The Bill of Rights Fraud Part I

After having this case and others for 16 years, and posting to the internet with no response, I figured it shook to the core beliefs that people do not accept the facts as stated in numerous legal books that the Bill of Rights was never intended for the people like you and I in the states. You, of course, like to cite the Constitution and Bill of Rights all the time, little knowing that in doing so you put yourself at their feet groveling as a slave should do.

This case and others to follow in Part II, if understood, will show just how corrupt the founding fathers were in keeping to themselves the contract between themselves and no others in the states. Just as Lysander Spooner stated, the Constitution was of no authority. Why people have not found out by now shows how good the fraud has been, and how brainwashed the average American is. To keep the articles from becoming too long to digest I break the whole article in two parts. This first part is all the John Barron case with no comments interjected so I don't make any confusing statements. The Part II has a brief injection of my comments, otherwise it's all from the Constitutional Law book. To tell you how it will shake your core beliefs to the foundation, I had a paralegal friend here for a visit. I brought up the subject that the Bill of Rights was not his. He immediately reacted with 'no it isn't so'. Well I walked to my office and brought out what you will read in Part II. After reading maybe five pages, he said 'no, it can't be', let me see the Barron case itself. Now mind you, he is sharper than most attorneys and other paralegals and did not want to believe what he was reading. So I handed him the Barron Case , which you will read here and it has never been overturned to this day. After reading it he said, why those... [expletive deleted], no wonder why we lose in all cases. I am reading it and still find it hard to believe they would do this. So when he asked to whom does it apply, I brought out various other certified documents and showed him. Then his core beliefs just had an ice cold ice pick driven through them and he was shook up to say the least. Now in Part II you will read how they incorporated those Bill of Rights into your life which gave them more control over you than if they hadn't done a thing.

Does 14th Amendment mean anything to you? Do you know that only 14th Amendment people can use the Bill of Rights and when you do invoke any of the original ten Bill of Rights you admit to being covered by the 14th and the Ashwander doctrine will bury you? So beware, you will go into cognitive dissonance, guaranteed because your core beliefs will be shattered to say the least and you will not think the same things you have for all your life to this point, IF it does sink in what this criminal government has done to all of us today, and all your family all the way back to 1776.

The Informer

9-23-2006

32 U.S. 243

ON WRIT OF ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
WESTERN SHORE OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Syllabus

    The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the
Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the
States.

   The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United
States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of
individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that
constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular
government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such
a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their
situation, and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred
on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if
expressed in general terms, are naturally and necessarily applicable to the
government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the
instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for
different purposes.

   This case was instituted by the plaintiff in error, against the City of Baltimore,
under its corporate title of "The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore," to recover
damages for injuries to the wharf property of the plaintiff, arising from the acts of
the corporation. Craig & Barron, of whom the plaintiff was survivor, were owners
of an extensive and highly productive wharf in the eastern section of Baltimore,
enjoying, at the period of their purchase of it, the deepest water in the harbor. The
city, in the asserted exercise of its corporate authority over the harbor, the paving
of streets, and regulating grades for paving, and over the health of Baltimore,
diverted from their accustomed and natural course certain streams of water which
flow from the range of hills bordering the city, and diverted them, partly by
adopting new grades of streets, and partly by the necessary results of paving, and
partly by mounds, [p*244] embankments and other artificial means purposely
adapted to bend the course of the water to the wharf in question. These streams
becoming very full and violent in rains, carried down with them from the hills and
the soil over which they ran large masses of sand and earth, which they deposited
along, and widely in front of the wharf of the plaintiff. The alleged consequence was
that the water was rendered so shallow that it ceased to be useful for vessels of an
important burden, lost its income, and became of little or no value as a wharf. This
injury was asserted to have been inflicted by a series of ordinances of the
corporation, between the years 1815 and 1821; and that the evil was progressive;
and that it was active and increasing even at the institution of this suit in 1822.

