The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation - BestLightNovel.com
You’re reading novel The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 133 online at BestLightNovel.com. Please use the follow button to get notification about the latest chapter next time when you visit BestLightNovel.com. Use F11 button to read novel in full-screen(PC only). Drop by anytime you want to read free – fast – latest novel. It’s great if you could leave a comment, share your opinion about the new chapters, new novel with others on the internet. We’ll do our best to bring you the finest, latest novel everyday. Enjoy
[215] United States _v._ Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 430 (1886).
[216] Prigg _v._ Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539, 612 (1842).
[217] 1 Stat. 302 (1793).
[218] Jones _v._ Van Zandt, 5 How. 215, 229 (1847); Ableman _v._ Booth, 21 How. 506 (1859).
[219] Prigg _v._ Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539, 625 (1842).
[220] Moore _v._ Illinois, 14 How. 13, 17 (1853).
[221] Escanaba & L.M. Transp. Co. _v._ Chicago, 107 U.S. 678, 689 (1883).
[222] Madison, Journal of the Debates in the Convention which Framed the Const.i.tution, 89 (Hunt's ed., 1908).
[223] Ibid. 274.
[224] Ibid. 275.
[225] Pollard _v._ Hagan, 3 How. 212, 221 (1845).
[226] 2 Stat. 701, 703 (1812).
[227] Justice Harlan, speaking for the Court in United States _v._ Texas, 143 U.S. 621, 634 (1892); 9 Stat. 108.
[228] Permoli _v._ New Orleans, 3 How. 589, 609 (1845); McCabe _v._ Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914); Illinois Central R. Co.
_v._ Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 434 (1892); Knight _v._ United Land a.s.so., 142 U.S. 161, 183 (1891); Weber _v._ State Harbor Comrs., 18 Wall. 57, 65 (1873).
[229] Coyle _v._ Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911).
[230] Ibid. 567.
[231] United States _v._ Texas, 339 U.S. 707, 716 (1950); Stearns _v._ Minnesota, 179 U.S. 223, 245 (1900).
[232] Pollard _v._ Hagan, 3 How. 212, 223 (1845); McCabe _v._ Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co., 235 U.S. 151 (1914).
[233] Van Brocklin _v._ Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 167 (1886).
[234] Wilson _v._ Cook, 327 U.S. 474 (1946).
[235] Permoli _v._ New Orleans, 3 How. 589, 609 (1845); Sands _v._ Manistee River Imp. Co., 123 U.S. 288, 296 (1887); _see also_ Withers _v._ Buckley, 20 How. 84, 92 (1858); Willamette Iron Bridge Co. _v._ Hatch, 125 U.S. 1, 9 (1888); Cincinnati _v._ Louisville & N.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390 (1912); Huse _v._ Glover, 119 U.S. 543,(1886).
[236] Draper _v._ United States, 164 U.S. 240 (1896) following United States _v._ McBratney, 104 U.S. 621 (1882).
[237] d.i.c.k _v._ United States, 208 U.S. 340 (1908); Ex parte Webb, 225 U.S. 663 (1912).
[238] United States _v._ Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1914).
[239] Boyd _v._ Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135, 170 (1892).
[240] Baker _v._ Morton, 12 Wall. 150, 153 (1871).
[241] Freeborn _v._ Smith, 2 Wall. 160 (1865).
[242] John _v._ Paullin, 231 U.S. 583 (1913).
[243] Hunt _v._ Palao, 4 How. 589 (1846). _Cf._ Benner _v._ Porter, 9 How. 235, 246 (1850).
[244] 179 U.S. 223, 245 (1900).
[245] How. 212, 223 (1845). _See also_ Martin _v._ Waddell, 16 Pet. 367, 410 (1842).
[246] United States _v._ California, 332 U.S. 19, 38 (1947); United States _v._ Louisiana, 339 U.S. 699 (1950).
[247] 339 U.S. 707, 716 (1950).
[248] Brown _v._ Grant, 116 U.S. 207, 212 (1886).
[249] s.h.i.+vely _v._ Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 47 (1894). _See also_ Joy _v._ St. Louis, 201 U.S. 332 (1906).
[250] United States _v._ Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 378 (1905); Seufert Bros.
Co. _v._ United States, 249 U.S. 194 (1919). A fis.h.i.+ng right granted by treaty to Indians does not necessarily preclude the application to Indians of State game laws regulating the time and manner of taking fish. Kennedy _v._ Becker, 241 U.S. 556 (1916). But it has been held to be violated by the exaction of a license fee which is both regulatory and revenue-producing. Tulee _v._ Was.h.i.+ngton, 315 U.S. 681 (1942).
[251] Ward _v._ Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504, 510, 514 (1896).
[252] 14 Pet. 526 (1840).
[253] Ibid. 533, 538.
[254] Ashwander _v._ Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 335-340 (1936). _See also_ Alabama Power Co. _v._ Ickes, 302 U.S. 464 (1938).
[255] United States _v._ Fitzgerald, 15 Pet. 407, 521 (1841). _See also_ California _v._ Deseret Water, Oil & Irrig. Co., 243 U.S. 415 (1917); Utah Power & Light Co. _v._ United States, 243 U.S. 389 (1917).
[256] Sioux Tribe _v._ United States, 316 U.S. 317 (1942); United States _v._ Midwest Oil Co., 236 U.S. 459, 469 (1915).
[257] Gibson _v._ Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92, 99 (1872); _see also_ Irvine _v._ Marshall, 20 How. 558 (1858); Emblem _v._ Lincoln Land Co., 184 U.S. 660, 664 (1902).
[258] Bagnell _v._ Broderick, 13 Pet. 436, 450 (1839). _See also_ Field _v._ Seabury, 19 How. 323, 332 (1857).
[259] Tameling _v._ United States Freehold & Emigration Co., 93 U.S.
644, 663 (1877). _See also_ United States _v._ Maxwell Land-Grant and R.
Co., 121 U.S. 325, 366 (1887).
[260] Ruddy _v._ Rossi, 248 U.S. 104 (1918).
[261] Light _v._ United States, 220 U.S. 523 (1911). _See also_ Hutchings _v._ Low, 15 Wall. 77 (1873).
[262] Camfield _v._ United States, 167 U.S. 518, 525 (1897). _See also_ Jourdan _v._ Barrett, 4 How. 169 (1846); United States _v._ Waddell, 112 U.S. 76 (1884).
