united states cjs book91
DESCRIPTION
legalTRANSCRIPT
Annotation Summary27 annotations on 2 pages by Roark Schwagerl x22 x5
r treaty provided that the boundary should fol-the center of the normal channel notwithstand-alterations by erosion and deposit of alluvium,that in case of changes by the cutting of a newor the deepening of another channel than that'ch originally marked the boundary, the lineould continue to follow the original channel.52
's resulted in there being bancos or small tractstf land on the opposite side of the river from theClIlIIltriesto which they belonged,53 and, in ordertoeliminate these bancos from the effect of the priortruties,54 a new treaty was made providing thatminion and jurisdiction of such of the bancosready surveyed as lie on the south bank of themer shall pass to Mexico and dominion and juris-ction of those on the north bank to the Unitedtates and that the boundary commission previouslycreatedshall be guided by that principle in eliminat-mg bancos.55 This treaty applies to bancos formed1IlIl unsurveyed at the date of the treaty and toncos thereafter formed.56 In view of the nego-bations preceding the treaty, it has been held that
it is to be treated as providing for an adjustmentof the boundary line, and not for a cession of terri-tory,57 and a banco north of the river is presumedto have been always in the United States,58 and,while such a banco formed prior to 1905 was theproperty of Mexico until the date of the new trea-ty,59 dominion thereover was transferred to theUnited States when the treaty was signed, althoughthe boundary commission did not declare the landa banco until later,60 and the de facto possession
of Mexico in the meantime gave a Mexican court
no jurisdiction to dispose of the title.61 The treaty
gives the boundary commission no judicial func-
tions,62 and no power to fix the boundary,63 or
determine which tracts shall be eliminated,64 but
merely gives it power to determine as to the exist-
ence of the facts calling for elimination under thetreaty,65 and to mark and to establish the location
of the boundary.66 Findings of the commission, ac-
cordingly, can have no binding effect on private
rights.67
The governmental powers of the United States, toextent that they are conferred or not withheld byConstitution, are supreme and paramount. The
•• Tex.-Xunez v. State, 156 S:W.933.70Tex.Cr. 481.5C.J.p 1253note 37.•. T(,x.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-provementCo. v. City Mortg. Co.,Civ.App.,48S.W.2d 310.M. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-provementCO.V. City Mortg. Co.,supra.•. U.S.-Willis v. First Real Es-tate & Investment Co., C.C.A.Tex.,68F.2d 671,certiorari denied 54 S.Ct.631,292U.S. 626, 78 L.Ed. 1481,rehearing denied 54 S.Ct. 713, 292U... 604,78L.Ed. 1467.•. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-provementCo. v. City Mortg. Co.,C1v.App.. 48 S.W.2d 310.let 011private ownershipWherea tract of land which wastransferred by shifting course ofer from the Mexican to the Unitedtes side of the Rio Grande didt have an area of 250 hectares nor
• populationof 200, the political sov-gnty of the land involved was(erred to the United States, butprivate ownership thereof wasthereby affected.-eanales v.
pton, Tex.Civ.App.. 145 S.W.2dl
United States has no inherent sovereign powers, and nolegislative powers other than those conferred by theConstitution.
57. U.S.-'Villis v. First Real Estate& Investment Co., C.C.A.Tex., 68F.2d 671. certiorari denied 54 S.Ct.631, 292 U.S. 626, 78 L.Ed. 1481, re-hearing denied 54 S.Ct. 713, 292 U.S.604, 78 L.Ed. 1467.
Tex.-Fragoso v. Cisneros, Civ.App.,154 S.W.2d 991, error refused.
65 C.:!. p 1253 note 42.
58. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-provement Co. v. Clardy, Civ.App.,48 S.W.2d 315.
59. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-provement Co. v. City Mortg. Co.,Civ.App .. 48 S.W.2d 310.
60. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-provement Co. v. City Mortg. Co.,Civ.App .. 48 S:W.2d 310.
65 C.:!. p 1254 note 45.
61. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-provement Co. v. Caples, Civ.App.,48 S.W.2d 329.
65 C.:!. p 1254 note 46.
62. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-provement CO. V. Clardy, Civ.App.,48 S.W.2d 315.
63. Tex.-Fragoso v. Cisneros, Civ.App., 154 S.vV.2d 991, error refused-San Lorenzo Title & Improve-
ment Co. V. Caples, Civ.App., 48 S.W.2d 329.
64. TeX.-San Lorenzo Title·& Im-provement Co. v. Clardy, Civ.App.,48 S.W.2d 315.It is for the court to determine
facts as to location of land in con-troversy along boundary betweenUnited States and Mexico and adjudi-cate accordinglY.-'Villis v. FirstReal Estate & Investment Co., C.C.A.Tex., 68 F.2d 671, certiorari denied54 S.Ct. 631, 292 U.S. 626, 78 L.Ed.1481, rehearing denied 54 S.Ct. 713,292 U.S. 604, 78 L.Ed. 1467.65. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-provement Co. v. Caples, Civ.App.,48 S.W.2d 329-San Lorenzo Title &Improvement Co. v. Clardy, (;iv.App., 48 S.vV.2d 315.
66. Tex.-Fragoso v. Cisneros, Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 991, error refused!-San Lorenzo Title & Improve-ment Co. v. Capies, Civ.App., 48 S.W.2d 329.
67. U.S.-Wiilis v. First Real Estate& Investment Co., C.C.A.Tex., 68F.2d 671, certiorari denied 54 S.Ct.631, 292 U.S. 626, 78 L.Ed. 1481,rehearing denied 54 S.Ct. 713, 293-U.S. 604, 78 L.Ed. 1467.
