The Declaration of Independence was allegedly motivated by a desire of the American colonists to free themselves from control by the authorities in England.  Arguments for the change were made in terms of the rights of the people, and by references to the principles that are a part of the Doctrine of Social Contract.  The veracity of the various arguments might be open to question.  The actual motives might well have had more to do with commercial profit and local authority.

By the time that the U.S. constitution was written, thirteen years later, a new government, the Continental Congress, had been pursuing its own vested interests, and securing its own authority.  As a result, the writing of the U.S. constitution was driven by a different agenda than was the writing of the Declaration of Independence.  The rights of the people, and even the Doctrine of Social Contract, fell by the wayside in favor of a powerful central government and a centrally regulated economy.  In this essay, I resurrected those lost concerns, and reviewed the U.S. constitution and its government, from the point of view of the Doctrine of Social Contract.  It would be useful to understand that doctrine before reading this present essay.  I recommend first reading my essay The Long And Winding Doctrine:  Social Contract, and then reading this one.  That essay is available in Pharos.

In the world as it is today, it's literally impossible for governments to comply with the most important principle of the Doctrine of Social Contract.  That principle is that the legitimate boundaries of lawful government are not geographical.  They are contractual.  So far, the idea of the Doctrine of Social Contract has been used mostly to give a false appearance of legitimacy to governments that are actually as despotic today as governments have ever been.  In some places, today, the methods of oppression and control used by governments are more cosmetically appealing than has often been the case, but only so long as people stay in line.  Governments today still rely on force and the fear of punishment to oppress and control their people.  A gilded cage is, as they say, still a cage.

As previously noted, it's literally impossible, today, for governments to entirely comply with the Doctrine of Social Contract.  In this essay, I evaluated the present government of the United States of America, and the constitution by which it's created, against two of the secondary principles that are contained in the doctrine.

1.

A constitution must authorize for its government only powers and jurisdictions that are delegated by the people. Corollary 1.The people cannot delegate powers or jurisdictions, and the government cannot exercise powers or jurisdictions, that the people do not have. Corollary 2.The people do not lose their powers when they delegate them.

2.	A government is illegitimate if it fails to comply with its constitution.

Compliance with those two conditions is as close as it's possible, in today's world, for a constitution and its government to get to the Doctrine of Social Contract.

Page 1

The Bill of Rights, appended to the U.S. constitution as an afterthought, is advertised as a limitation of the powers of the government.  In fact, most of the limits imposed by the Bill of Rights have exceptions that operate at the discretion of the government, or loopholes that otherwise defeat the alleged limitation.  The Third Amendment is a good example.

Most amendments in the Bill of Rights embody some such phoney limitation of power.  Another example is the power of eminent domain.  It exists because of the Fifth Amendment, not in spite of it.

More generally, see my essay In Search of the Supreme Flaw of the Land:  The Bill of Rights.  It's available in Pharos.

Page 3

The U.S. constitution doesn't have a title.  Instead, it begins at the Preamble, without any heading at all, title or otherwise.  The Preamble refers to the document as "this Constitution for the United States of America".  That isn't a title.  Worse yet, the statement can't be construed so as to ensure that the constitution that contains it is the only such constitution in existence.  It's only "this" constitution.  The word this might designate one thing among several others.  Thus, "this Constitution for the United States of America" could be one of several other constitutions.  Bouvier's comment on contracts applies equally as well to constitutions as it does to any other contract.  Words, in constitutions as in other contracts, are to be taken, if possible, in their comprehensive and common sense.

Why is that important?  It's important because sources, references, and so forth that are used in legal proceedings must be cited accurately and unambiguously.  That's true of all legal proceedings, such as court cases, treaties, declarations of war, legislation, and so forth.  So, what about those proceedings that formally refer to or inherently rely for their validity on a document called "The Constitution of the United States of America"?  That alleged title doesn't even agree with the one that appears in the Preamble.  It's different by an article and a preposition.  In either case, there isn't any original document in existence with either title.  Any alleged copy of the U.S. constitution that bears either of those titles isn't a true and accurate copy of the original.  Any reference to such a document is invalid.

