see; dartmouth college v. woodward, 17 u.s.....................contracts for property, and confer rights to the property.

federalist papers separates liberty from property........see the fraudulent (mostly) of the slaughterhouse cases. see, dissent in adamson v california.........seems the amendment had full rights equal to whites put in the amendment for blacks, justice miller screwed up the amendment.

on 13th. amend.................the contract clause is for property....."shall be entitled".......abridges the amendment.........as article v is abridged.....see federalist papers........and after 84 sets of papers....in #85 hamilton states he has "a thorough conviction" that government is limited by the article, as amendments will be to the organization of government and "not to the mass of its powers"....in #53....."established by the people and unalterable by the government"

see , meaning of the term "shall" as applies to article IV, section 2, clause 1,

see. baldwin v montana fish and game....(1978) U.S., ON P AND I CLAUSE, ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION.

as clauses abridge other clauses, the security of liberty is secured by such abridgments...

on military power.............#8........."civil state remains in full vigor"....#41..."the batterise most capable-----------are happily such as can never be turned by a perfiduous government against our liberties."

sturges v crowenshield, 17 u.s............."contract"....between man and man for the payment of money." again the contract clause is for property.....

dartmouth college v. woodward..17 u.s..518....."the clause in the constitution must in construction recieve some limitation"..........."never been understood to embrace other contracts than those which respect property"

against depression...................see baldwin v montana....u.s. (1978)........see corfield v coryell, 6 fed cases......civil liberties, rights in 14th,,,,are to be protected by the government........means states and congress must use power to protect rights against the money powers...which are abridged...see #32..."is abridged by another clause"

see,....marbury v madison......shows the order of law and notice the treaty power is last on the list....#33...#22...#15...#75....#43....#64....

on preamble......fellowcitizens,......use of words indiscriminate as to groups and seems from mass of federalist that all are in inclusion as people. "fellowcitizens"

commerce clause......see gonzales v raich.................dissent, seems that the decision in mcculloch v maryland was, and has, been taken out of context for unlawful means,....even in the ruling justice marshall states that the clause is limited in many ways...

see.....maxims of law....,.........[the above in berevity]

see, brumbaugh v roberts,.........springfield, mo

..............................guru7777

Comments

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Latest Headlines

One Iowa Caucus Delegate Comes Down To Coin Toss

The Iowa caucus convener flipped a coin. Bernie Sanders supporters called "heads" and it landed on tails.

Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton by 31 points in N.H.: Poll

Sanders was at 61 percent support in the University of Massachusetts Lowell/7News poll, followed by Mrs. Clinton, at 30 percent

Martin O'Malley suspends presidential campaign after Iowa caucuses

The announcement came after O'Malley barely registered in Iowa against his better-known rivals Clinton and Sanders, failing to meet already low expectations

If You Want to Win, Go Progressive

The big question right now is whether to call Hillary Clinton a progressive, or a "moderate."

And then there's the question of who is more electable in a general election: an unabashedly progressive democrat, like Bernie Sanders; or a "centrist" democrat, like Hillary Clinton.