#1 p.1
governrrient-Iegislatin, executive, and judicial-'within the sphere of action confined to it by the Con-stitution are supreme and paramount.68 The Con-stitution does not, however, make any general grantof power, but states the legislative powers that aregranted, and provides that powers not delegatedto the United States, or prohibited to the states, arereserved to the states or to the people, and it hastherefore become an accepted constitutional rule, asdiscussed in Constitutional Law § 68, that this is agovernment of enumerated or delegated powers, andthat it has only such powers as have been conferred,on it, expressly or by necessary implication. Thereis, however, a distinction, in this respect, betweenthe legislative power and the judicial power,69 since,as provided in the Constitution, Article 3 § 1, theentire judicial power of the nation is vested in itssupreme court and in such inferior courts as con-gress may from time to time ordain and establish.The Constitution, Article 2 § 1, also confers the en-tire executive power on the president in generalterms.
The United States has no inherent sovereign pow-ers70 and no inherent common-law prerogatives, andit has no power to interfere in the personal or socialrelations of citizens by virtue of authority deduciblefrom the general nature of sO\'ereignty,71 but it hasso much of the royal prerogatives as belonged tothe king of England in his capacity of parens patriaeor universal trustee.72 However, this lack of in-herent powers has been held limited to domesticmatters as distinguished from external matters, and
68. U.S.-Graves v. People of Stateof New York ex reI. O'Keefe, N.Y"59 S.Ct. 595, 306 U.S. 466, 83 L,Ed.927. 120 A.L.R. 1466-U. S. ex reI.Smith v. Baldi, D,C.Pa., 96 F.Supp.100, affirmed, C.A., 192 F.2d 540,affirmed 73 S,Ct. 391, 344 U.S. 561,97 L.Ed. 54n, and Daniels v. Allen,73 S.Ct. 437, 34<1U.S. 443, 97 L.Ed.469-Paris v. !lIetropolitan LifeIns. Co., D,C.N.Y" 68 F.Supp. 64,reversed on other grounds, C.C.A.,167 F.2d 834, certiorari denied 69S.Ct. 53, 335 U.S. 827, n3 L.Ed. 38l.
N.C.-Unemployment CompensationCommission of ~orth Carolina v.'Vachovia Bank & Trust Co" 2 S.E.2d 592, 215 N.C, 49l.
Pa.-Scranton Broadcasters, Inc., v.American Communications Ass'n,CIO, Broadcast Dist. Ko. 1, Com,PI.,48 Lack.Jur. 241.
''Vash.-Boeing Aircraft Co. v. Re-construction Finance Corp., 171 P.2d 838, 25 Wash.2d 652, 168 A,L,R.539, appeal dismissed Boeing Air-craft Co. v. King County, 'Vash.,67 S.Ct. 972, two cases 330 U.S. 803,91 L.Ed. 1262.
65 C.J. p 1254 note 52.
with respect to the latter the powers of the federalgovernment are not derived from the Constitutionand are not among the enumerated or implied pow·ers but are inherent, having come into ,being beforethe adoption of the Constitution and now existingoutside it.73 The United States takes no power orauthority from state constitutions or laws.74
It has been said broadly that all activities of thegovernment, constitutionally authorized by congress,are governmental in nature75 and performed in itssovereign capacity,76 and that the United Statesdoes not have separate governmental and proprie·tary capacities;77 but it has also been held, as dis·cussed supra § 2, that when the United States entersinto commercial business it abandons its sovereigncapacity and is to be treatecl like any other corpora·tion, and, as considered infra § 7 a, the UnitedStates may own land within the territory of a statein a proprietary capacity only.
§ 5. Powers in Carrying into Effect PowersGranted
In addition to the powers expressly conferred on theUnited States by the Constitution, it has all the attributesof sove"eignty, except as restricted by the Constitution,as well as such powers as are necessary to carry intoeffect the granted powers.As discussed supra § 4, the government of the
United States, at least with respect to domesticmatters, is one of enumerated powers, and it has noinherent sovereign powers, but it is a nationalsovereignty,78 within the scope of its enumeratedpowers,79 and has all the attributes of sovereignty,
"If anyone proposition could com-mand the universal assent of man-kind, we might expect it would bethis-that the government of the Un-ion, though limited in its powers, issupreme within its sphere of action,This would seem to result, necessari-ly, from its nature. It is the gov-ernment of all; its powers are dele-gated by all; it rcpresents all, andacts for all."-lVIcCulloch v. Mary-land, Md., 4 'Vheat. 316, 405, 4 L.Ed.579.69, U,S.-Kansas v. Colorado, Kan.,27 S.Ct. 655, 206 U.S. 46, 83, 51 L.Ed. 965.
65 C,J. p 1254 note 56.70. U.S.-Hodges v. U. S., Ark., 27S.Ct. 6, 203 U.S. 1, 51 L.Ed. 65.
71. U.S,-Ex parte Burrus, Neb., 10S.Ct. 850, 136 U.S. 586, 34 L.Ed.500.
65 C.:r. p 1254 note 60.72. U,S.-Stanley v. Schwalby, Tex.,13 S.Ct. 418, 147 U.S. 508, 37 L,Ed.259,
65 C.J. p 1254 note 61.
App.D.C., 56 S.Ct. 855, 298 U.S. 238,80 L.Ed. 1160.
D.C.-U. S. v. Peace Information Cen·ter, D.C., 97 F.Supp. 255.
74. N.Y.-U. S. v. Sumner, 211 N.Y.S. 705, 125 l\Iisc. 658.
75. N.C.-Unemployment Compensa·tion Commission of North Carolinav. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.,S.E.2d 592, 215 N.C. 491.