Even if the U.S. constitution had a title, various other errors and irregularities in its origin and pedigree prevent it from having any credibility or legitimacy.  I discussed those flaws in my essay In Search of the Supreme Flaw of the Land:  Perpetual Union.  It's available in Pharos.

All of that considered, this examination of the U.S. constitution is probably nothing more than an academic exercise.  However, since the U.S. constitution is passed off as a legitimate basis for the present U.S. government, the exercise is probably worth the trouble.

Page 5

It's easy to find, in the U.S. constitution, delegations of powers to the government.  The most extensive single delegation of power is to the Congress.

The range of the powers delegated in the U.S. constitution is enormous and, by Article 1, Section 8, clause 18, the Congress has the power to do whatever it takes to execute them.  The only limits are that the resulting legislation must be necessary and proper, and that is entirely at the discretion of the Congress.  Changes in the membership of the Congress by way of elections are irrelevant.  The institution, itself, is continuous.  See Hermann Goering's comment.

The U.S. constitution provides other justifications for enacting legislation.  Consider the following for example.

Page 7

The significance of the powers delegated in the U.S. constitution is further enhanced by the Supremacy Clause.  The main importance of that clause is its definition of the supreme law of the land.

Page 8

The U.S. constitution doesn't specify jurisdictions very clearly, but several appear to exist, at least by implication.  They are:
 

1.	an exclusive legislative jurisdiction,

2.	a jurisdiction of the Congress over territory and other property of the United States,

3.	a jurisdiction of the U.S. constitution over various individuals,

4.	jurisdictions of the U.S. government over various individuals,

5.	a judicial jurisdiction,

6.	other constraints on the judges,

7.	a commercial jurisdiction, and

8.	a military jurisdiction.

Since the jurisdictions aren't always clearly defined, they most often must be deduced from the powers delegated.  Other students of the U.S. constitution might discover a different set of jurisdictions.  I consider this ambiguity to be a serious deficiency in the U.S. constitution.

Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction
 

There isn't any wording in this clause that prohibits the Congress from exercising legislative authority outside of this jurisdiction.  The Tenth Amendment might be alleged to limit the jurisdiction of the Congress to the boundaries of these regions, by generally prohibiting the exercise of powers not specifically delegated.  However, at least one other jurisdiction over other geographical regions is delegated in the U.S. constitution, so the Tenth Amendment cannot have such an effect.

Jurisdiction of the Congress Over Territory or Other Property of the United States

Page 9

The other places (Article 1, Section 8, clause 17) are within the boundaries of the states.  Territory isn't.  The district and other places were also limited with respect to their method of acquisition and intended use.  No such limits were placed on either the territory or the other property of Article 4, Section 3, clause 2.  That clause therefore provides a jurisdiction that can be extended to any property or territory of the United States, wherever it might be, whether or not it was ceded by a state legislature, and without any consideration of its intended use.  Any property and any territory falls within this jurisdiction merely by the acquisition of ownership of the territory or property.

Methods are provided in the U.S. constitution for the acquisition of title to property.  One method of acquiring title to real property owned by states is provided in Article 1, Section 8, clause 17, previously quoted.  That isn't the only method of acquiring title to property.  The U.S. constitution also allows the federal government to acquire title to private property.  That provision is part of the Fifth Amendment.

Page 10

The only test of this jurisdiction is whether or not the property or territory belongs to the United States.  This might appear to be a good test for violation of the Doctrine of Social Contract.  For example, IRS seizures of bank accounts and DEA seizures of yachts might appear to be examples of the government exercising power over property that it doesn't own, or outside of its proper geographical jurisdiction.  Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple.  As with the jurisdiction previously discussed, there isn't any wording that prohibits the Congress from exercising authority in other jurisdictions besides this one.  The clause only specifies that powers can be exercised within the specified jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of the U.S. constitution Over Various Individuals

The writers of the U.S. constitution gave the U.S. constitution jurisdiction over certain individuals.  One such group is the various public officers.

