Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Trivia: Youngest US Supreme Court Justice ever appointed

Expand Messages
  • Ram Lau
    http://michaelnewdow.com/JosephStory.htm Joseph Story (1779-1845), a U.S. Congressman, 1808-9, was appointed in 1811 as a Justice to the United States Supreme
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 20, 2005
      http://michaelnewdow.com/JosephStory.htm

      Joseph Story (1779-1845), a U.S. Congressman, 1808-9, was appointed in
      1811 as a Justice to the United States Supreme Court by President
      James Madison ("The Chief Architect of the Constitution"). Being the
      youngest person ever to serve in that position, Joseph Story continued
      on the bench for 34 years, until his death in 1845. He was
      instrumental in establishing federal supremacy, Martin v. Hunter's
      Lessee, 1816, and in establishing the illegality of the slave trade in
      the Amistad case.

      A professor at the Harvard Law School, 1821-45, Joseph Story wrote
      tremendously influential works, including: Bailments, 1832,
      Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833, Equity
      Jurisprudence, 1836, and A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of
      the United States, 1840, in which he stated:

      "We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious
      establishment [in the First Amendment] to an indifference to religion
      in general, and especially to Christianity (which none could hold in
      more reverence that the framers of the Constitution)....

      "Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the
      Amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the
      universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to
      receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible
      with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious
      worship.

      "Any attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state
      policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal
      disapprobation, if not universal indignation." - 1833. Joseph Story,
      Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833 (reprinted NY: Da Capo Press,
      1970), Vol. III, p. 726, Sec. 1868, and p. 727, Sec. 1869. See also
      Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United
      States (MA: Marsh, Capen Lyon, and Web, 1840; reprinted Washington,
      D.C.; Regnery Gateway, 1986), p. 314, Sec. 441, p. 316, Sec. 444.
      David Barton, The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press,
      1991), p. 32, 79-80. "Our Christian Heritage," Letter from Plymouth
      Rock (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation), p. 5.

      In Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833, Vol.
      III, Justice Joseph Story declared:

      "It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any
      free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and
      the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of
      the state in any assignable shape. - 1833. Joseph Story,
      Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833 (reprinted NY: Da Capo Press,
      1970), Vol. III, p. 726, Sec. 1868, and p. 727, Sec. 1869. See also
      Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United
      States (MA: Marsh, Capen Lyon, and Web, 1840; reprinted Washington,
      D.C.; Regnery Gateway, 1986), p. 314, Sec. 441, p. 316, Sec. 444.
      David Barton, The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press,
      1991), p. 79-80. "Our Christian Heritage," Letter from Plymouth Rock
      (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation), p. 5.

      In 1844, case of Vidal v. Girard's Executors, Justice Joseph Story
      delivered the United States Supreme Court's unanimous opinion:

      "Christianity... is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and
      blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the
      public....

      "Why may not laymen instruct in the general principles of Christianity
      as well as ecclesiastics.... And we cannot overlook the blessings,
      which such [lay]men by their conduct, as well as their instructions,
      may, nay must, impart to their youthful pupils.

      "Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note
      or comment, be read and taught as a Divine Revelation in the [school]
      - its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its
      glorious principles of morality inculcated?

      "What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian, upon the general
      evidences of Christianity, from being read and taught in the college
      by lay teachers? It may well be asked, what is there in all this,
      which is positively enjoined, inconsistent with the spirit or truths
      of the religion of Christ? Are not these truths all taught by
      Christianity, although it teaches much more?

      "Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or
      so perfectly as from the New Testament?" - 1844. Vidal v. Girard's
      Executors, 43 U.S. 126, 132 (1844), pp. 198, 205-206. David Barton,
      The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press, 1991), pp.
      62-63. William W. Story, Life and Letters of Judge Story, Vol. II,
      Chap. XII. Stephen Abbott Northrop, D.D., A Cloud of Witnesses
      (Portland, Oregon: American Heritage Ministries, 1987), p. 434.

      In his commentary of the First Amendment's original meaning, Justice
      Joseph Story clarified:

      "The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much
      less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by
      prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian
      sects [denominations] and to prevent any national ecclesiastical
      patronage of the national government." - Judge Brevard Hand, in
      Jaffree v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 544 F.
      Supp. 1104 (S. D. Ala. 1983). Russell Kirk, ed., The Assault on
      Religion: Commentaries on the Decline of Religious Liberty (Lanham NY:
      University Press of America, 1986), p. 84. Gary DeMar, The Untold
      Story (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, Inc., 1993), p. 113.
    • Greg Cannon
      I was wondering why Newdow would put those quots on his sites (since they don t really help his cause), till I actually looked at the site and realized it s
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 21, 2005
        I was wondering why Newdow would put those quots on
        his sites (since they don't really help his cause),
        till I actually looked at the site and realized it's
        not his site. They are interesting quotes to be sure.