Agency as govel'Jl!llental in natureEvery agency which Congress can
constitutionally create is a "govern·mental agency."-Graves v. Peopleof State of Kew York ex reI. O'Keefe,N.Y., 59 S.Ct. 595, 120 A.L,R, 1466.76. D.C.-U. S. v. I. C. C., D.C., 78F.Supp. 580.
77. D.C.-U. S. v. 1. C. C., supra.78. U.S.-Legal Tender Cases, N.Y"4 S.Ct. 122, 110 US. 421, 28 L.Ed.204-Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. John·son Shipyards Corporation, C.C,A.N.Y., 6 F.2d 752. affirmed StriIrev. U. S., 46 S.Ct. 182, 269 U.S. 503,70 L.Ed. 379.
What isn't enumer-rated is reservedfor the People.
Bingo. SupremeCourt is from Constitution; Emergency Banking Relief is from Congress, separation of powers. The court you want is one under Supreme Court Rules.
Congress ordained the EMBRA/TWEA
Relations = Trust
TWEA/EBRA is "external" matters regarding protection from "enemies" and not of the Constitution; and, the laws governing are therefore Roman Int'l lawthat existed prior to the Constitution.
#2 p.2
governrrient-Iegislatin, executive, and judicial-'within the sphere of action confined to it by the Con-stitution are supreme and paramount.68 The Con-stitution does not, however, make any general grantof power, but states the legislative powers that aregranted, and provides that powers not delegatedto the United States, or prohibited to the states, arereserved to the states or to the people, and it hastherefore become an accepted constitutional rule, asdiscussed in Constitutional Law § 68, that this is agovernment of enumerated or delegated powers, andthat it has only such powers as have been conferred,on it, expressly or by necessary implication. Thereis, however, a distinction, in this respect, betweenthe legislative power and the judicial power,69 since,as provided in the Constitution, Article 3 § 1, theentire judicial power of the nation is vested in itssupreme court and in such inferior courts as con-gress may from time to time ordain and establish.The Constitution, Article 2 § 1, also confers the en-tire executive power on the president in generalterms.
The United States has no inherent sovereign pow-ers70 and no inherent common-law prerogatives, andit has no power to interfere in the personal or socialrelations of citizens by virtue of authority deduciblefrom the general nature of sO\'ereignty,71 but it hasso much of the royal prerogatives as belonged tothe king of England in his capacity of parens patriaeor universal trustee.72 However, this lack of in-herent powers has been held limited to domesticmatters as distinguished from external matters, and
68. U.S.-Graves v. People of Stateof New York ex reI. O'Keefe, N.Y"59 S.Ct. 595, 306 U.S. 466, 83 L,Ed.927. 120 A.L.R. 1466-U. S. ex reI.Smith v. Baldi, D,C.Pa., 96 F.Supp.100, affirmed, C.A., 192 F.2d 540,affirmed 73 S,Ct. 391, 344 U.S. 561,97 L.Ed. 54n, and Daniels v. Allen,73 S.Ct. 437, 34<1U.S. 443, 97 L.Ed.469-Paris v. !lIetropolitan LifeIns. Co., D,C.N.Y" 68 F.Supp. 64,reversed on other grounds, C.C.A.,167 F.2d 834, certiorari denied 69S.Ct. 53, 335 U.S. 827, n3 L.Ed. 38l.
N.C.-Unemployment CompensationCommission of ~orth Carolina v.'Vachovia Bank & Trust Co" 2 S.E.2d 592, 215 N.C, 49l.
Pa.-Scranton Broadcasters, Inc., v.American Communications Ass'n,CIO, Broadcast Dist. Ko. 1, Com,PI.,48 Lack.Jur. 241.
''Vash.-Boeing Aircraft Co. v. Re-construction Finance Corp., 171 P.2d 838, 25 Wash.2d 652, 168 A,L,R.539, appeal dismissed Boeing Air-craft Co. v. King County, 'Vash.,67 S.Ct. 972, two cases 330 U.S. 803,91 L.Ed. 1262.
65 C.J. p 1254 note 52.
with respect to the latter the powers of the federalgovernment are not derived from the Constitutionand are not among the enumerated or implied pow·ers but are inherent, having come into ,being beforethe adoption of the Constitution and now existingoutside it.73 The United States takes no power orauthority from state constitutions or laws.74
It has been said broadly that all activities of thegovernment, constitutionally authorized by congress,are governmental in nature75 and performed in itssovereign capacity,76 and that the United Statesdoes not have separate governmental and proprie·tary capacities;77 but it has also been held, as dis·cussed supra § 2, that when the United States entersinto commercial business it abandons its sovereigncapacity and is to be treatecl like any other corpora·tion, and, as considered infra § 7 a, the UnitedStates may own land within the territory of a statein a proprietary capacity only.
§ 5. Powers in Carrying into Effect PowersGranted
In addition to the powers expressly conferred on theUnited States by the Constitution, it has all the attributesof sove"eignty, except as restricted by the Constitution,as well as such powers as are necessary to carry intoeffect the granted powers.As discussed supra § 4, the government of the
United States, at least with respect to domesticmatters, is one of enumerated powers, and it has noinherent sovereign powers, but it is a nationalsovereignty,78 within the scope of its enumeratedpowers,79 and has all the attributes of sovereignty,
"If anyone proposition could com-mand the universal assent of man-kind, we might expect it would bethis-that the government of the Un-ion, though limited in its powers, issupreme within its sphere of action,This would seem to result, necessari-ly, from its nature. It is the gov-ernment of all; its powers are dele-gated by all; it rcpresents all, andacts for all."-lVIcCulloch v. Mary-land, Md., 4 'Vheat. 316, 405, 4 L.Ed.579.69, U,S.-Kansas v. Colorado, Kan.,27 S.Ct. 655, 206 U.S. 46, 83, 51 L.Ed. 965.