The members of the military jurisdiction (discussed later) are also under the jurisdiction of the U.S. constitution because of their oaths.  I included two examples of such oaths near the end of this essay.  I'm not aware of any constitutional requirement that military personnel must take such oaths, although there might be one, but they do take the oaths and thereby come under the jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction of the U.S. constitution is imposed upon the judges by the Supremacy Clause, without regard to the taking of an oath.  The jurisdiction is explicitly established without regard to any geographical or other restrictions.  It applies not only to

Page 11

Jurisdiction of the U.S. Government Over Various Individuals

The jurisdiction of the U.S. government is established by different clauses and oaths than is the jurisdiction of the U.S. constitution.

Many people who are adults today were compelled, as children, to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands.  The pledge was normally executed possibly before witnesses, by a licensed agent of the state (the school teacher), with solemn formality.  No such oath should ever be administered to children who, in any case, aren't competent to bind themselves into such an obligation.

Such oaths continue to exist today, in more legally binding forms.  For example, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 required anyone who wanted to be employed to complete an INS Form I-9.  That form contained an attestation, under penalty of perjury, of citizenship.  Presumably that form, or its successor, still does.  That oath is even more coerced than the childhood pledge, because there's little alternative to employment.  The difference is that adults are competent to bind themselves, and the Form I-9 can be produced in court.  The requirement has the effect of compelling people into the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, whether or not they want to be in that jurisdiction.

There are a few other ways in which an individual can come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.  One way is by registering to vote.  I was living in California

Page 12

People also submit to the jurisdiction by the execution of some contract which includes in its provisions, at least by implication, an obligation to some jurisdiction of the government.  Marriage licenses, driver's licenses, and business licenses are examples of such contracts.  A marriage license might seem like an innocuous thing to get but there are serious implications to licensing a marriage under the jurisdiction of the state.  The main reason for this is the difficulty of being partially within the jurisdiction of the government.  I have an example.

A friend of mine had, for several years, avoided getting a driver's license because he didn't want to submit to the jurisdiction of the California Vehicle Code.  One day his car had a dead battery.  When he tried to push the car out of its parking place, it scraped the side of the adjacent car.  He arranged to pay for the damage himself, but his wife's insurance company was informed of the incident.  When the insurance company learned that he was driving the car, and didn't have a driver's license, problems developed.  Although the insurance policy, the loan on the other family car, and the registration of both cars were in his wife's name, the insurance company insisted that my friend had to get a driver's license because he was married to the insured party.  They threatened to cancel the insurance policy, or convert it to an assigned risk policy, at double the cost, if he refused.  Since the other car, a new car for which they were still making payments, was also insured on the policy, the loan company got involved.  If the policy was canceled, the loan company intended to provide other, more expensive insurance for the new car, and charge it to my friend and his wife.  Finally, his only choices were to either get a divorce or to get a driver's license.  Suggesting a divorce to his wife, no matter how meekly he did it, only made things worse.  He got a driver's license.  It isn't certain that his wife could have kept her insurance, even divorced.

There's a lesson in the story.  His wife's driving privilege, licensed under the jurisdiction of the state, compelled her into a contract with the insurance company

Page 13

If participation in this network of privileges is voluntary, then the resulting jurisdictions accrue without duress, and must be respected.  However, voluntary is a very slippery concept.  If the choices are arranged properly, then people will voluntarily do a lot of things that they don't want to do.  I voluntarily joined the Naval Reserve, to avoid getting drafted.  People will voluntarily complete an INS Form I-9, if starvation is the alternative.  People will voluntarily jump from the top of a building, if the building happens to be burning under them.  My friend voluntarily got his driver's license, just like he voluntarily got his marriage license.