        About Story's age, here's a link to a New York Times
        article about the interviews Bush had with the various
        judges he considered. One of them, J. Harvie Wilkinson
        III, talked to the Times about the questions Bush
        asked him. Bush asked Wilkinson how much exercise he
        does, and when Wilkinson mentioned he doesn't do some
        of the exercises his doctor recommends for him, Bush
        "took umbrage at that." Wilkinson is 60, Roberts is
        50. Bush wanted someone young and healthy (though not
        as young as Story of course).

        Wilkinson also said he "was not asked about his views
        on issues like abortion or even a particular legal
        case in his interview with Mr. Bush as well as in
        interviews with others on the White House staff"

        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21bush.html?ei=5090&en=e7f0978a9afaa63e&ex=1279598400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

        --- Ram Lau <ramlau@...> wrote:

        > http://michaelnewdow.com/JosephStory.htm
        >
        > Joseph Story (1779-1845), a U.S. Congressman,
        > 1808-9, was appointed in
        > 1811 as a Justice to the United States Supreme Court
        > by President
        > James Madison ("The Chief Architect of the
        > Constitution"). Being the
        > youngest person ever to serve in that position,
        > Joseph Story continued
        > on the bench for 34 years, until his death in 1845.
        > He was
        > instrumental in establishing federal supremacy,
        > Martin v. Hunter's
        > Lessee, 1816, and in establishing the illegality of
        > the slave trade in
        > the Amistad case.
        >
        > A professor at the Harvard Law School, 1821-45,
        > Joseph Story wrote
        > tremendously influential works, including:
        > Bailments, 1832,
        > Commentaries on the Constitution of the United
        > States, 1833, Equity
        > Jurisprudence, 1836, and A Familiar Exposition of
        > the Constitution of
        > the United States, 1840, in which he stated:
        >
        > "We are not to attribute this prohibition of a
        > national religious
        > establishment [in the First Amendment] to an
        > indifference to religion
        > in general, and especially to Christianity (which
        > none could hold in
        > more reverence that the framers of the
        > Constitution)....
        >
        > "Probably, at the time of the adoption of the
        > Constitution, and of the
        > Amendment to it now under consideration, the
        > general, if not the
        > universal, sentiment in America was, that
        > Christianity ought to
        > receive encouragement from the State so far as was
        > not incompatible
        > with the private rights of conscience and the
        > freedom of religious
        > worship.
        >
        > "Any attempt to level all religions, and to make it
        > a matter of state
        > policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have
        > created universal
        > disapprobation, if not universal indignation." -
        > 1833. Joseph Story,
        > Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833 (reprinted
        > NY: Da Capo Press,
        > 1970), Vol. III, p. 726, Sec. 1868, and p. 727, Sec.
        > 1869. See also
        > Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the
        > Constitution of the United
        > States (MA: Marsh, Capen Lyon, and Web, 1840;
        > reprinted Washington,
        > D.C.; Regnery Gateway, 1986), p. 314, Sec. 441, p.
        > 316, Sec. 444.
        > David Barton, The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX:
        > WallBuilder Press,
        > 1991), p. 32, 79-80. "Our Christian Heritage,"
        > Letter from Plymouth
        > Rock (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock
        > Foundation), p. 5.
        >
        > In Commentaries on the Constitution of the United
        > States, 1833, Vol.
        > III, Justice Joseph Story declared:
        >
        > "It yet remains a problem to be solved in human
        > affairs, whether any
        > free government can be permanent, where the public
        > worship of God, and
        > the support of religion, constitute no part of the
        > policy or duty of
        > the state in any assignable shape. - 1833. Joseph
        > Story,
        > Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833 (reprinted
        > NY: Da Capo Press,
        > 1970), Vol. III, p. 726, Sec. 1868, and p. 727, Sec.
        > 1869. See also
        > Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the
        > Constitution of the United
        > States (MA: Marsh, Capen Lyon, and Web, 1840;
        > reprinted Washington,
        > D.C.; Regnery Gateway, 1986), p. 314, Sec. 441, p.
        > 316, Sec. 444.
        > David Barton, The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX:
        > WallBuilder Press,
        > 1991), p. 79-80. "Our Christian Heritage," Letter
        > from Plymouth Rock
        > (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation), p.
        > 5.
        >
        > In 1844, case of Vidal v. Girard's Executors,
        > Justice Joseph Story
        > delivered the United States Supreme Court's
        > unanimous opinion:
        >
        > "Christianity... is not to be maliciously and openly
        > reviled and
        > blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or
        > the injury of the
        > public....
        >
        > "Why may not laymen instruct in the general
        > principles of Christianity
        > as well as ecclesiastics.... And we cannot overlook
        > the blessings,
        > which such [lay]men by their conduct, as well as
        > their instructions,
        > may, nay must, impart to their youthful pupils.
        >
        > "Why may not the Bible, and especially the New
        > Testament, without note
        > or comment, be read and taught as a Divine
        > Revelation in the [school]
        > - its general precepts expounded, its evidences
        > explained and its
        > glorious principles of morality inculcated?
        >
        > "What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian,
        > upon the general
        > evidences of Christianity, from being read and
        > taught in the college
        > by lay teachers? It may well be asked, what is
        > there in all this,
        > which is positively enjoined, inconsistent with the
        > spirit or truths
        > of the religion of Christ? Are not these truths all
        > taught by
        > Christianity, although it teaches much more?
        >
        > "Where can the purest principles of morality be
        > learned so clearly or
        > so perfectly as from the New Testament?" - 1844.
        > Vidal v. Girard's
        > Executors, 43 U.S. 126, 132 (1844), pp. 198,
        > 205-206. David Barton,
        > The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder
        > Press, 1991), pp.
        > 62-63. William W. Story, Life and Letters of Judge
        > Story, Vol. II,
        > Chap. XII. Stephen Abbott Northrop, D.D., A Cloud
        > of Witnesses
        > (Portland, Oregon: American Heritage Ministries,
        > 1987), p. 434.
        >
        > In his commentary of the First Amendment's original
        > meaning, Justice
        > Joseph Story clarified:
        >
        > "The real object of the First Amendment was not to
        > countenance, much
        > less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or
        > infidelity, by
        > prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry
        > among Christian
        > sects [denominations] and to prevent any national
        > ecclesiastical
        > patronage of the national government." - Judge
        > Brevard Hand, in
        > Jaffree v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile
        > County, 544 F.
        > Supp. 1104 (S. D. Ala. 1983). Russell Kirk, ed.,
        > The Assault on
        > Religion: Commentaries on the Decline of Religious
        > Liberty (Lanham NY:
        > University Press of America, 1986), p. 84. Gary
        > DeMar, The Untold
        > Story (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, Inc., 1993), p.
        > 113.
      • Ram Lau
        Kos is cool with Roberts, at least he didn t go crazy like other liberals. I also think that we should settle with a non-radical conservative. Bush deserves
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 24, 2005
          Kos is cool with Roberts, at least he didn't go crazy like other
          liberals. I also think that we should settle with a non-radical
          conservative. Bush deserves some praise on this one for not putting up
          another Bork.