65 C,J. p 1254 note 56.70. U.S.-Hodges v. U. S., Ark., 27S.Ct. 6, 203 U.S. 1, 51 L.Ed. 65.
71. U.S,-Ex parte Burrus, Neb., 10S.Ct. 850, 136 U.S. 586, 34 L.Ed.500.
65 C.:r. p 1254 note 60.72. U,S.-Stanley v. Schwalby, Tex.,13 S.Ct. 418, 147 U.S. 508, 37 L,Ed.259,
65 C.J. p 1254 note 61.
App.D.C., 56 S.Ct. 855, 298 U.S. 238,80 L.Ed. 1160.
D.C.-U. S. v. Peace Information Cen·ter, D.C., 97 F.Supp. 255.
74. N.Y.-U. S. v. Sumner, 211 N.Y.S. 705, 125 l\Iisc. 658.
75. N.C.-Unemployment Compensa·tion Commission of North Carolinav. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.,S.E.2d 592, 215 N.C. 491.
Agency as govel'Jl!llental in natureEvery agency which Congress can
constitutionally create is a "govern·mental agency."-Graves v. Peopleof State of Kew York ex reI. O'Keefe,N.Y., 59 S.Ct. 595, 120 A.L,R, 1466.76. D.C.-U. S. v. I. C. C., D.C., 78F.Supp. 580.
77. D.C.-U. S. v. 1. C. C., supra.78. U.S.-Legal Tender Cases, N.Y"4 S.Ct. 122, 110 US. 421, 28 L.Ed.204-Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. John·son Shipyards Corporation, C.C,A.N.Y., 6 F.2d 752. affirmed StriIrev. U. S., 46 S.Ct. 182, 269 U.S. 503,70 L.Ed. 379.
What isn't enumer-rated is reservedfor the People.
Bingo. SupremeCourt is from Constitution; Emergency Banking Relief is from Congress, separation of powers. The court you want is one under Supreme Court Rules.
Congress ordained the EMBRA/TWEA
Relations = Trust
TWEA/EBRA is "external" matters regarding protection from "enemies" and not of the Constitution; and, the laws governing are therefore Roman Int'l lawthat existed prior to the Constitution.
#3 p.2
governrrient-Iegislatin, executive, and judicial-'within the sphere of action confined to it by the Con-stitution are supreme and paramount.68 The Con-stitution does not, however, make any general grantof power, but states the legislative powers that aregranted, and provides that powers not delegatedto the United States, or prohibited to the states, arereserved to the states or to the people, and it hastherefore become an accepted constitutional rule, asdiscussed in Constitutional Law § 68, that this is agovernment of enumerated or delegated powers, andthat it has only such powers as have been conferred,on it, expressly or by necessary implication. Thereis, however, a distinction, in this respect, betweenthe legislative power and the judicial power,69 since,as provided in the Constitution, Article 3 § 1, theentire judicial power of the nation is vested in itssupreme court and in such inferior courts as con-gress may from time to time ordain and establish.The Constitution, Article 2 § 1, also confers the en-tire executive power on the president in generalterms.
The United States has no inherent sovereign pow-ers70 and no inherent common-law prerogatives, andit has no power to interfere in the personal or socialrelations of citizens by virtue of authority deduciblefrom the general nature of sO\'ereignty,71 but it hasso much of the royal prerogatives as belonged tothe king of England in his capacity of parens patriaeor universal trustee.72 However, this lack of in-herent powers has been held limited to domesticmatters as distinguished from external matters, and
68. U.S.-Graves v. People of Stateof New York ex reI. O'Keefe, N.Y"59 S.Ct. 595, 306 U.S. 466, 83 L,Ed.927. 120 A.L.R. 1466-U. S. ex reI.Smith v. Baldi, D,C.Pa., 96 F.Supp.100, affirmed, C.A., 192 F.2d 540,affirmed 73 S,Ct. 391, 344 U.S. 561,97 L.Ed. 54n, and Daniels v. Allen,73 S.Ct. 437, 34<1U.S. 443, 97 L.Ed.469-Paris v. !lIetropolitan LifeIns. Co., D,C.N.Y" 68 F.Supp. 64,reversed on other grounds, C.C.A.,167 F.2d 834, certiorari denied 69S.Ct. 53, 335 U.S. 827, n3 L.Ed. 38l.
N.C.-Unemployment CompensationCommission of ~orth Carolina v.'Vachovia Bank & Trust Co" 2 S.E.2d 592, 215 N.C, 49l.
Pa.-Scranton Broadcasters, Inc., v.American Communications Ass'n,CIO, Broadcast Dist. Ko. 1, Com,PI.,48 Lack.Jur. 241.
''Vash.-Boeing Aircraft Co. v. Re-construction Finance Corp., 171 P.2d 838, 25 Wash.2d 652, 168 A,L,R.539, appeal dismissed Boeing Air-craft Co. v. King County, 'Vash.,67 S.Ct. 972, two cases 330 U.S. 803,91 L.Ed. 1262.
65 C.J. p 1254 note 52.
with respect to the latter the powers of the federalgovernment are not derived from the Constitutionand are not among the enumerated or implied pow·ers but are inherent, having come into ,being beforethe adoption of the Constitution and now existingoutside it.73 The United States takes no power orauthority from state constitutions or laws.74
It has been said broadly that all activities of thegovernment, constitutionally authorized by congress,are governmental in nature75 and performed in itssovereign capacity,76 and that the United Statesdoes not have separate governmental and proprie·tary capacities;77 but it has also been held, as dis·cussed supra § 2, that when the United States entersinto commercial business it abandons its sovereigncapacity and is to be treatecl like any other corpora·tion, and, as considered infra § 7 a, the UnitedStates may own land within the territory of a statein a proprietary capacity only.