   At the trial of the cause in the Baltimore county court, the plaintiff gave
evidence tending to prove the original and natural course of the streams, the various
works of the corporation from time to time to turn them in the direction of this
wharf, and the ruinous consequences of these measures to the interests of the
plaintiff. It was not asserted by the defendants, that any compensation for the injury
was ever made or proffered, but they justified under the authority they deduced
from the charter of the city, granted by the legislature of Maryland, and under
several acts of the legislature conferring powers on the corporation in regard to the
grading and paving of streets, the regulation of the harbor and its waters, and to the
health of the city. They also denied, that the plaintiff had shown any cause of action
in the declaration, asserting that the injury complained of was a matter of public
nuisance, and not of special or individual grievance in the eye of the law. This latter
ground was taken on exception, and was also urged as a reason for a motion in
arrest of judgment. On all points, the decision of Baltimore county court was
against the defendants, and a verdict for $4,500 was rendered for the plaintiff. An
appeal was taken to the court of appeals, which reversed the judgment of
Baltimore county court, and did not remand the case to that court for a further trial.
From this judgment, the defendant in the court of appeals prosecuted a writ of
error to this court. [p*245]

   The counsel for the plaintiff presented the following points: the plaintiff in error
will contend that apart from the legislative sanctions of the state of Maryland, and
the acts of the corporation of Baltimore, holding out special encouragement and
protection to interests in wharves constructed on the shores of the Patapsco river,
and particularly of the wharf erected by Craig and the plaintiff, Barron; the right and
profit of wharfage, and use of the water at the wharf, for the objects of navigation,
was a vested interest and incorporeal hereditament, inviolable even by the state
except on just compensation for the privation; but the act of assembly and the
ordinance of the City are relied on as enforcing the claim to the undisturbed
enjoyment of the right.

   This right was interfered with, and the benefit of this property taken away from
the plaintiff by the corporation avowedly, as the defence showed, for public use,
for an object of public interest -- the benefit more immediately of the community of
Baltimore, the individuals, part of the population of Maryland, known by the
corporate title of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. The "inhabitants" of
Baltimore are thus incorporated by the Acts of 1796, ch. 68. As a corporation,
they are made liable to be sued, and authorized to sue, to acquire and hold and
dispose of property and, within the scope of the powers conferred by the charter,
are allowed to pass ordinance and legislative acts, which it is declared by the
charter shall have the same effect as acts of assembly, and be operative, provided
they be not repugnant to the laws of the state, or the constitution of the state, or of
the United States. The plaintiff will contend accordingly:

   1. That the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, though viewed even as a
municipal corporation, is liable for tort and actual misfeasance, and that it is a tort,
and would be so even in the state, acting in her immediate sovereignty to deprive a
citizen of his property, though for public uses, without indemnification; that,
regarding the corporation as acting with the delegated power of the state, the act
complained of is not the less an actionable tort.

   2. That this is the case of an authority exercised under a [p*246]

   State, the corporation appealing to the legislative acts of Maryland for the
discretional power which it has exercised.

   3. That this exercise of authority was repugnant to the constitution of the United
States, contravening the fifth article of the amendments to the constitution, which
declares that "private property shall not be taken for public use, without just
compensation," the plaintiff contending, that this article declares principles which
regulate the legislation of the states for the protection of the people in each and all
the states, regarded as citizens of the United States or as inhabitants subject to the
laws of the Union.

   4. That under the evidence, prayers, and pleadings in the case, the
constitutionality of this authority exercised under the state must have been drawn in
question, and that this court has appellate jurisdiction of the point, from the
judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the highest court of that state, that
point being the essential ground of the plaintiff's pretention in opposition to the
power and discussion of the corporation.

   5. That this court, in such appellate cognisance, is not confined to the
establishment of an abstract point of construction, but is empowered to pass upon
the right or title of either party, and may therefore determine all points incidental or
preliminary to the question of title and necessary in the course to that inquiry; that
consequently, the question is for this court's determination whether the declaration
avers actionable matter, or whether the complaint is only of a public nuisance, and
on that head, the plaintiff will contend, that special damage is fully shown here,
within the principle of the cases where an individual injury resulting from a public
nuisance is deemed actionable, the wrong being merely public only so long as the
law suffered in the particular case is no more than all members of the community
suffer.

   Upon these views, the plaintiff contends that the judgment of the court of
appeals ought to be reversed. [p*247]

Opinions

Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court.

                         MARSHALL, C.J., Opinion of the Court

Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court.

The judgment brought up by this writ of error having been rendered by the court of a State, this
tribunal can exercise no jurisdiction over it unless it be shown to come within the provisions of the
25th section of the Judiciary Act. The plaintiff in error contends that it comes within that clause in
the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution which inhibits the taking of private property for public
use without just compensation. He insists that this amendment, being in favor of the liberty of the
citizen, ought to be so construed as to restrain the legislative power of a state, as well as that of
the United States. If this proposition be untrue, the court can take no jurisdiction of the cause.