          Ram


          Roberts another Souter?
          by kos
          Fri Jul 22nd, 2005 at 11:41:17 PDT

          If Republicans want reasons to grill Roberts as much as Democrats,
          here's two.

          First, famed lawyer and Harward Law Professor Lawrence Tribe says this
          about Roberts:

          Laurence Tribe, a liberal professor of constitutional law at
          Harvard, remembers Roberts as a student there and has kept in touch
          with him over the years. He does not recall Roberts as a political
          conservative when he studied there.

          "He's conservative in manner and conservative in approach," Tribe
          said. "He's a person who is cautious and careful, that's true. But he
          is also someone quite deeply immersed in the law, and he loves it. He
          believes in it as a discipline and pursues it in principle and not by
          way of politics"

          And there's this:

          Everyone knows that, like all good Republican lawyers, John G.
          Roberts Jr. is a member of the Federalist Society, the conservative
          law and public policy organization where right-of-center types meet to
          denounce liberalism and angle for jobs in the Bush administration.

          And practically everyone -- CNN, the Los Angeles Times, Legal
          Times and, just yesterday, The Washington Post -- has reported
          Roberts's membership as a fact. One liberal group opposed to Roberts's
          nomination, the Alliance for Justice, has noted it on its Web site.

          But they are wrong. John Roberts is not, in fact, a member of the
          Federalist Society, and he says he never has been.

          So one of his former law professors says that Roberts is not an
          ideologue, and he himself vehemetly denies being a member of the
          Federalist Society -- a must-participate for every conservative law
          student and lawyers in the nation.

          Of course, we have evidence that he is a partisan, but the results are
          mixed. He could very well be the next Souter-type on the Supreme Court.

