How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form of Government-Family Guardian
Corruption, Scams, and Frauds Topic-Family Guardian
SEDM Forms/Pubs Page, Section 1.11.4: Research on Corruption (OFFSITE LINK)-SEDM
Government Corruption, Form #11.401 (OFFSITE LINK)-SEDM
Government Corruption: Causes and Remedies Course, Form #12.026 (OFFSITE LINK)-SEDM
Chisholm v. Georgia , 2 Dall. (2 U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440, 455 (1793):
"In doing this, I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that states and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker."
[Justice Wilson, Chisholm v. Georgia , 2 Dall. (2 U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440, 455 (1793)]
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958):
Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . ." Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524.
No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . ." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a [358 U.S. 1, 19] power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . ." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397 -398.
Ex Parte Milligan , 71 U.S. 2, 18 L.Ed. 281, 297 (1866):
"This nation, as experience has proved, cannot always remain at peace, and has no right to expect that it always will have wise and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if this right is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. ... For this, and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written Constitution the safeguards which time had proven were essential to its preservation. Not one of these safeguards can the President or Congress or the Judiciary disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus."
[Ex Parte Milligan , 71 U.S. 2, 18 L.Ed. 281, 297 (1866)]
Ludecke v. Watkins , 335 U.S. 160, 92 L.Ed. 1881, 1890, 68 S.Ct. 1429 (1948):
"All systems of government suppose they are to be administered by men of common sense and common honesty. In our country, as all ultimately depends on the voice of the people, they have it in their power, and it is to be presumed they generally will choose men of this description: but if they will not, the case, to be sure, is without remedy. If they choose fools, they will have foolish laws. If they choose knaves, they will have knavish ones. But this can never be the case until they are generally fools or knaves themselves, which, thank God, is not likely ever to become the character of the American people." [Justice Iredell] (Fries's Case (CC) F Cas No 5126, supra.)
[Ludecke v. Watkins , 335 U.S. 160, 92 L.Ed 1881, 1890; 68 S.Ct. 1429 (1948)]