The jurisdictions of the government over individuals are unavoidable.  They're enforced by legislation, by regulations, by the policies of corporations and franchises, and by the behavior of the courts.  They're even enforced by the people themselves.  For a sorry instance of that, see my memoir Linda Sue Avants, in Pharos.  The boundaries of these jurisdictions are impossible to discern.  There isn't any way that they can be viewed as either limited or voluntary.  Inarguably, they defeat the legitimacy of the U.S. government as an example of the Doctrine of Social Contract.

The Judicial Jurisdiction

A special judicial jurisdiction is delegated according to subject matter.  It applies without any restriction of geography, or other limitation.

There are other ways to fall under a judicial jurisdiction.  An example was revealed to me by the final documents issued by the court after my divorce from my first wife.  One of those documents, the Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, contained the following paragraph:

Page 14

Sometime during 1991, the Santa Clara County (California) District Attorney, Family Support Division, allegedly served a summons on me.  Actually, I was unavailable, so they served it on my next door neighbor, a renter, a non-citizen, and a temporary resident.  They asked him for ID, handed the summons to him, and he signed for it.  There wasn't any guarantee whatsoever that I'd ever receive the summons.  Nevertheless, they proceeded with their case against me.  Subsequently, the Deputy District Attorney (Jack S. Cardinale) claimed in writing, in at lease two letters, that the summons had been personally served to me.  In spite of my repeated demands, they never admitted their fraudulent behavior.  On February 26, 1992, they filed a default Judgment and Order, alleging that I'd been duly served and had failed to appear.  I didn't fail to appear.  I refused to appear.  There's a difference.  Failure implies an obligation that I didn't have.  Eventually, they encumbered my home with a lien.  I continued to make myself unavailable.  Eventually, they waited until I left the house and arrested me at gun point.  My so-called lawyer (Kevin Veltfort) assured me that the authorities would keep me in jail forever if I refused to cooperate.  I couldn't find anywhere a lawyer who'd argue my case on its merits.  I was afraid to do it myself.  If I'd told the judge what I thought, then I really would have been in jail forever.  I was forced to voluntarily sell my home and give them the funds.  Today, I don't own a house.

My attempt to stay outside of the jurisdiction of the court was utterly ignored and I was placed in the jurisdiction against my will.  The entire story is available in my memoir The Rise and Fall of Mere Keep, in Pharos.  Clearly, participation in this jurisdiction is far from voluntary and it fails the test of the Doctrine of Social Contract.

Other Constraints on the Judges

There are constraints placed upon the judges that are not necessarily jurisdictions but that nevertheless are authoritative.

Page 15

District Judge Wyzanski reminded us, while apologetically ruling in favor of the IRS, that discipline imposed upon the judges isn't limited to that of the Congress.  This is a de facto jurisdiction that has resulted from the operation of the executive agencies.  It might not be a lawful jurisdiction but the careers, reputations, and private lives of the judges are vulnerable to it.

The Commercial Jurisdiction

The U.S. constitution also contains the delegation of a considerable jurisdiction over commercial matters in the United States.  The powers in this jurisdiction are delegated mostly in Article 1, Section 8, and are given to the Congress.  Among them are the powers to regulate commerce among the several states (clause 3), to establish legislation governing bankruptcies (clause 4), to coin money and regulate its value, and establish standard weights and measures (clause 5), to punish counterfeiters (clause 6), and to issue patents and copyrights (clause 8).

This jurisdiction might seem innocuous but people probably don't realize the extent to which they're regulated by it.  The Congress has delegated extensive powers under this jurisdiction.  A look at a list of some of the executive agencies that are busily exercising powers in this jurisdiction might be useful.

1. Civil Aeronautics Board 2. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 3. Consumer Product Safety Commission 4. Environmental Protection Agency 5. Federal Communications Commission 6. Federal Labor Relations Authority 7. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 8. Federal Reserve System 9. Federal Trade Commission 10. Interstate Commerce Commission 11. National Capital Planning Commission

12. National Credit Union Administration 13. National Labor Relations Board 14. National Mediation Board 15. National Transportation Safety Board 16. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 17. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 18. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 19. Securities and Exchange Commission 20. Small Business Administration 21. and others.

