7th Amendment ...

1
7th Amendment ...

• In suits at common law, where the value in
  controversy shall exceed 20, the right of trial
  by jury shall be preserved.

2
Trial by jury

• Traditionally, the Supreme Court has treated the
  7th amendment as preserving the right of trial by
  juries in civil cases as it existed under the
  English common law when the amendment was
  adopted.

3
Trial by jury

• The right was to a trial by a jury of twelve
  men, in the presence and under the
  superintendence of a judge empowered to instruct
  them on the law and to advise them on the facts
  and (except in acquittal of a criminal charge) to
  set aside their verdict if in his opinion it is
  against the law or the evidence.
• Decision of the jury must be by unanimous
  verdict.

4
Trial by jury

• The Supreme Court ruled that federal district
  court civil juries composed of six persons were
  permissible under the Seventh Amendment and
  congressional enactments.

5
Trial by jury

• The Amendment governs only courts which sit under
  the authority of the United States, including
  courts in the territories and the District of
  Columbia, and does not apply generally to state
  courts. 
• Parties may enter into a stipulation waiving a
  jury and submitting the case to the court upon an
  agreed statement of facts.

6
8th Amendment

• Excessive bail shall not be required, nor
  excessive fines imposed, nor cruel unusual
  punishment inflicted.

7
Bail

• This traditional right to freedom before
  conviction permits the unhampered preparation of
  a defense, and serves to prevent the infliction
  of punishment prior to conviction. . . . Unless
  this right to bail before trial is preserved, the
  presumption of innocence, secured only after
  centuries of struggle, would lose its meaning.
• Bail is excessive in violation of the Eighth
  Amendment when it is set at a figure higher than
  an amount reasonably calculated to ensure the
  asserted governmental interest. 

8
Bail

• The function of bail, the Court explained, is
  limited to preventing flight of the defendant
  prior to trial and/or safeguarding a courts role
  in adjudicating guilt or innocence.
• the only arguable substantive limitation of the
  Bail Clause is that the governments proposed
  conditions of release or detention not be
  excessive in light of the perceived evil.

9
Bail

• Detention pending trial of arrestees charged
  with serious felonies, who are found after an
  adversary hearing to pose a threat to the safety
  of individuals or to the community, may deny
  release.

10
Bail

• If the only asserted interest of bail is to
  guarantee that the accused will stand trial and
  submit to sentence if found guilty, then bail
  must be set by a court at a sum designed to
  ensure that goal, and no more. 
• To challenge bail as excessive, one must move for
  a reduction, and if that motion is denied appeal
  to the Court of Appeals, and if unsuccessful then
  to the Supreme Court Justice sitting for that
  circuit.

11
Excessive fines

• Clearly was adopted with the particular intent
  of placing limits on the powers of the new
  government.
• At the time the Eighth Amendment was adopted, the
  Court noted, the word fine was understood to
  mean a payment to a sovereign as punishment for
  some offense. the Excessive Fines Clause was
  intended to limit only those fines directly
  imposed by, and payable to, the government.

12
Excessive fines

• The Courts decisions have been about protecting
  indigent, who if cannot pay a fine would be sent
  to jail.
• Inapplicable to civil jury awards

13
Cruel unusual punishment

• Supreme Court on 8th nor cruel unusual
  punishment inflicted due to history of British
  use Difficulty would attend the effort to
  define with exactness the extent of the
  constitutional provision which provides that
  cruel and unusual punishments shall not be
  inflicted but it is safe to affirm that
  punishments of torture such as drawing and
  quartering, disemboweling alive, beheading,
  public dissecting, and burning alive, and all
  others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty,
  are forbidden by that amendment to the
  Constitution.
•  

