The Supreme Court of the United States
group · 3 works · 12 mentions · 36 anchored passages
Supreme Court of the United States · the Supreme Court · the federal court · the court · federal courts · the opinion of the court · the supreme court · federal judges · federal judiciaries · the Supreme Court of the United States
spoken of as
3 expressionsSupreme Court of the United States8 mentions
The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (English) · Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated (English) · The Law of Torts (English)
The authority of these charters, during their continuance, and the general authority of the common law, prior to the revolution, have been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Federal Court“Supreme Court of the United States”3 mentions
Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated (English)
The road precedent is enough to justify congress in a restriction of the state right of taxation, to a demolishing extent, according to the decision of the federal court in the bank case;
Federal Courts1 mention
Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated (English)
But the constitutionality of state laws cannot legitimately be decided by the federal courts, because they are not a constituent part of the state governments, nor have the people of the state confided to them any such authority.
in the texts
Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated
The federal Supreme Court, whose opinion asserting supremacy over the state governments and courts is quoted and repeatedly disputed throughout the passage.
Upon the ground of this doctrine, the supreme court of the federal government has attempted so to modify the concurrent right of taxation reserved to the states, as to exempt the incorporating power assumed by congress, from its influence.
“The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in inferior courts.
The court, therefore, in assuming a power to restrain this state right, may have violated the will both of the federal and state legislature, and modified the state constitutions, contrary to the judgment of both.
The Unconstitutionality of Slavery
The highest federal court, cited as the source of the rule that rights-infringing legislative intent must be expressed with irresistible clearness.
All will probably admit that the rule, as laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States, is correct, to wit, that “where rights are infringed, where fundamental principles are overthrown, where the general system of the law is departed from, the legislative intention must be expressed with irresistible clearness, to induce a court of justice to suppose a design to effect such objects.
This power has been held by the Supreme Court to be an exclusive one in the general government—and one that cannot be controlled by the States.
The rule (as has been already stated) is laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in these words:
The Law of Torts
American federal court described as having followed and generally accepted the Lumley v. Gye doctrine.
Gye has been followed in Massachusetts and more lately by the Supreme Court of the United States and is generally accepted, with some such limitation as here maintained.