Page 16

The Military Jurisdiction

It isn't surprising that a military jurisdiction exists.  Critics of the military-industrial complex might find it interesting that the commercial jurisdiction and the military jurisdiction are both delegated to the Congress, and that both are delegated in the same section of the U.S. constitution.

The military jurisdiction is delegated mostly in Article 1, Section 8.  It includes the powers to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas (clause 10), to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water (clause 11), to raise and support armies (clause 12), to provide and maintain a navy (clause 13), to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces (clause 14), to provide for calling forth the militia (clause 15), and to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing it when it's employed in the service of the United States (clause 16).  In Article 2, Section 2, clause 1, the President is made the commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states when it's in the actual service of the United States.

Members of the Army, the Navy, and the militia are under the military jurisdiction.  Presumably, members of the Air Force are as well, although I'm not aware of how the jurisdiction is extended to them.  They certainly aren't mentioned in the U.S. constitution.  The military jurisdiction is a jurisdiction that could easily comply with the Doctrine of Social Contract.  According to the oaths included near the end of this essay, participation and allegiance is voluntary.  However, mandatory registration with the Selective Service System has the effect of compelling people into the jurisdiction whether or not they want to be there.  Again, duress reveals despotism and the U.S. government fails the test.

Page 17

A general failure of the U.S. constitution appears in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  That provision declares that citizens are under the jurisdiction (power and control) of the U.S. government.  The status of citizens is confirmed in Black's Law Dictionary.  Such dominion of a government over the people is a direct violation of the doctrine expressed in the Declaration of independence, whereby the people have the right to alter or to abolish the government.  They can't do that if they're under its jurisdiction (power and control).  The Fourteenth Amendment contains an undeniable violation of the Doctrine of Social Contract.

There are various failures of the principle that a constitution should limit the powers and jurisdictions of its government.  The legislative jurisdictions of the Congress over property and territory are limited only by the government's ability to acquire property.  A look at a state map of someplace like Idaho or Oregon will provide a healthy respect for that ability.  With regard to the acquisition of property, it would be interesting to read my essay, They Can Fool Too Many Of The People Too Much Of The Time.  That essay shows that, as a consequence of fractional reserve banking, the Federal Reserve System potentially has an unlimited power to force foreclosures on mortgages, regardless of the integrity of the borrower.  In combination with the taxing powers, the Federal Reserve System, the banking regulations, and so forth, the legislative jurisdictions over property are without limit.

The jurisdictions of the U.S. constitution and the U.S. government over individuals, including the commercial jurisdiction, are so compelling that not a fraction of a percent of the people could avoid them, even if they tried.  Most people don't even try.  Since public education is mandatory, and is regulated by the government, everyone is conditioned from childhood to mindlessly comply.  See my article Enemies of Liberty, in the April 2011 Frontiersman. 

The commercial jurisdiction is imposed upon everyone by the requirement of permits and licenses, all of which are enforced by the impositions of penalties, confiscations of inventory, seizures of businesses, imprisonment, etc.  In general, if somebody's denied access to something, due to lack of some sort of compliance, then it never even occurs to him to challenge the requirement.  Instead, he simply tries to get the documentation.  Such documentation always places the applicant within the jurisdiction of the government.

Page 19

Because of the limitless powers, mandatory jurisdictions, and sovereignty of the government, the U.S. government must be viewed as a despotism, sweetened only by the lavish availability of privileges.  The absolute control of access to the privileges is used to lure people into the jurisdictions, but the legitimate purpose of government (assuming that there is a legitimate purpose) isn't to sell privileges, but to secure rights.

Of course, anybody may disagree with me, and even try to prove me wrong.  Such a person could do so by renouncing the jurisdictions established by the U.S. constitution, remaining within the geographical boundaries claimed by the U.S. government, and openly disregarding it's powers.  If such an effort succeeds, then I'd like to know how the person did it.  Hopefully, I can be reached at the address at the bottom of this page.  If the effort doesn't succeed, then QED.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 20

AFFIDAVIT (Lat.).  In Practice.  A statement or declaration reduced to writing, and sworn or affirmed to before some officer who has authority to administer an oath or affirmation.