14
Cruel unusual punishment

• Furman V. Georgia Required consistency in
  application of death penalty. Invalidated death
  penalty for rape.
• States required to enact new death penalty laws
  aimed at overcoming the court's concerns about
  arbitrary imposition of the death penalty.
• Laws that mandated bifurcated trials, with
  separate guilt-innocence and sentencing phases,
  and imposing standards to guide the discretion of
  juries and judges in imposing capital sentences,
  were upheld in a series of Supreme Court
  decisions.
• What about juveniles of any age? Mentally ill?
  Crimes other than murder, like rape? What about
  those who are AGAINT abortion, even to save the
  life of a mother, but who are FOR capital
  punishment for a long list of crimes beyond
  murder and who seek to significantly curtail the
  judicial review of death-row appeals in light of
  known innocents executed? See this link
  http//www.innocenceproject.org/
• You can listen to San Antonio former District
  Attorney Sam Millsap, my cousin, talk about one
  of his death penalty cases at http//www.youtube.c
  om/watch?vsGmkldPz19w The National Council of
  the Churches USA is composed of a wide spectrum
  of denominations representing 45 million persons
  in more than 100,000 local congregations and they
  have the following interesting unified positions
  on the death penalty http//www.ncccusa.org/NCCdoc
  s/abolitionofthedeathpenalty.pdf
• See this PBS Frontline video on Todd Willinghams
  execution for arson murders after experts proved
  he was innocent. http//www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fro
  ntline/death-by-fire/

15
Many Religions Debate

• Regarding criminal justice and influences on the
  authors of the US Constitution in writing the
  Bill of Rights to better protect the innocent -
  the following is the debate about protecting
  innocent in Genesis 1820-33.
• 20 And the LORD said, The outcry of Sodom and
  Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is
  exceedingly grave. 21 I will go down now, and see
  if they have done entirely according to its
  outcry, which has come to Me and if not, I will
  know. 22 Then the men turned away from there and
  went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still
  standing before the LORD. 23 Abraham came near
  and said, Will You indeed sweep away the
  righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are
  fifty righteous within the city will You indeed
  sweep it away and not spare the place for the
  sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? 25 Far
  be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the
  righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous
  and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from
  You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal
  justly? 26 So the LORD said, If I find in Sodom
  fifty righteous within the city, then I will
  spare the whole place on their account. 27 And
  Abraham replied, Now behold, I have ventured to
  speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and
  ashes. 28 Suppose the fifty righteous are lacking
  five, will You destroy the whole city because of
  five? And He said, I will not destroy it if I
  find forty-five there. 29 He spoke to Him yet
  again and said, Suppose forty are found there?
  And He said, I will not do it on account of the
  forty. 30 Then he said, Oh may the Lord not be
  angry, and I shall speak suppose thirty are
  found there? And He said, I will not do it if I
  find thirty there. 31 And he said, Now behold,
  I have fventured to speak to the Lord suppose
  twenty are found there? And He said, I will not
  destroy it on account of the twenty. 32 Then he
  said, Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall
  speak only this once suppose ten are found
  there? And He said, I will not destroy it on
  account of the ten. 33 As soon as He had
  finished speaking to Abraham the LORD departed,
  and Abraham returned to his place ... End of
  citation. Thus you have examples going back to
  ancient times debating how to protect the
  innocent.

16
Religion Based Law

• Judicium dei is the judgment of God. Early
  Saxon and English law mandated judicial judgments
  based on trials by ordeal or by physical combat.
• It was believed that the accused, if innocent,
  will be discovered through divine intervention in
  this process. Innocence was established if the
  "trial" produced no evidence of injury. For
  example, in an ordeal by fire the accused is
  innocent if uninjured when forced to handle a
  red-hot iron or to walk barefoot and blindfolded
  over nine red-hot plowshares.
• A belief that the accused will not be injured if
  he was innocent because he will be protected by
  God. And there was the thought if we make a
  mistake on earth condemning/executing the wrong
  person no big deal because an all powerful God
  will makeup for it in heaven. There are those
  who still believe in such nonsense today.
• There are those who believe there should be a
  death penalty reserved for the worst murder
  crimes, when there is no doubt of guilt. But
  therein lies the problem with imperfect humans
  committing crimes, next of kin and societys
  demand for justice, imperfect humans passing
  judgment - imperfect witnesses, imperfect
  investigators, imperfect judges who care more
  about getting elected than justice, imperfect
  juries. We are FOR convicting the guilty, but all
  reasonable people are OPPOSED to convicting
  INNOCENTS. You are responsible for reading this
  hyperlink story about such a wrongful conviction
  where this man spent years on death row being
  tortured every day with the thought this would be
  his last day all due to prejudice
  incompetence that framed an innocent man. This
  guy was lucky only in the sense that the US
  Constitutions protections enabled him to appeal
  and only because lawyers decided to fight for
  him, otherwise, he would be dead as other
  innocents condemned. http//www.cnn.com/2014/03/1
  1/us/louisiana-glenn-ford-freed/

17
Cruel unusual punishment

• The Court approved electrocution as a permissible
  method of administering punishment. A divided
  Court held that a second electrocution following
  a mechanical failure that injured but did not
  kill the condemned man did not violate the
  proscription.