The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The
Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for
their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established
a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the
powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States
framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation
and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government
were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are
naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They
are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by
different persons and for different purposes.

If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the
power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States. In their several Constitutions,
they have imposed such restrictions on their respective [p*248] governments, as their own
wisdom suggested, such as they deemed most proper for themselves. It is a subject on which
they judge exclusively, and with which others interfere no further than they are supposed to have
a common interest.

The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that the Constitution was intended to secure the people
of the several States against the undue exercise of power by their respective State governments,
as well as against that which might be attempted by their General Government. It support of this
argument he relies on the inhibitions contained in the tenth section of the first article. We think that
section affords a strong, if not a conclusive, argument in support of the opinion already indicated
by the court. The preceding section contains restrictions which are obviously intended for the
exclusive purpose of restraining the exercise of power by the departments of the General
Government. Some of them use language applicable only to Congress, others are expressed in
general terms. The third clause, for example, declares, that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto
law shall be passed." No language can be more general, yet the demonstration is complete that it
applies solely to the Government of the United States. In addition to the general arguments
furnished by the instrument itself, some of which have been already suggested, the succeeding
section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain State legislation, contains in terms the very
prohibition. It declares, that "no State shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law." This
provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction
on State legislation.

The ninth section having enumerated, in the nature of a bill of rights, the limitations intended to be
imposed on the powers of the General Government, the tenth proceeds to enumerate those
which were to operate on the State legislatures. These restrictions are brought together in the
same section, and are by express words applied to the States. "No State shall enter into any
treaty," &c. Perceiving, that in a constitution framed by the people of the United States, for the
government of all, no limitation of the action of government on [p*249] the people would apply
to the State government, unless expressed in terms, the restrictions contained in the tenth section
are in direct words so applied to the States.

It is worthy of remark, too, that these inhibitions generally restrain State legislation on subjects
intrusted to the General Government, or in which the people of all the States feel an interest. A
State is forbidden to enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation. If these compacts are with
foreign nations, they interfere with the treaty-making power, which is conferred entirely on the
General Government; if with each other, for political purposes, they can scarcely fail to interfere
with the general purpose and intent of the Constitution. To grant letters of marque and reprisal,
would lead directly to war, the power of declaring which is expressly given to Congress. To coin
money is also the exercise of a power conferred on Congress. It would be tedious to recapitulate
the several limitations on the powers of the States which are contained in this section. They will
be found generally to restrain State legislation on subjects intrusted to the government of the
Union, in which the citizens of all the States are interested. In these alone were the whole people
concerned. The question of their application to States is not left to construction. It is averred in
positive words.

If the original Constitution, in the ninth and tenth sections of the first article, draws this plain and
marked line of discrimination between the limitations it imposes on the powers of the General
Government and on those of the State; if, in every inhibition intended to act on State power,
words are employed which directly express that intent; some strong reason must be assigned for
departing from this safe and judicious course in framing the amendments before that departure
can be assumed. We search in vain for that reason.

Had the people of the several States, or any of them, required changes in their Constitutions, had
they required additional safeguards to liberty from the apprehended encroachments of their
particular governments, the remedy was in their own hands, and could have been applied by
themselves. A [p*250] convention could have been assembled by the discontented State, and
the required improvements could have been made by itself. The unwieldy and cumbrous
machinery of procuring a recommendation from two-thirds of Congress and the assent of
three-fourths of their sister States could never have occurred to any human being as a mode of
doing that which might be effected by the State itself. Had the framers of these amendments
intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated
the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress
engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by
affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments
in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and
intelligible language.

But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution
which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense
opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot
statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to
the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a
manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted,
amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments
demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not
against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed,
to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority
in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an
intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that
private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as
a limitation on the exercise of power by the [p*251] Government of the United States, and is not
applicable to the legislation of the States. We are therefore of opinion that there is no repugnancy
between the several acts of the general assembly of Maryland, given in evidence by the
defendants at the trial of this cause, in the court of that State, and the Constitution of the United
States. This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction of the cause, and it is dismissed.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Court of Appeals for the
Western Shore of the State of Maryland, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof,
it is the opinion of this Court that there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the General
Assembly of Maryland given in evidence by the defendants at the trial of this cause in the court of
that State and the Constitution of the United States; whereupon it is ordered and adjudged by
this court that this writ of error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.