It differs from a deposition in this, that in the latter the opposite party has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, whereas an affidavit is always taken ex parte;  Gresley, Eq.  Ev.  413; 3 Blatch.  456.

An affidavit includes the oath, and may show what facts the affiant swore to, and thus be available as an oath, although unavailable as an affidavit;  28 Wis.  460.

By general practice, affidavits are allowable to present evidence upon the hearing of a motion, although the motion may involve the very merits of the action;  but they are not allowable to present evidence on the trial of an issue raised by the pleadings.  Here the witnesses must be produced before the adverse party.  They are generally required on all motions to open defaults or to grant delay in the proceedings and other applications by the defendant addressed to the favor of the court.

Formal parts.  -An affidavit must intelligibly refer to the cause in which it is made.  The strict rule of the common law is that it must contain the exact title of the cause.  This, however, in not absolutely essential;  80 Ill.  307.  The place where the affidavit is taken must be stated, to show that it was taken within the officer's jurisdiction;  1 Barb. Ch. Pr. 601.  The deponent must sign the affidavit at the end;  11 Paige, Ch.  173.  The jurat must be signed by the officer with the addition of his official title.  In the case of some officers the statutes conferring authority to take affidavits require also his seal to be affixed.

In general, an affidavit must describe the deponent sufficiently to show that he is entitled to offer it;  for example, that he is a party, or agent or attorney of a party, to the proceeding;  7 Hill, 177;  4 Denio, 71,  258;  and this matter must be stated, not by way of recital or as mere description, but as an allegation in the affidavit;  3 N.Y. 41;  8 id.158.

Acquired allegiance, is that binding a naturalized citizen.

Local or actual allegiance, is that measure of obedience due from a subject of one government to another government, within whose territory he is temporarily resident.  From this are excepted foreign sovereigns and their representatives, naval and armed forces when permitted to remain in or pass through the country or its waters.

Natural allegiance. In English law, that kind of allegiance which is due from all men born within the king's dominions, immediately upon their birth, which is intrinsic and perpetual, and cannot be divested by any act of their own.  In American law, the allegiance due from citizens of the United States to their native country, and also from naturalized citizens, and which cannot be renounced without the permission of government, to be declared by law.

In civil actions the parties do not normally actually appear in person, but rather through their attorneys.  Also, at many stages of criminal proceedings, particularly involving minor offenses, the defendant's attorney appears on his behalf.  See e.g.Fed.R.Crim.P. 43.

An appearance may be either general or special; the former is a simple and unqualified or unrestricted submission to the jurisdiction of the court, the latter a submission to the jurisdiction for some specific purpose only, not for all the purposes of the suit.  A special appearance is for the purpose of testing the sufficiency of service or the jurisdiction of the court;  a general appearance is made where the defendant waives defects of service and submits to the jurisdiction.  Insurance Co. of North America v. Kunin, 175 Neb. 260, 121 N.W.2d 372, 375, 376.

See also General appearance;  Notice to appear.

Appearance by attorney. An act of an attorney in prosecuting an action on behalf of his client.  Document filed in court in which attorney sets forth fact that he is representing a party to the action.

Page 29

Common law classifications. At common law an appearance could be either compulsory or voluntary, the former where it was compelled by process served on the party, the latter where it was entered by his own will or consent, without the service of process, though process may be outstanding.  Also, optional when entered by a person who intervened in the action to protect his own interests, though not joined as a party; conditional, when coupled with conditions as to its becoming or being taken as a general appearance; gratis, when made by a party to the action, but before the service of any process or legal notice to appear;  de bene esse, when made provisionally or to remain good only upon a future contingency;  or when designed to permit a party to a proceeding to refuse to submit his person to the jurisdiction of the court unless it was finally determined that he had forever waived that right;  subsequent, when made by a defendant after an appearance had already been entered for him by the plaintiff; corporal, when the person was physically present in court.