18
Cruel unusual punishment

• Imprisonment
• Conditions in prison must not involve the wanton
  and unnecessary infliction of pain, nor may they
  be grossly disproportionate to the severity of
  the crime warranting imprisonment. Conditions may
  deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure
  of lifes necessities. But conditions that cannot
  be said to be cruel and unusual under
  contemporary standards are not unconstitutional.
  Conditions may be restrictive and even harsh, but
  may not create or maintain prison conditions that
  are inhumane to inmates generally.
• Dont be STUPID thinking you are going to arrest
  and punish those who violated laws (especially
  non violent laws) and send them to prison
  that costs tax payers 40,000 a year to warehouse
  them in secure cages from which they cannot
  escape in a broken prison system that does
  nothing to rehabilitate offenders BUT does
  everything to teach them how to be better violent
  criminals in an effective prison street college.
  Understand we do not intend to keep non violent
  offenders in prison forever (punishment has to
  fit the crime and is expensive) and thus we
  release them to be your next door neighbors. Do
  not be shocked when these excellent students then
  commit even worse crimes against YOU and your
  family and friends - so there is increased cost
  to you and then we send them back to prison
  street college and the cycle continues! Thus, we
  MUST reform the way we re-educate offenders and
  it is an emergency problem that must be solved,
  unless you would like to continue being victims.
  Not all guilty can be rehabilitated, and those
  who cannot must remain locked up.

19
9th Amendment

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

20
Rights retained by the people

• Aside from contending that a bill of rights was
  unnecessary (because each individual state would
  know what rights people should have but would
  vary from state to state), the Federalists
  responded to those opposing ratification of the
  Constitution because of the lack of a declaration
  of fundamental rights by arguing that in as much
  as it would be impossible to list all rights it
  would be dangerous to list some because there
  would be those who would seize on the absence of
  the omitted rights to assert that government was
  unrestrained as to those (if not listed you do
  not have it).

21
Rights retained by the people

• Supreme Court said The language and history of
  the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of
  the Constitution believed that there are
  additional fundamental rights, protected from
  governmental infringement, which exist alongside
  those fundamental rights specifically mentioned
  in the first eight constitutional amendments.
• To hold that a right so basic and fundamental
  and so deeprooted in our society as the right of
  privacy in marriage may be infringed because that
  right is not guaranteed in so many words by the
  first eight amendments to the Constitution is to
  ignore the Ninth.
• Just because right to privacy not specifically
  mentioned in constitution doesnt mean we do not
  have this right. Think how privacy is implied in
  4th and others.

22
Supremacy Clause Article VI to help
understand Amendment 10

• Article IV adds complexity which states 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, anything in the
  Constitution (literal words or interpretation) 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 .
  This includes members of the military and all
  civilians employed by the federal and state
  governments.
• All of the above was necessary due to failure of
  Articles of Confederation to solve nations
  problems when the 13 states after the Revolution
  (Articles of Confederation 1781-1789) could do
  their own thing, which divided the USA and made
  it weak. There was no national unity. Citizens
  viewed their country as their state not the
  USA. We could not force states to cooperate to
  help solve national economic and national defense
  problems when our survival depended on it because
  they were selfish. Each of the original 13
  states could go its own way, even in face of 1786
  depression war, opt out of helping the nation,
  refuse to finance it. There was no national
  coordinator, no coach to call the plays for the
  national team, no quarterback. Article VI of USA
  Constitution REQUIRED a change NOW the US
  Constitution, laws of Congress, and treaties
  negotiated by the POTUS and ratified by the US
  Senate are supreme over anything states want to
  do. There are exceptions when federal law goes
  too far.

