), Justice Bushrod Washington, sitting as Circuit Justice, stated that the "fundamental rights" protected by the Clause included:
"The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal . . . ." Id., at 552.

Thus in this initial interpretation of the Clause, "professional pursuits," such as the practice of law, were said to be protected.
The "natural rights" theory that underlay Corfield was discarded long ago. Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 511 (1939) (opinion of Roberts, J.); see Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168 (1869). Nevertheless, we have noted that those privileges on Justice Washington's list would still be protected by the Clause. Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Comm'n, 436 U. S. 371, 387 (1978).

We believe that the legal profession has a noncommercial role and duty that reinforce the view that the practice of law falls within the ambit of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
The Court has never held that the Privileges and Immunities Clause protects only economic interests. See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179 (1973) (Georgia statute permitting only residents to secure abortions found violative of the Privileges and Immunities Clause).
Lawyers do enjoy a "broad monopoly . . . to do things other citizens may not lawfully do." In re Griffiths, 413 U. S. 717, 731 (1973).
In In re Griffiths, supra, we held that the State could not exclude an alien from 283 the bar on the ground that a lawyer is an " `officer of the Court who' . . . is entrusted with the `exercise of actual governmental power.' " Id., at 728 (quoting Brief for Appellee in In re Griffiths, O. T. 1972, No. 71-1336, p. 5). We concluded that a lawyer is not an "officer" within the ordinary meaning of that word. 413 U. S., at 728. He " `makes his own decisions, follows his own best judgment, collects his own fees and runs his own business.' " Id., at 729 (quoting Cammer v. United States, 350 U. S. 399, 405 (1956)). Moreover, we held that the state powers entrusted to lawyers do not "involve matters of state policy or acts of such unique responsibility as to entrust them only to citizens." 413 U. S., at 724.[14]
Because, under Griffiths, a lawyer is not an "officer" of the State in any political sense,[15] there is no reason for New Hampshire to exclude from its bar nonresidents.
Although the lawyer is "an officer of the court," he does not hold a position that can be entrusted only to a "full-fledged member of the political community." A State may discriminate against nonresidents only where its reasons are "substantial," and the difference in treatment bears a close or substantial relation to those reasons
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 54 time

Re: Theophilus Parsons on the powers of Congress

Postby wealllbe20 » Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:12 pm

Not quite, country_hick.

http://www.suijurisforum.com/constitutional-privilege-t5724-10.html?hilit=privilege#p50814

https://archive.org/stream/federalstatutes00statgoog#page/n409/mode/2up

Also have to remember, the newer cases always bind the 14th to U.S. citizens.


Also note, now "natural rights" are given a judicial review test on "levels of judicial scrutiny" all based on whether a judge stated how fundamental the right was and the judicial review test was started via dicta in a footnote section of a case called United States v. Carolene Products Co.

not saying it's great, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be... but damn close.
... man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it .... -Cicero
------
Atheism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that no god exists." -wealllbe20
How to Make Atheists Squirm:
"Make them explain Agrippa's Trilemma then ask why they hold the presupposition that logic takes precedence over a god/gods" -wealllbe20
------
"Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?" -Edward Snowden
wealllbe20
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 49 time
Have thanks: 89 time

Re: Theophilus Parsons on the powers of Congress

Postby Pumpkin » Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:51 pm

This went into the trash can. Part of the lesson of this world. In this world, the created does not serve the creator, but instead seeks to take the seat of the creator. How do you like it? Seek God, he knows how you feel (Lucifer was thrown here).
The created serves the Creator. As with man to God. As with the nest to the bird. As with government to the people.
Judges don't wear black robes for nothing.
Pumpkin
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:49 pm
Has thanked: 53 time
Have thanks: 116 time


Return to Diverse

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 0 guests

suspicion-preferred