Supreme Court of the United States. STATE OF MISSOURI v. HOLLAND, U. S. Game Warden. No. 609. Argued March 2, 1920. Decided April 19, 1920. Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court. [1] This is a bill in equity brought by the State of Missouri to prevent a ...
| |||||||
 |
| Register to Post a Reply |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
02-05-2007, 12:36 PM
| #1 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed  Progressive Philadelphia, PA 
| Easy constitutional way to get basically unlimited federal power? Supreme Court of the United States. STATE OF MISSOURI v. HOLLAND, U. S. Game Warden. No. 609. Argued March 2, 1920. Decided April 19, 1920. Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court. [1] This is a bill in equity brought by the State of Missouri to prevent a game warden of the United States from attempting to enforce the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of *431 July 3, 1918, c. 128, 40 Stat. 755, and the regulations made by the Secretary of Agriculture in pursuance of the same. The ground of the bill is that the statute is an unconstitutional interference with the rights reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment, and that the acts of the defendant done and threatened under that authority invade the sovereign right of the State and contravene its will manifested in statutes. The State also alleges a pecuniary interest, as owner of the wild birds within its borders and otherwise, admitted by the Government to be sufficient, but it is enough that the bill is a reasonable and proper means to assert the alleged quasi sovereign rights of a State. Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125, 142, 22 Sup. Ct. 552, 46 L. Ed. 838; **383 Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230, 237, 27 Sup. Ct. 618, 51 L. Ed. 1038, 11 Ann. Cas. 488; Marshall Dental Manufacturing Co. v. Iowa, 226 U. S. 460, 462, 33 Sup. Ct. 168, 57 L. Ed. 300. A motion to dismiss was sustained by the District Court on the ground that the Act of Congress is constitutional. 258 Fed. 479. Acc. United States v. Thompson (D. C.) 258 Fed. 257; United States v. Rockefeller (D. C.) 260 Fed. 346. The State appeals. On December 8, 1916, a treaty between the United States and Great Britain was proclaimed by the President. It recited that many species of birds in their annual migrations traversed many parts of the United States and of Canada, that they were of great value as a source of food and in destroying insects injurious to vegetation, but were in danger of extermination through lack of adequate protection. It therefore provided for specified closed seasons and protection in other forms, and agreed that the two powers would take or propose to their lawmaking bodies the necessary measures for carrying the treaty out. 39 Stat. 1702. The above mentioned act of July 3, 1918, entitled an act to give effect to the convention, prohibited the killing, capturing or selling any of the migratory birds included in the terms of the treaty except as permitted by regulations compatible with those terms, to be made by *432 the Secretary of Agriculture. Regulations were proclaimed on July 31, and October 25, 1918. 40 Stat. 1812, 1863. It is unnecessary to go into any details, because, as we have said, the question raised is the general one whether the treaty and statute are void as an interference with the rights reserved to the States. [2] To answer this question it is not enough to refer to the Tenth Amendment, reserving the powers not delegated to the United States, because by Article 2, Section 2, the power to make treaties is delegated expressly, and by Article 6 treaties made under the authority of the United States, along with the Constitution and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, are declared the supreme law of the land. If the treaty is valid there can be no dispute about the validity of the statute under Article 1, Section 8, as a necessary and proper means to execute the powers of the Government. The language of the Constitution as to the supremacy of treaties being general, the question before us is narrowed to an inquiry into the ground upon which the present supposed exception is placed. [3] It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power, and that one such limit is that what an act of Congress could not do unaided, in derogation of the powers reserved to the States, a treaty cannot do. An earlier act of Congress that attempted by itself and not in pursuance of a treaty to regulate the killing of migratory birds within the States had been held bad in the District Court. United States v. Shauver, 214 Fed. 154. United States v. McCullagh, 221 Fed. 288. Those decisions were supported by arguments that migratory birds were owned by the States in their sovereign capacity for the benefit of their people, and that under cases like Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 16 Sup. Ct. 600, 40 L. Ed. 793, this control was one that Congress had no power to displace. The same argument is supposed to apply now with equal force. *433 Whether the two cases cited were decided rightly or not they cannot be accepted as a test of the treaty power. Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States. It is open to question whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the convention. We do not mean to imply that there are no qualifications to the treaty-making power; but they must be ascertained in a different way. It is obvious that there may be matters of the sharpest exigency for the national well being that an act of Congress could not deal with but that a treaty followed by such an act could, and it is not lightly to be assumed that, in matters requiring national action, 'a power which must belong to and somewhere reside in every civilized government' is not to be found. Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14, 33, 23 Sup. Ct. 237, 47 L. Ed. 366. What was said in that case with regard to the powers of the States applies with equal force to the powers of the nation in cases where the States individually are incompetent to act. We are not yet discussing the particular case before us but only are considering the validity of the test proposed. With regard to that we may add that when we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters. It was enough for them to realize or to hope that they had created an organism; it has taken a century and has cost their successors much sweat and blood to prove that they created a nation. The case before us must be considered in the light of out whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago. The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution. The only question is whether *434 it is forbidden by some invisible radiation from the general terms of the **384 Tenth Amendment. We must consider what this country has become in deciding what that amendment has reserved. [4][5][6] The State as we have intimated founds its claim of exclusive authority upon an assertion of title to migratory birds, an assertion that is embodied in statute. No doubt it is true that as between a State and its inhabitants the State may regulate the killing and sale of such birds, but it does not follow that its authority is exclusive of paramount powers. To put the claim of the State upon title is to lean upon a slender reed. Wild birds are not in the possession of anyone; and possession is the beginning of ownership. The whole foundation of the State's rights is the presence within their jurisdiction of birds that yesterday had not arrived, tomorrow may be in another State and in a week a thousand miles away. If we are to be accurate we cannot put the case of the State upon higher ground than that the treaty deals with creatures that for the moment are within the state borders, that it must be carried out by officers of the United States within the same territory, and that but for the treaty the State would be free to regulate this subject itself. As most of the laws of the United States are carried out within the States and as many of them deal with matters which in the silence of such laws the State might regulate, such general grounds are not enough to support Missouri's claim. Valid treaties of course 'are as binding within the territorial limits of the States as they are elsewhere throughout the dominion of the United States.' Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U. S. 678, 683, 7 Sup. Ct. 656, 657, 32 L. Ed. 766. No doubt the great body of private relations usually fall within the control of the State, but a treaty may override its power. We do not have to invoke the later developments of constitutional law for this proposition; it was recognized as early as Hopkirk v. Bell, 3 Cranch, 454, 2 L. Ed. 497, with regard to statutes *435 of limitation, and even earlier, as to confiscation, in Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 1 L. Ed. 568. It was assumed by Chief Justice Marshall with regard to the escheat of land to the State in Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259, 275, 4 L. Ed. 234; Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483, 25 L. Ed. 628; DeGeofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258, 10 Sup. Ct. 295, 33 L. Ed. 642; Blythe v. Hinckley, 180 U. S. 333, 340, 21 Sup. Ct. 390, 45 L. Ed. 557. So as to a limited jurisdiction of foreign consuls within a State. Wildenhus' Case, 120 U. S. 1, 7 Sup. Ct. 385, 30 L. Ed. 565. See Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U. S. 453, 11 Sup. Ct. 897, 35 L. Ed. 581. Further illustration seems unnecessary, and it only remains to consider the application of established rules to the present case. Here a national interest of very nearly the first magnitude is involved. It can be protected only by national action in concert with that of another power. The subject matter is only transitorily within the State and has no permanent habitat therein. But for the treaty and the statute there soon might be no birds for any powers to deal with. We see nothing in the Constitution that compels the Government to sit by while a food supply is cut off and the protectors of our forests and our crops are destroyed. It is not sufficient to rely upon the States. The reliance is vain, and were it otherwise, the question is whether the United States is forbidden to act. We are of opinion that the treaty and statute must be upheld. Carey v. South Dakota, 250 U. S. 118, 39 Sup. Ct. 403, 63 L. Ed. 886. Decree affirmed. Cliffs: The limit on federal power is generally weak, however for the sake of this arguments lets assume the 10th amendment is indeed very strong, as it is the word on limiting federal power in the constitution It says all powers not delegated to the US by the consitution are reserved to the states and people...by saying that, obviously powers that ARE delegated to the US by the constitution are...constitutional Well the constitution does delegate a power to the US, the power to make and enforce treaties with consent of the federal senate If two thirds of the senate and the president were communists, they could quite constitutionally, by this ruling (which is the standard, and has not been over-ruled) make lots of treaties with any mix of nations that demanded the US impose all the nightmare communist ideas you can think of...and it would be completely constitutional Your thoughts are apprecieted  | ||||
     |
|
02-05-2007, 02:38 PM
| #2 | ||||
| Anti-War, Anti-State, Pro-Free Market  Capitalist
| Treaties have to be constitutional though. If a treaty violates the Constitution, then it's unconstitutional. Period. Doesn't matter what the President nor Congress does. | ||||
| |
|
02-05-2007, 03:18 PM
| #3 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by lew Ok, so how would 90% income tax on the rich and government run healthcare, and even other businesses...how would that violate other parts of the constitution? 
| ||||
| |
|
02-05-2007, 03:20 PM
| #4 | ||||
| Anti-War, Anti-State, Pro-Free Market Capitalist
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim
That's not really what you said though. You said the worst communist nightmares we can think of. | ||||
| |
|
02-05-2007, 03:42 PM
| #5 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by lew ok, with the caveat that we wouldn't lose the bill of rights...
This thread is about virtually unlimited federal power that worked with the constitution, not overthrew it | ||||
| |
|
02-05-2007, 07:03 PM
| #6 | ||||
| Immigrant  Reform Party Gator Country.
| Lol if 2/3rds of the senate and the president were commies, then why wouldn't they just do what all communists in power do and hi-jack the government and tear apart the constitution | ||||
| |
|
02-05-2007, 07:12 PM
| #7 | ||||
| Political Genius  Republican Yorba Linda Ca.
| Originally Posted by lew
That and these types of persons would have to get elected in the first place. There is all kinds of potential for abuse of power if certain people obtain it. If they did the public will get what they deserve and perhaps a free society will be taken up somewhere else? Ideals of individual liberty are not exclusive to Americans.