23
Necessary Proper or elastic clause (Article
1 section 8) to help understand Amendment 10

• The elastic clause adds complexity which states
  Congress has the power to make all laws which
  shall be necessary proper for carrying into
  Execution of 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. If one does not
  understanding necessary and proper, he cannot
  understand the 10th.
• Subject of debate between founders. Hamilton,
  Washington Madison argued for Congress to
  exercise broad range of implied powers. Jefferson
  concerned giving Congress too much power argued
  "necessary" was a restrictive adjective meaning
  essential only his view if adopted would
  strengthened States' Rights. Events helped foster
  the growth of strong central government. Debate
  over the Necessary and Proper Clause came to a
  head in landmark U.S. Supreme Court case,
  McCulloch v. Maryland 1819.
• Background Bank of United States established
  branches throughout states. But state-chartered
  banks resented competition got state
  legislatures to restrict
• Bank of United States operations. State of
  Maryland imposed a tax on Bank of United States
  operations, when James McCulloch, cashier of
  Baltimore branch of Bank of United States refused
  to pay the Maryland tax, the issue went to court.
  Question before U.S. Supreme Court does the
  state or national government hold more power?
  Central was Court's interpretation of Necessary
  and Proper Clause. The Court held (Chief Justice
  John Marshall) state of Maryland (or any other
  state) could not undermine an act of Congress.
  States were subordinate to the federal
  government. Ruling established Congress could use
  Necessary and Proper Clause to create a bank even
  though the Constitution does not explicitly grant
  that power to Congress. Chief Justice John
  Marshall's opinion not only endorsed the
  constitutionality of the bank, but went on to
  uphold broad interpretation of the federal
  government's powers under the Constitution. The
  case quickly became the legal cornerstone of
  subsequent expansions of federal power.
• The elastic clause is one of the most powerful in
  the Constitution used for so much in history
  for all types of federal actions including
  requiring racial integration in the states and
  even Congress passing Obama health care law.
• Here you will find a legal discussion about the
  10th before the US Supreme Court whose decisions
  on the necessary proper clause changed the
  10ths meaning forever. http//www.law.cornell.edu
  /anncon/html/amdt10_user.html

24
10th Amendment

• The 10th states 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.
• 1st 9 amendments protect individual rights. 10th
  protects certain state government powers not
  individuals. States gave up much power to create
  new Constitution/new federal power, but insisted
  to affirm their role in federalism. Question How
  do you solve serious people problems nationwide
  providing uniformity from one state to the next,
  like civil rights, job discrimination, safety in
  the work place, and working conditions, when
  state power (elected leaders) in some states do
  not want the problems solved? A key element of
  human nature is conservative resistance to
  change, including elected leaders, and an
  unwillingness to help constituents (often due to
  influences of money interest groups who do not
  want the change).
• From beginning there has been major dissension
  between advocates of state or federal powers -
  Chief Justice John Marshall said this will
  continue as long as our system exists. Some
  argued state sovereignty power is equal or
  greater than federal power, while others argued
  nationalism the supremacy of federal government
  power.
• Nullification theory or state compact theory
  sovereign States created the Union and thus they
  have the right to invalidate any federal law THEY
  deem unconstitutional that States not Federal
  courts are ultimate interpreters of national
  power (ignores new legal relationship). Jefferson
  Madison advanced (after constitution
  amendments ratified) in response to Federalist
  majority Congress passing Alien Sedition Acts
  1798 that increased residency requirement for
  American citizenship from 5 to 14 years, allowed
  Federalist president to imprison or deport aliens
  who he deemed dangerous to USA, restricted speech
  critical of Federalist federal government.
  Madison Jefferson viewed these Alien Sedition
  Acts as a crisis because they were authored by
  opposition Federalists (like conservative
  Republicans today) designed to decrease number of
  Irish French voters who disagreed with
  Federalist party and supported Thomas Jefferson
  Democratic-Republicans (precursor to Democratic
  Party). Virginia Kentucky passed laws stating
  that when the federal government exceeds its
  powers, the state could refuse to obey. During
  the War of 1812 with Britain, President Madison
  regretted his nullification position because
  New England states conservative Federalists
  threatened to secede from USA at the Hartford
  Convention 1814 due to their opposition to the
  war with England causing them to refuse to
  cooperate with the national war effort including
  resisting sending troops financing, and were
  opposed to the Louisiana Purchase. (Think about
  how sovereign individuals join in marriage to
  create new legal relationship and you cannot just
  walk away avoiding legal liability).