§ 5. Powers in Carrying into Effect PowersGranted
In addition to the powers expressly conferred on theUnited States by the Constitution, it has all the attributesof sove"eignty, except as restricted by the Constitution,as well as such powers as are necessary to carry intoeffect the granted powers.As discussed supra § 4, the government of the
United States, at least with respect to domesticmatters, is one of enumerated powers, and it has noinherent sovereign powers, but it is a nationalsovereignty,78 within the scope of its enumeratedpowers,79 and has all the attributes of sovereignty,
"If anyone proposition could com-mand the universal assent of man-kind, we might expect it would bethis-that the government of the Un-ion, though limited in its powers, issupreme within its sphere of action,This would seem to result, necessari-ly, from its nature. It is the gov-ernment of all; its powers are dele-gated by all; it rcpresents all, andacts for all."-lVIcCulloch v. Mary-land, Md., 4 'Vheat. 316, 405, 4 L.Ed.579.69, U,S.-Kansas v. Colorado, Kan.,27 S.Ct. 655, 206 U.S. 46, 83, 51 L.Ed. 965.
65 C,J. p 1254 note 56.70. U.S.-Hodges v. U. S., Ark., 27S.Ct. 6, 203 U.S. 1, 51 L.Ed. 65.
71. U.S,-Ex parte Burrus, Neb., 10S.Ct. 850, 136 U.S. 586, 34 L.Ed.500.
65 C.:r. p 1254 note 60.72. U,S.-Stanley v. Schwalby, Tex.,13 S.Ct. 418, 147 U.S. 508, 37 L,Ed.259,
65 C.J. p 1254 note 61.
App.D.C., 56 S.Ct. 855, 298 U.S. 238,80 L.Ed. 1160.
D.C.-U. S. v. Peace Information Cen·ter, D.C., 97 F.Supp. 255.
74. N.Y.-U. S. v. Sumner, 211 N.Y.S. 705, 125 l\Iisc. 658.
75. N.C.-Unemployment Compensa·tion Commission of North Carolinav. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.,S.E.2d 592, 215 N.C. 491.
Agency as govel'Jl!llental in natureEvery agency which Congress can
constitutionally create is a "govern·mental agency."-Graves v. Peopleof State of Kew York ex reI. O'Keefe,N.Y., 59 S.Ct. 595, 120 A.L,R, 1466.76. D.C.-U. S. v. I. C. C., D.C., 78F.Supp. 580.
77. D.C.-U. S. v. 1. C. C., supra.78. U.S.-Legal Tender Cases, N.Y"4 S.Ct. 122, 110 US. 421, 28 L.Ed.204-Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. John·son Shipyards Corporation, C.C,A.N.Y., 6 F.2d 752. affirmed StriIrev. U. S., 46 S.Ct. 182, 269 U.S. 503,70 L.Ed. 379.
What isn't enumer-rated is reservedfor the People.
Bingo. SupremeCourt is from Constitution; Emergency Banking Relief is from Congress, separation of powers. The court you want is one under Supreme Court Rules.
Congress ordained the EMBRA/TWEA
Relations = Trust
TWEA/EBRA is "external" matters regarding protection from "enemies" and not of the Constitution; and, the laws governing are therefore Roman Int'l lawthat existed prior to the Constitution.
#4 p.2
r treaty provided that the boundary should fol-the center of the normal channel notwithstand-alterations by erosion and deposit of alluvium,that in case of changes by the cutting of a newor the deepening of another channel than that
'ch originally marked the boundary, the lineould continue to follow the original channel.52
's resulted in there being bancos or small tractstf land on the opposite side of the river from theClIlIIltriesto which they belonged,53 and, in ordertoeliminate these bancos from the effect of the priortruties,54 a new treaty was made providing thatminion and jurisdiction of such of the bancos
ready surveyed as lie on the south bank of themer shall pass to Mexico and dominion and juris-
ction of those on the north bank to the Unitedtates and that the boundary commission previously
createdshall be guided by that principle in eliminat-mg bancos.55 This treaty applies to bancos formed1IlIl unsurveyed at the date of the treaty and to
ncos thereafter formed.56 In view of the nego-bations preceding the treaty, it has been held that
it is to be treated as providing for an adjustmentof the boundary line, and not for a cession of terri-tory,57 and a banco north of the river is presumedto have been always in the United States,58 and,while such a banco formed prior to 1905 was theproperty of Mexico until the date of the new trea-ty,59 dominion thereover was transferred to theUnited States when the treaty was signed, althoughthe boundary commission did not declare the landa banco until later,60 and the de facto possession
of Mexico in the meantime gave a Mexican court
no jurisdiction to dispose of the title.61 The treaty
gives the boundary commission no judicial func-
tions,62 and no power to fix the boundary,63 or
determine which tracts shall be eliminated,64 but
merely gives it power to determine as to the exist-
ence of the facts calling for elimination under thetreaty,65 and to mark and to establish the location
of the boundary.66 Findings of the commission, ac-
cordingly, can have no binding effect on private
rights.67
The governmental powers of the United States, toextent that they are conferred or not withheld byConstitution, are supreme and paramount. The
•• Tex.-Xunez v. State, 156 S:W.933.70Tex.Cr. 481.
5C.J.p 1253note 37.•. T(,x.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-
provementCo. v. City Mortg. Co.,Civ.App.,48S.W.2d 310.
M. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-provementCO. V. City Mortg. Co.,supra.