Initial appearance. A court proceeding for a defendant charged with a felony, during which the judge advises the defendant to the charges against him and of his right, decides upon bail and/or other conditions of release, and sets the date for a preliminary hearing.  See e.g.Fed.R.Crim. P. 5.

Notice of appearance. A notice given by defendant to a plaintiff that he appears in the action in person or by attorney.

The term may include or apply to children of alien parents born in United States, Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, D.C.Md., 23 F.2d 862, 863; U.S. v. Minoru Yasui, D.C.Or., 48 F.Supp., 40, 54;  children of American citizens born outside United States, Haaland v. Attorney General of United States, D.C.Md., 42 F.Supp. 13, 22;  Indians, United States v. Hester, C.C.A.Okl., 137 F.2d 145, 147;  State v. McAlhaney, 220 N.C. 387, 17 S.E.2d 352, 354;  national banks, American Surety Co. v. Bank of California, C.C.A.Or., 133 F.2d 160, 162;  nonresident who has qualified as administratrix of estate of deceased resident, Hunt v. Noll, C.C.A.Tenn., 112 F.2d 288, 289.  However, neither the United States nor a state is as citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.  Skandia American Reinsurance Corp. v. Schenck, 441 F.Supp. 715;  Jizemerjian v. Dept. of Air Force, 457 F.Supp. 820.  On the other hand, municipalities and other local governments are deemed to be citizens.  Rieser v. District of Columbia, 563 F.2d 462.  A corporation is not a citizen for purposes of privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, D.D.B. Realty Corp. v. Merrill, 232 F.Supp. 629, 637.

"Citizens" are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.  Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101,109.

Constitution, in the former law of the European continent, signified as much as decree, -a decree of importance, especially ecclesiastical decrees.  The decrees of the Roman emperors referring to the jus circa sacra,contained in the Code of Justinian, have been repeatedly collected and called the Constitutions.  The famous bull Unigenitus was usually called in France the Constitution.  Comprehensive laws or decrees have been called constitutions;  thus, the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina, which is the penal code decreed by Charles V. for Germany, the Constitutions of Clarendon (q.v.).  In political law the word constitution came to be used more and more for the fundamentals of a government, - the laws and usages which give it its characteristic feature.  We find, thus, former English writers speak of the constitution of the Turkish empire.  These fundamental laws and customs appeared to our race especially important where they lim-

Page 30

We now mean by the term constitution, in common parlance, the fundamental law of a free country, which characterizes the organism of the country and secures the rights of the citizen and determines his main duties as a freeman.  Sometimes, indeed, the word constitution has been used in recent times for what otherwise is generally called an organic law.  Napoleon I. styled himself Emperor of the French by the Grace of God and the Constitutions of the Empire.

Constitutions were generally divided into written and non-written constitutions, analogous to leges scriptae and non scriptae. These terms do not indicate the distinguishing principle;  Lieber, therefore, divides political constitutions into accumulated or cumulative constitutions and enacted constitutions.  The constitution of ancient Rome and that of England belong to the first class.  The latter consists of the customs, statutes, common laws, and decisions of fundamental importance.  The Reform act is considered by the English a portion of the constitution as much as the trial by jury or the representative system, which have never been enacted, but correspond to what Cicero calls leges natae.  Our constitutions are enacted;  that is to say, they were, on a certain day and by a certain authority, enacted as a fundamental law of the body politic.  In many cases enacted constitutions cannot be dispensed with, and they have certain advantages which cumulative constitutions must forego;  while the latter have some advantages which the former cannot obtain.  It has been thought, in many periods, by modern nations, that enacted constitutions and statutory law alone are firm guarantees of rights and liberties.  This error has been exposed in Lieber's Civil Liberty.  Nor can enacted constitutions dispense with the "grown law" (lex nata).  For the meaning of much that an enacted constitution establishes can only be found by the grown law on which it is founded, just as the British Bill of Rights (an enacted portion of the English constitution) rests on the common law.