25
Can States Secede from USA?

• The answer in Article 1 of the US Constitution is
  technically yes BUT only with permission of USA
  Congress. Unilateral is not legal and causes
  reaction even federal law enforcement arrests
  and military force. Remember, the Constitution is
  supreme over all, not national or especially in
  this case decisions by state leaders.
• Consider previously mentioned Constitution
  powers, court cases, and the following denied to
  the States without permission of Congress.
• Article 1, section 10, clause 1 no State shall
  enter into any treaty, alliance or
  confederation.
• Article 1, section 10, clause 3, no States shall
  without permission of Congress keep troops or
  ships of war or enter into agreements with
  another State or foreign powers, or engage in
  war.
• Article 4, section 3 nor any State to be formed
  by the jurisdiction of 2 or more states - without
  consent of the Legislatures of those states
  concerned as well as of the Congress.
• Amendment 14 section 3, no person is eligible to
  hold ANY government job at the national, state or
  local level if engages in insurrection or
  rebellion against the USA, or gives aid or
  comfort to the enemies of the USA. (This was not
  in effect until right after the Civil War in
  1868).

26
Secession Disastrous Civil War

• In early 1830s South Carolina threatened to
  secede over the issue of federal tariff
  collection https//www.princeton.edu/achaney/tmve
  /wiki100k/docs/Tariff_of_1828.html but President
  Jackson threatened force and the crisis was
  averted.
• New conservative Supreme Court decisions
  prohibited Congress actions over states (Dred
  Scott v. Sanford 1857), deciding Congress had no
  power to regulate slavery in States.
• Famous Ableman v. Booth 1859 Supreme Court case
  opinion State courts cannot contradict federal
  courts or rule federal law unconstitutional.
  (Supremacy clause Art. 6) http//en.wikipedia.org/
  wiki/Ableman_v._Booth This case happened because
  northern states tried to block Congress pro
  slavery Fugitive Slave Act 1850 (requiring all
  runaway slaves to be captured in either slave or
  free states and returned to their owners).
  Northern free state courts tried to block a law
  passed by the US Congress, but they failed. The
  federal government is supreme.
• In 1860 South Carolina did secede from the USA
  illegally, followed by 10 other southern states
  and the result was disastrous.
• Civil War http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Ci
  vil_War South seceded to defy Lincoln to protect
  slavery (to stop it would undermine southern
  commerce civilization.) Alexander Hamilton
  Stephens served as vice president of the
  Confederate States of America (CSA) during the
  Civil War (1861-65) said in his Cornerstone
  Speech our new Confederate government is based
  upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal
  to the white man. The North went to war to
  defend itself, protect the Constitution, keep USA
  together later to end slavery. All the goods
  produced in the entire southern CSA only equaled
  that produced by New York. Hopeless cause. (Read
  following link) http//www.washingtonpost.com/outl
  ook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01
  /03/ABHr6jD_story_1.html

27
Secession Disastrous Civil War

• Confederate Col. John Ford (R.I.P.) of South
  Carolina and his men started the Civil War in
  Texas where the 1st blood was spilled between the
  states on 4/1/61 when Tejanos (Texans of Mexican
  heritage) like USA supporter Ochoa were hanged.
  Ford captured and killed 20 of Ochoas Tejanos
  (USA supporters). Decades of growing strife
  between North and South erupted further on April
  12, 1861 when Confederate artillery opened fire
  on United States military (treason) in a
  Charleston Harbor Fort Sumter that surrendered 34
  hours later with no combat casualties
  http//www.civilwar.org/battlefields/fort-sumter.h
  tml?tabfacts Union forces would try for nearly
  four years to take it back.
• 4/9/1865, Lee surrendered to Grant. Texas refused
  to surrender! May 13, 1865, last land battle of
  Civil War fought at Palmito Hill, near mouth of
  Rio Grande River, and was a victory led by Col.
  John Ford, commander of the Calvary of the West
  which never lost a battle in the Civil War.
  http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Salmon_Ford
• Of the 31 million USA population (2014 Texas
  population 27.2 million), 2.4 million served, 1.1
  million military casualties (623,026 killed equal
  to all dead in all 170 USA wars to date). Perhaps
  another ¼ million civilian casualties. Equivalent
  of about 11 million casualties in todays
  population. 1 in 10 USA troops killed/injured 1
  in 4 Confederate Rebels killed/injured.
• On June 2, 1865, Gen. EJ Davis represented the
  USA at Confederate Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith's
  surrender of the Trans-Mississippi West
  Confederate Army -- the only significant
  Confederate army left.