•. U.S.-Willis v. First Real Es-tate & Investment Co., C.C.A.Tex.,68F.2d 671,certiorari denied 54 S.Ct.631,292U.S. 626, 78 L.Ed. 1481,rehearing denied 54 S.Ct. 713, 292U... 604,78 L.Ed. 1467.
•. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-provementCo. v. City Mortg. Co.,C1v.App.. 48 S.W.2d 310.let 011private ownership
Wherea tract of land which wastransferred by shifting course of
er from the Mexican to the Unitedtes side of the Rio Grande did
t have an area of 250 hectares nor• populationof 200, the political sov-
gnty of the land involved was(erred to the United States, butprivate ownership thereof wasthereby affected.-eanales v.
pton, Tex.Civ.App.. 145 S.W.2dl
United States has no inherent sovereign powers, and nolegislative powers other than those conferred by theConstitution.
57. U.S.-'Villis v. First Real Estate& Investment Co., C.C.A.Tex., 68F.2d 671. certiorari denied 54 S.Ct.631, 292 U.S. 626, 78 L.Ed. 1481, re-hearing denied 54 S.Ct. 713, 292 U.S.604, 78 L.Ed. 1467.
Tex.-Fragoso v. Cisneros, Civ.App.,154 S.W.2d 991, error refused.
65 C.:!. p 1253 note 42.
58. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-provement Co. v. Clardy, Civ.App.,48 S.W.2d 315.
59. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-provement Co. v. City Mortg. Co.,Civ.App .. 48 S.W.2d 310.
60. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-provement Co. v. City Mortg. Co.,Civ.App .. 48 S:W.2d 310.
65 C.:!. p 1254 note 45.
61. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-provement Co. v. Caples, Civ.App.,48 S.W.2d 329.
65 C.:!. p 1254 note 46.
62. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-provement CO. V. Clardy, Civ.App.,48 S.W.2d 315.
63. Tex.-Fragoso v. Cisneros, Civ.App., 154 S.vV.2d 991, error refused-San Lorenzo Title & Improve-
ment Co. V. Caples, Civ.App., 48 S.W.2d 329.
64. TeX.-San Lorenzo Title·& Im-provement Co. v. Clardy, Civ.App.,48 S.W.2d 315.It is for the court to determine
facts as to location of land in con-troversy along boundary betweenUnited States and Mexico and adjudi-cate accordinglY.-'Villis v. FirstReal Estate & Investment Co., C.C.A.Tex., 68 F.2d 671, certiorari denied54 S.Ct. 631, 292 U.S. 626, 78 L.Ed.1481, rehearing denied 54 S.Ct. 713,292 U.S. 604, 78 L.Ed. 1467.65. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Im-
provement Co. v. Caples, Civ.App.,48 S.W.2d 329-San Lorenzo Title &Improvement Co. v. Clardy, (;iv.App., 48 S.vV.2d 315.
66. Tex.-Fragoso v. Cisneros, Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 991, error refused!-San Lorenzo Title & Improve-ment Co. v. Capies, Civ.App., 48 S.W.2d 329.
67. U.S.-Wiilis v. First Real Estate& Investment Co., C.C.A.Tex., 68F.2d 671, certiorari denied 54 S.Ct.631, 292 U.S. 626, 78 L.Ed. 1481,rehearing denied 54 S.Ct. 713, 293-U.S. 604, 78 L.Ed. 1467.
governrrient-Iegislatin, executive, and judicial-'within the sphere of action confined to it by the Con-stitution are supreme and paramount.68 The Con-stitution does not, however, make any general grantof power, but states the legislative powers that aregranted, and provides that powers not delegatedto the United States, or prohibited to the states, arereserved to the states or to the people, and it hastherefore become an accepted constitutional rule, asdiscussed in Constitutional Law § 68, that this is agovernment of enumerated or delegated powers, andthat it has only such powers as have been conferred,on it, expressly or by necessary implication. Thereis, however, a distinction, in this respect, betweenthe legislative power and the judicial power,69 since,as provided in the Constitution, Article 3 § 1, theentire judicial power of the nation is vested in itssupreme court and in such inferior courts as con-gress may from time to time ordain and establish.The Constitution, Article 2 § 1, also confers the en-tire executive power on the president in generalterms.
The United States has no inherent sovereign pow-ers70 and no inherent common-law prerogatives, andit has no power to interfere in the personal or socialrelations of citizens by virtue of authority deduciblefrom the general nature of sO\'ereignty,71 but it hasso much of the royal prerogatives as belonged tothe king of England in his capacity of parens patriaeor universal trustee.72 However, this lack of in-herent powers has been held limited to domesticmatters as distinguished from external matters, and
68. U.S.-Graves v. People of Stateof New York ex reI. O'Keefe, N.Y"59 S.Ct. 595, 306 U.S. 466, 83 L,Ed.927. 120 A.L.R. 1466-U. S. ex reI.Smith v. Baldi, D,C.Pa., 96 F.Supp.100, affirmed, C.A., 192 F.2d 540,affirmed 73 S,Ct. 391, 344 U.S. 561,97 L.Ed. 54n, and Daniels v. Allen,73 S.Ct. 437, 34<1U.S. 443, 97 L.Ed.469-Paris v. !lIetropolitan LifeIns. Co., D,C.N.Y" 68 F.Supp. 64,reversed on other grounds, C.C.A.,167 F.2d 834, certiorari denied 69S.Ct. 53, 335 U.S. 827, n3 L.Ed. 38l.
N.C.-Unemployment CompensationCommission of ~orth Carolina v.'Vachovia Bank & Trust Co" 2 S.E.2d 592, 215 N.C, 49l.
Pa.-Scranton Broadcasters, Inc., v.American Communications Ass'n,CIO, Broadcast Dist. Ko. 1, Com,PI.,48 Lack.Jur. 241.
