Replies

You are making Georgia a laughingstock here. Where are you getting that from?

A laughingstock? I hold a different view - one that many of the states shared - that Georgia was correct. Georgia refused to defend herself in the case (obviously). Where do I get this stuff from? The "record":

"And be it further enacted, That any Federal Marshal, or any other person or persons levying, or attempting to levy, on the territory of this State, or any part thereof, or on the Treasury, or any other property belonging to the said State, or on the property of the Governor or Attorney-General, or any of the people thereof, under or by virtue of any execution or other compulsory process issuing out of or by authority of the Supreme Court of the United States, or any other Court having jurisdiction under their authority, or which may at any period hereafter under the constitution of the said United States, as it now stands, be constituted, for, or in behalf of the before mentioned Alexander Chrisholm, Executor of Robert Farquhar, or for, or in behalf of, any other person or persons whatsoever, for the payment or recovery of any debt, or pretended debt, or claim, against the said State of Georgia, shall be, and he or they attempting to levy as aforesaid are hereby declared to be guilty of felony,and shall suffer death, without the benefit of clergy, by being hanged."
Journal of the House of Representatives, "An act declaratory of certain parts of the retained sovereignty of the State of Georgia", 21 Nov 1793

FYI, two days after this ludicrous decision, Massachusetts Senator Sedgwick introduced the legislation that became the 11th Amendment. Connecticut and Virginia also submitted amendments.

I enjoy reading your posts.
When reading "the law" and while recognizing that the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court decisions represent the supreme law of the land, I am wondering if there has ever been any precedent in the law whereby the Declaration of Independence was interpreted as "the law" or is that document only used to determine "the intent" of the law (as in what the "framers" were "thinkng")?

In my reading I find it unfortunate that several items in the Declaration of Independence were never addressed or inadequately addressed within the Constitution. One of those inadequately addressed issues was this one:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.-- And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

FYI, two days after this ludicrous decision, Massachusetts Senator Sedgwick introduced the legislation that became the 11th Amendment.

Yeah, the 11th amendment doesn't say a word about state sovereignty. The Justices made some pretty strong statements that seem to have gone unchallenged entirely. I would suggest this was because the failures of the Articles were still pretty fresh in people's minds and no one was ready to throw out the new security promised by the Constitution. The text you provide -- very interesting -- the Georgians were pretty exercised over all thing, to threaten to hang someone without even the benefit of clergy. But even their language doesn't deny what the Justices said.

Walt