28
Texas v. White 1869
The Supreme Court, Chief Justice Salmon Chase,
ruled in this landmark case The Union of the
States never was a purely artificial and
arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies,
and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies,
kindred principles, similar interests, and
geographical relations. It was confirmed and
strengthened by the necessities of war, and
received definite form and character and sanction
from the
Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union
was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when
these Articles were found to be inadequate to the
exigencies of the country, the Constitution was
ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is
difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble
unity more clearly than by these words. What can
be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more
perfect, is not? --- When, therefore, Texas
became one of the United States, she entered into
an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of
perpetual union, and all the guaranties of
republican government in the Union, attached at
once to the State. The act which consummated her
admission into the Union was something more than
a compact it was the incorporation of a new
member into the political body. And it was final.
The union between Texas and the other States was
as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as
the union between the original States. There was
no place for reconsideration or revocation,
except through revolution or through consent of
the States (through representatives in Congress).
29
Supreme Court Evolution of 10th

• Another conservative Supreme Courts decision
  (Hammer v. Dagenhart 1918) overturned Congress
  restrictions on states permitting inhumane child
  labor. Later reversed.
• 1930s through 1960s a more liberal Supreme
  Court permitted expansion of federal power in
  wake of Great Depression World War such as in
  (United States v. Darby Lumber Company 1941)
  declaring Congress had the power to set wage and
  hour regulations in states (contrary to state
  wishes) among employees of companies in the state
  engaged in interstate commerce who treated
  employees unfairly. This court declared that the
  10th Amendment is merely a truism (trite, banal,
  cliché, platitude not necessarily truth) that
  all is retained which has not been surrendered to
  the national government and the 10th is NOT an
  independent source of state power. And From the
  beginning and for many years the 10th amendment
  has been construed as not depriving the national
  government of authority to resort to all means
  for the exercise of a granted power which are
  appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted
  end.
• Again the question How do you solve serious
  people problems nationwide providing uniformity
  from one state to the next, like civil rights,
  job discrimination, safety in the work place, and
  working conditions, when state power (elected
  leaders) in some states do not want the problems
  solved? A key element of human nature is
  conservative resistance to change, including
  elected leaders, and an unwillingness to help
  constituents (often due to influences of money
  interest groups who do not want the change).
• In Brown v. Board of Education 1954 the Supreme
  Court ordered an end to state mandated
  segregation of races in education all due to
  White Supremacy laws and attitudes of White
  superiority over all other races. Due to White
  violence, Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy sent
  in the U.S. Army troops and US Marshals to
  protect minorities. The Supreme Court upheld the
  Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights
  Act of 1965 that gave minorities rights
  nationwide against discrimination (minorities
  could not use any place used by Whites like
  restaurants, hotels) and gave voting rights for
  all races even though violently opposed by many
  Whites especially in southern states like
  Texas. Listen to this one minute You Tube part of
  a 1963 speech by Alabama Governor George Wallace
  proclaiming states rights to ensure segregation
  forever http//www.youtube.com/watch?vhLLDn7MjbF
  0 Watch this short You Tube video about White
  Alabama State local leaders, typical of many
  southern states including Texas, who were
  violently furious at Black Americans who
  peacefully protested state denial of basic human
  rights for their race http//www.youtube.com/watch
  ?vj9kT1yO4MGg Should state or national law be
  supreme?