Enacted constitutions may be either octroyed, that is, granted by the presumed full authority of the grantor, the monarch;  or they may be enacted by a sovereign people prescribing high rules of action and fundamental laws for its political society, such as ours is;  or they may rest on contracts between contracting parties, - for instance, between the people and a dynasty, or between several states.  We cannot enter here into the interesting inquiry concerning the points on which all modern constitutions agree, and regarding which they differ, - one of the most instructive inquiries for the publicist and jurist.  See Hallam's Constitutional History of England;  Story on the Constitution;  Sheppard's Constitutional Text-Book;  Elliot's Debates on the Constitution, etc.;  Lieber's article (Constitution), in the Encyclopedia Americana;  Rotteck's article Constitution, in the Staats-Lexicon, 2d ed.

2.  An arbitrary government;  the rule of a despot;  absolutism;  autocracy.

3.  Figuratively, absolute power or influence of any kind.

Such is the despotism of the imagination over uncultivated minds.  -Macaulay.

In the United States, the power of eminent domain is founded in both the federal (Fifth Amend.) and state constitutions.  However, the Constitution limits the power to taking for a public purpose and prohibits the exercise of the power of eminent domain without just compensation to the owners of the property which is taken.  The process of exercising the power of eminent domain is commonly referred to as "condemnation", or, "expropriation".

The right of eminent domain is the right of the state, through its regular organization, to reas-

Page 31

See also Adequate compensation;  Condemna-tion;  Constructive taking;  Damages;  Expropriation;  Fair market value;  Just compensation;  Larger parcel;  Public use;  Take.

Expropriation.  The term "expropriation" (used e.g. in Louisiana) is practically synonymous with the term "eminent domain".  Tennessee Gas Transmission Co. v. Violet Trapping Co., La.App., 200 So.2d 428, 433.

Partial taking. The taking of part of an owner's property under the laws of eminent domain.  Compensation must be based on damages or benefits to the remaining property, as well as the part taken.  See Condemnation.

An exclusive right or privilege, as a copyright or patent, is one which may be exercised and enjoyed only by the person authorized, while all others are forbidden to interfere.

When an act is to be done within a certain period from a particular time, as, for example, within ten days, one day is to be taken inclusive and the other exclusive.  See Hob. 139;  Cowp. 714;  Dougl. 463;  2 Mod. 280;  3 Penn. 200;  1 S. & R. 43;  3 B. & Ald. 581;  3 East, 407;  Comyns, Dig. Estates (G8) Temps (A);  2 Chitty, Pract. 69, 147.

The word is derived from terreo, and is said to be so called because the magistrate within his jurisdiction has the power of inspiring a salutary fear.  Dictum est ab eo qoud magistratus intra fines ejus terendi jus habet.  Henrion de Pansy, Auth. Judiciaire, 98.  In speaking of the ecclesiastical jurisdictions, Fancis Duaren observes that the ecclesiastics are said not to have territory, nor the power of arrest or removal, and are not unlike the Roman magistrates of whom Gellius says vocationem habebant non prehensionem. De Sacris Eccles. Minist. lib. 1, cap. 4.

In American law.  A portion of the country subject to and belonging to the United States which is not within the boundary of any state or the District of Columbia.

The constitution of the United States, art. 4, s. 3, provides that the congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting, the territory or other property of the United States;  and nothing in this constitution shall be construed so as to prejudice any claims of the United States or of any state.

Congress possesses the power to erect territorial governments within the territory of the United States:  the power of congress over such territory is exclusive and universal, and their legislation is subject to no control, unless in the case of ceded territory, as far as it may be affected by stipulations in the cessions, or by the ordinance of 1787, under which any part of it has been settled.  Story, Const. sect. 1322;  Rawle, Const. 237;  1 Kent, 243, 359;  1 Pet. 511.  See the articles on the various territories;  STATE.  As to whether a territory is a state under the judiciary act, see STATE.

Page 32