''Vash.-Boeing Aircraft Co. v. Re-construction Finance Corp., 171 P.2d 838, 25 Wash.2d 652, 168 A,L,R.539, appeal dismissed Boeing Air-craft Co. v. King County, 'Vash.,67 S.Ct. 972, two cases 330 U.S. 803,91 L.Ed. 1262.
65 C.J. p 1254 note 52.
with respect to the latter the powers of the federalgovernment are not derived from the Constitutionand are not among the enumerated or implied pow·ers but are inherent, having come into ,being beforethe adoption of the Constitution and now existingoutside it.73 The United States takes no power orauthority from state constitutions or laws.74
It has been said broadly that all activities of thegovernment, constitutionally authorized by congress,are governmental in nature75 and performed in itssovereign capacity,76 and that the United Statesdoes not have separate governmental and proprie·tary capacities;77 but it has also been held, as dis·cussed supra § 2, that when the United States entersinto commercial business it abandons its sovereigncapacity and is to be treatecl like any other corpora·tion, and, as considered infra § 7 a, the UnitedStates may own land within the territory of a statein a proprietary capacity only.
§ 5. Powers in Carrying into Effect PowersGranted
In addition to the powers expressly conferred on theUnited States by the Constitution, it has all the attributesof sove"eignty, except as restricted by the Constitution,as well as such powers as are necessary to carry intoeffect the granted powers.
As discussed supra § 4, the government of theUnited States, at least with respect to domesticmatters, is one of enumerated powers, and it has noinherent sovereign powers, but it is a nationalsovereignty,78 within the scope of its enumeratedpowers,79 and has all the attributes of sovereignty,
"If anyone proposition could com-mand the universal assent of man-kind, we might expect it would bethis-that the government of the Un-ion, though limited in its powers, issupreme within its sphere of action,This would seem to result, necessari-ly, from its nature. It is the gov-ernment of all; its powers are dele-gated by all; it rcpresents all, andacts for all."-lVIcCulloch v. Mary-land, Md., 4 'Vheat. 316, 405, 4 L.Ed.579.69, U,S.-Kansas v. Colorado, Kan.,
27 S.Ct. 655, 206 U.S. 46, 83, 51 L.Ed. 965.
65 C,J. p 1254 note 56.70. U.S.-Hodges v. U. S., Ark., 27
S.Ct. 6, 203 U.S. 1, 51 L.Ed. 65.71. U.S,-Ex parte Burrus, Neb., 10
S.Ct. 850, 136 U.S. 586, 34 L.Ed.500.
65 C.:r. p 1254 note 60.72. U,S.-Stanley v. Schwalby, Tex.,
13 S.Ct. 418, 147 U.S. 508, 37 L,Ed.259,
65 C.J. p 1254 note 61.
App.D.C., 56 S.Ct. 855, 298 U.S. 238,80 L.Ed. 1160.
D.C.-U. S. v. Peace Information Cen·ter, D.C., 97 F.Supp. 255.
74. N.Y.-U. S. v. Sumner, 211 N.Y.S. 705, 125 l\Iisc. 658.
75. N.C.-Unemployment Compensa·tion Commission of North Carolinav. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.,S.E.2d 592, 215 N.C. 491.
Agency as govel'Jl!llental in natureEvery agency which Congress can
constitutionally create is a "govern·mental agency."-Graves v. Peopleof State of Kew York ex reI. O'Keefe,N.Y., 59 S.Ct. 595, 120 A.L,R, 1466.76. D.C.-U. S. v. I. C. C., D.C., 78
F.Supp. 580.77. D.C.-U. S. v. 1. C. C., supra.78. U.S.-Legal Tender Cases, N.Y"
4 S.Ct. 122, 110 US. 421, 28 L.Ed.204-Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. John·son Shipyards Corporation, C.C,A.N.Y., 6 F.2d 752. affirmed StriIrev. U. S., 46 S.Ct. 182, 269 U.S. 503,70 L.Ed. 379.
What isn't enumer-rated is reservedfor the People.
Bingo. SupremeCourt is from Constitution; Emergency Banking Relief is from Congress, separation of powers. The court you want is one under Supreme Court Rules.
Congress ordained the EMBRA/TWEA
Relations = Trust
TWEA/EBRA is "external" matters regarding protection from "enemies" and not of the Constitution; and, the laws governing are therefore Roman Int'l lawthat existed prior to the Constitution.
except as restricted by' the Constitution,80 and itsprerogatives as a sovereign nation are coextensivewith the powers committed to it,81 so that, touchingmatters within its jurisdiction, it has inherent powerto promote the general welfare.82 There is also awide scope of selection of the means for the execu-tion of the enumerated powers under what has beentermed the "coefficient power"83 which, as discussedin Constitutional Law § 68, is the power to makeall laws necessary and proper for carrying into ef-fect the enumerated powers and all other powersvested by the Constitution in the Government of theUnited States or in any department or officer there-of. The words "necessary and proper" include allmeans which are conducive or adapted to the endto be accomplished and which, in the judgment ofcongress, would most advantageously effect theend ;84 and it has been said that the nature andpurpose of the federal government require that itbe subject to restraints less narrow and confiningthan the individual states.85 In the exercise of its
4 S.Ct. 122, 110 U.S. 4~1, 28 L.Ed.204.
65C.J. p 1255note 66.80. U.S.-Burnet v. Brooks, 53 S.Ct.
457, 288 U.S. 378, 77 L.Ed. 844, 86A.L.R.74'7-Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v.Johnson Shipyards Corporation, C.C.A.N.Y.,6 F.2d 752, affirmed Stripev. U. S., 46 S.Ct. 182, 26g U.S. 503,70L.Ed. 379.