30
Supreme Court Evolution of 10th

• From 1937 to 1997 (50 years) the Supreme Court
  overturned just one federal law.
• In Frye v. U.S. 1975 the Court said While the
  Tenth Amendment has been characterized as a
  truism, stating merely that all is retained
  which has not been surrendered, citing Darby,
  it is not without significance. The Amendment
  expressly declares the constitutional policy that
  Congress may not exercise power in a fashion that
  impairs the States integrity or their ability to
  function effectively in a federal system.
• Beginning in late 1990s a conservative Supreme
  Court reasserted certain state rights, such as
  stopping Congress from requiring states to do gun
  background checks (Printz v. United States 1997)
  declaring it was not within Article One Congress
  commerce power. From 1997 to 2002 a conservative
  Supreme Court struck down 25 federal laws that
  restricted states. (Still mall amount overturned
  a percent of the whole)
• In 2003 Congress passed the Prison Rape
  Elimination Act signed by President George Bush
  to force all states to stop this routine prison
  crime. The problem causing the act is a lawless
  state prison and jail environment where men and
  women are too routinely raped by inmates and even
  guards. When judges juries sentence offenders,
  even non violent ones, should they add
  instructions to the shop lifter thief like
  you are sentenced to a year in jail to punish
  you for your crime, and in addition we sentence
  you to be raped by other inmates and guards any
  time they want. Of course they would not because
  it would be unconstitutional cruel unusual
  punishment, but that is the understood effect of
  being sentenced to prison there is
  extraordinarily high risk of rape. So who should
  win in 2014 when Texas Governor Perry refuses to
  comply with this federal law designed to stop
  prison rape? http//www.timesunion.com/news/texas
  /article/Perry-Texas-won-t-comply-with-federal-pri
  son-law-5365811.php

31
Can States Secede from USA?

• The Constitution provisions mentioned, as
  reinforced by Supreme Court decisions, and war
  answers an emphatic no without permission from
  Congress.
• But you will never get that permission without a
  federal fight even war (been there done that).
  Congress will never permit Texas to leave. It
  will send military might and arrest officials to
  stop any such nonsense.
• In 2013 the USA GDP was a 16.8 trillion economy,
  and in 2012 the Texas state GDP was a 1.4
  trillion economy, 2nd behind California.
• If Texas was a sovereign country, it would be the
  14th largest economy in the world. You think the
  USA will let that go?
• The federal government has spent perhaps
  trillions investment in Texas since 1845 such as
  in interstate highways, military bases, airports,
  air traffic control, other federal installations
  like NASA and national parks and much more. Then
  there is all the federal grants that help state
  education and police and more. Then there is the
  value of ports like Houston critical to the USA
  economy. Those are only a few reasons why the
  federal government would fight any actual
  subversive movement.
• As Texas v. White 1869 Supreme Court case
  declared states are NOT free to leave the union
  - the United States is an indestructible Union,
  composed of indestructible States. Accordingly,
  no state may unilaterally secede.
• The Civil War was started in the 1860s by
  Southern state ignorant demagogue leaders willing
  to fan the flames of revolution among ignorant
  citizens and it caused horrific casualties -
  equivalent to 11 million with today's population.
  Texas Governor Sam Houston in 1861 refused to
  take oath to Confederate States of America
  resigned to avoid violating the U.S.
  Constitution. Houston tried to tell Texans that
  secession and joining the Confederacy wouldn't
  work. He warned of "rivers of blood," a
  generation left dead or crippled by war and the
  ultimate defeat of the South at the hands of the
  industrial superior North. In a November 1860
  letter he asked after enduring civil war for
  years, will there be any promise of a better
  state of things than we now enjoy? All his
  prophecies came true.

32
Free speech or rebellion, insurrection treason?

• Gov. Perry Tea Party activists and some other
  Republican political candidates (SECEDE Kilgore
  for governor) from time to time say Texas can
  legally and unilaterally secede from the USA. Are
  they right?
• Consider the Constitution powers mentioned, as
  well as the many Court cases on the previous
  slides that affirm national supremacy and deny
  state secession power without permission of
  Congress.
• Can states secede from USA? Only ignorant
  uninformed uneducated persons will believe states
  can realistically do so. Among any intelligent
  knowledgeable thinking person it is a settled
  question. The answer is no!
• Amendment 14 section 3, no person is eligible to
  hold ANY government job at the national, state or
  local level if engages in insurrection or
  rebellion against the USA, or gives aid or
  comfort to the enemies of the USA. Some say if
  they hate the USA so much they should stop
  bellyaching and should take their unpatriotic
  treachery to another country, rather than try to
  drag the nation into another disastrous event.
  The question is, what country would take them?
  Then again, there is free speech that should not
  be stopped unless is clear present dangerous
  speech that the evil is likely to occur before a
  full discussion is possible. By encouraging them
  to continue speaking permits us to identify the
  fools among us.