__________________ Sock It To Me!  "Bureaucracy is a Parasite that Preys on Free Thought and Suffocates Free Spirit!" - Douglas Adams | ||||
| |
|
02-05-2007, 07:17 PM
| #8 | ||||
| Political Genius Republican Yorba Linda Ca.
| Originally Posted by JSmythe
Hugo Chavez? He has handed himself the powers of a Dictator last time I looked?  | ||||
| |
|
02-05-2007, 08:05 PM
| #9 | ||||
| Immigrant Reform Party Gator Country.
| Originally Posted by RMNIXON This is sarcastic right?
... | ||||
| |
|
02-05-2007, 10:52 PM
| #10 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Since you guys refuse to take the example and actually examine it, ill try to make it a bit more current In 08, Dems pick up 18 senate seats (2 to offset lieberman and nelson) and Hillary wins but they LOSE the house, GOP runs it...now because they cant pass bills through the house... Hillary and the Dems make a ton of treaties radically expanding the federal government to almost limitless extremes, and take away almost all state powers not EXPRESSLY stated in the constitution hey, what they did was constitutional | ||||
| |
|
02-05-2007, 11:23 PM
| #11 | ||||
| Lurker  Independent Austin, TX
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim Of course it's Constitutional if you just change the Constitution and have a corrupt supreme court in that will uphold your laws that aren't legitimate. Have you ever read Animal Farm? It's just the pigs changing the writing on the wall.
Why are people so fixated on using abusive and authoritarian rulings in the past as justifying such action in the present? Congress obviously completely overstepped their bounds many years ago and they're just getting started. The dems will, as the republicans have, keep destroying our 4th and 1st amendments and they will also go after the 2nd amendment hard so that they can enforce the aforementioned crimes. I don't understand how anyone with an ounce of common sense could use a bird treaty as an example of how government legally has limitless power. Once government starts making laws overstepping personal rights, it has lost some of its legitimacy. This has happened and continues to happen. It happens because people like you fail to understand or appreciate the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy. And also, "the limit on federal power is generally weak, " do you type this stuff with a straight face? | ||||
| |
|
02-05-2007, 11:41 PM
| #12 | ||||
| Political Genius Republican Yorba Linda Ca.
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim
And the whole 10th Amendment issue would be back in Court in a hot minute! And you would have some very mad State Party Democrats to deal with in the meantime. What can be done does not mean representatives will commit political suicide for the party they represent to do it? There are other restraints besides the constitution. Trampling down States Rights with radical treaties that would increase Foreign Power in our affairs would not be moving in a voter friendly direction. Unless the Congressional Democrats care to run on that next election?  | ||||
| |
|
02-06-2007, 12:49 AM
| #13 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by RMNIXON IT WOULDN'T BE A 10TH AMENDMENT ISSUE! The 10th amendment says look to stated constitutional powers (in the narrowest most conservative sense) and the constitution CLEARLY gives that power!
This wasn't supposed to be a democrat/republican thread, I am just saying, it looks like there is a really really big loop hole in the constitution that of yesterday probably none of you realized | ||||
| |
|
02-06-2007, 09:49 AM
| #14 | ||||
| Anti-War, Anti-State, Pro-Free Market Capitalist
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim
I don't really understand what you're getting at. The treaties still must be accordance with the constitution...and in your example, you say "let's assume the 10th Amendment is very strong"....well, if that's the case, then no treaty could be valid that doesn't help further enhance the expressely delegated powers to the federal government. So, your scenario could not happen. | ||||
| |
|
02-06-2007, 10:53 AM
| #15 | ||||
| Perpetual Noob Independent
|
Treaties are still subordinate to the Constitution, you agree with that, right? With 2/3 of Congress (both houses) and the President in agreement, they can do just about anything they want that is not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution. I don't see where the loophole is, except maybe in some extreme case where 2/3 of the Senate were Communists but much less of the House were of the same group? | ||||
| |
|
02-06-2007, 11:34 AM
| #16 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| i dont know how many times i have to say that the 10th amendment SPECIFICALLY ENDORSES the violation some are saying would be re-debated or re-brought up yes, you wouldn't lose the right to speedy trial, no one is talking about that...socialist states do not suspend the right to a speedy trial However, you could take away basically every state/local right that isn't spelled out in the constitution, and make an all powerful federal government that would be PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL Universal healthcare? Perfectly constitutional Every new deal/great society/liberal utopia idea? perfectly constitutional | ||||
| |
|
02-06-2007, 11:38 AM
| #17 | ||||
| Perpetual Noob Independent
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim This would be a great debate 80 years ago, but we've already accepted that the commerce clause allows for all that stuff anyway. What is your point?
| ||||
| |
|
02-06-2007, 11:39 AM
| #18 | ||||
| Anti-War, Anti-State, Pro-Free Market Capitalist
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim No.
 If something isn't listed as a constitutional power, then the federal gove |