81. U.S.-Elliot v. Van Voorst, C.C.N.J., 8 F.Cas.No.4,390, 3 ,Vall. Jr.299.
Poweras coextensi ve with sovereign-ty
"It is beyond dispute that the Gov-ernment of the United States may ex-ercise, within the limits of its sov-ereignty, and upon the soil which isa part of the United States, its pow-ers and functions."-Hardyman v.Collins,D.C.Cal., 80 F.Supp. 501, 504.reversed on other grounds, C.A., 183~'.2d308, reversed on other groundsCollins v. Hardyman, 71 S.Ct. n37,341U.S.651,g5L.Ed. 1253.82. U.S.-Nebbia v. People of State
of New York, N.Y., 54 S.Ct. 505, 291U.S. 502, 78 L.Ed. 940, 89 A.L.R.1469, affirming People v. Nebbia,186N.R 694, 262 X.Y. 259.
Discretion in exercise of powersThe science of Government is the
scienceof experiment and is the mostabstruse of all sciences, practicallyconsisting in little more than the ex-ercise of a sound discretion appliedto exigencies of state as they arise.-Beauharnais v. People of State ofIll., Ill., 72 S.Ct. 725, 343 U.S. 250,96 L.Ed. 919, rehearing denied 72 S.Ct. 1070,343 U.S. gS8, 96 L.Ed. 1375.Matters in "national public interest"
Condition of national public inter-
power to spend in the general welfare the means em-ployed to attain the end must be plainly adaptedthereto.86 The scope and incidents of the govern-ment's express and implied powers are the same,87and a power may be implied as an incident to apower which is itself implied.88
As discussed in Constitutional Law § 177, al-though the United States has no general police pow-er, it has whatever police power is appropriate tothe exercise of any attribute of sovereignty specifi-cally granted to it, and may, by virtue of its sov-ereignty, take such measures as are necessary to in-sure peace and order in performance of any of itsfunctions. Thus, it has power to protect its ownsovereignty,89 and it is always charged with theduty of protecting the rights and property of itscitizens.9o It is also vested with all the powers ofgovernment necessary to maintain effective controlof international re1ations.91
On the principle of sovereignty growing out of
est, so as to permit of federal regu-lation, only exists when person, com-pany, or thing affected with publicinterest is in fact involved directlyin activities over which federal gov-ernment through one or more of pow-ers delegated to it by Constitutionhas jurisdiction.-In re AmericanStates Public Service Co., D.C.Md.,12 F.Supp. 667, modified on othergrounds, C.C.A., Burco, Inc. v. Whit-worth, 81 F.2d 721, certiorari denied56 S.Ct. 670, two cases, 297 U.S. 724,80 L.Ed. 1008.83. U.S.-Legal Tender Cases, N.Y.,
4 S.Ot. 122, 110 U.S. 421, 28 L.Ed.204.
84. U.S.-Graves v. People of Stateof New York ex reI. O'Kecfe, N.Y.,59 S.Ct. 595, 120 A.L.R. 1466.
65 C.J. p 1255 note 71.85. D.C.-Keild v. District of Co-
lumbia, 110 F.2d 246, 71 App.D.C.306.
86. D.C.-Township of Franklin,Somerset County, N. J., v. Tugwell,85 F.2d 208, 66 App.D.C. 42.
tion Act of 1935 that it was enactedto meet an emergency or for the gen-eral welfare added nothing to its con-stitutionality.-Township of Frank-lin, Somerset County, N. J., v. Tug-well, supra.Work relief appropriation
Although right to regulate gradecrossings is within police power ofthe state and has not been undertak-en by Congress under its interstatecommerce powers, federal govern-ment could use grade crossings asprojects for relief from unemploy-ment witheut co-operation from thestate, or by co-operating with stateby making a conditional grant, underpower to promote the "general we1-fare."-Warm v. City of Cincinnati, 1Ohio Supp. 273, affirmed 11 N.E.2d281, 57 Ohio App. 43.'in. U.S.-Ruppert v. Caffey, N.Y., 40
S.Ct. 141, 251 U.S. 267, 300, 64 L.Ed.260.
Mass.-Commonwealth v. Nickerson,128 N.E. 273, 236 Mass. 281, 10 A.L.R. 1568.
88. U.S.-Ruppert v. Caffey, N.Y., 40S.Ct. 141, 251 U.S. 267, 300, 64 L.Ed. 260.
65 C.J. p 1255 note 80.
Housing appr"priationEmergency Relief Appropriation
Act of 1935, as respects appropriationcontained there in for "housing," re-lied upon as authorization for es- I 89. U.S.-Craig v. Steele, D.C.~10.,tablishment of Resettlement Admin- 123 F.Supp. 153.istration, held not sustainable under 90 US -U S P t DC C Igeneral welfare clause of Constitu- . .. " v. e ersen, .. a.,t· . b t f t "h ." 91 F.Supp. 209, affirmed, C.A., Pe-lOn, smce y erms 0 ac ousmg tersen v. U. S., 191 F.2d 154, cer-
~as not shown to have any conn~c- tiorari denied, State of Cal. v. U.tlO? wIth ~tated purpose to prOVIde S. 72 S.Ct. 174 342 U.S. 885 96relIef and mcrease employment, and L 'Ed 664' ,since projects contemplated by term .. ."housing" concerned themselves with 91. U.S.-Burnet v. Brooks, 53 S.Ct.local conditions constituting concerns 457, 288 U.S. 378, 77 L.Ed. 844, 86of the state, and the mere declara- A.L.R. 747.tion in Emergency Relief Apflropria- 65 C.J. p 1255 note 65 [a].