          As such, it seems that those Republicans calling for expedited
          hearings, those Republicans claiming Roberts doesn't have to answer
          every question -- they might want to rethink things a bit. Perhaps
          it's in everyone's interest to take a closer look at the nominee so
          the country has a better idea of who they're putting on the court for
          the next 30 years or so.


          --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@y...>
          wrote:
          > I was wondering why Newdow would put those quots on
          > his sites (since they don't really help his cause),
          > till I actually looked at the site and realized it's
          > not his site. They are interesting quotes to be sure.
          >
          > About Story's age, here's a link to a New York Times
          > article about the interviews Bush had with the various
          > judges he considered. One of them, J. Harvie Wilkinson
          > III, talked to the Times about the questions Bush
          > asked him. Bush asked Wilkinson how much exercise he
          > does, and when Wilkinson mentioned he doesn't do some
          > of the exercises his doctor recommends for him, Bush
          > "took umbrage at that." Wilkinson is 60, Roberts is
          > 50. Bush wanted someone young and healthy (though not
          > as young as Story of course).
          >
          > Wilkinson also said he "was not asked about his views
          > on issues like abortion or even a particular legal
          > case in his interview with Mr. Bush as well as in
          > interviews with others on the White House staff"
          >
          >
          http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21bush.html?ei=5090&en=e7f0978a9afaa63e&ex=1279598400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
          >
          > --- Ram Lau <ramlau@y...> wrote:
          >
          > > http://michaelnewdow.com/JosephStory.htm
          > >
          > > Joseph Story (1779-1845), a U.S. Congressman,
          > > 1808-9, was appointed in
          > > 1811 as a Justice to the United States Supreme Court
          > > by President
          > > James Madison ("The Chief Architect of the
          > > Constitution"). Being the
          > > youngest person ever to serve in that position,
          > > Joseph Story continued
          > > on the bench for 34 years, until his death in 1845.
          > > He was
          > > instrumental in establishing federal supremacy,
          > > Martin v. Hunter's
          > > Lessee, 1816, and in establishing the illegality of
          > > the slave trade in
          > > the Amistad case.
          > >
          > > A professor at the Harvard Law School, 1821-45,
          > > Joseph Story wrote
          > > tremendously influential works, including:
          > > Bailments, 1832,
          > > Commentaries on the Constitution of the United
          > > States, 1833, Equity
          > > Jurisprudence, 1836, and A Familiar Exposition of
          > > the Constitution of
          > > the United States, 1840, in which he stated:
          > >
          > > "We are not to attribute this prohibition of a
          > > national religious
          > > establishment [in the First Amendment] to an
          > > indifference to religion
          > > in general, and especially to Christianity (which
          > > none could hold in
          > > more reverence that the framers of the
          > > Constitution)....
          > >
          > > "Probably, at the time of the adoption of the
          > > Constitution, and of the
          > > Amendment to it now under consideration, the
          > > general, if not the
          > > universal, sentiment in America was, that
          > > Christianity ought to
          > > receive encouragement from the State so far as was
          > > not incompatible
          > > with the private rights of conscience and the
          > > freedom of religious
          > > worship.
          > >
          > > "Any attempt to level all religions, and to make it
          > > a matter of state
          > > policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have
          > > created universal
          > > disapprobation, if not universal indignation." -
          > > 1833. Joseph Story,
          > > Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833 (reprinted
          > > NY: Da Capo Press,
          > > 1970), Vol. III, p. 726, Sec. 1868, and p. 727, Sec.
          > > 1869. See also
          > > Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the
          > > Constitution of the United
          > > States (MA: Marsh, Capen Lyon, and Web, 1840;
          > > reprinted Washington,
          > > D.C.; Regnery Gateway, 1986), p. 314, Sec. 441, p.
          > > 316, Sec. 444.
          > > David Barton, The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX:
          > > WallBuilder Press,
          > > 1991), p. 32, 79-80. "Our Christian Heritage,"
          > > Letter from Plymouth
          > > Rock (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock
          > > Foundation), p. 5.
          > >
          > > In Commentaries on the Constitution of the United
          > > States, 1833, Vol.
          > > III, Justice Joseph Story declared:
          > >
          > > "It yet remains a problem to be solved in human
          > > affairs, whether any
          > > free government can be permanent, where the public
          > > worship of God, and
          > > the support of religion, constitute no part of the
          > > policy or duty of
          > > the state in any assignable shape. - 1833. Joseph
          > > Story,
          > > Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833 (reprinted
          > > NY: Da Capo Press,
          > > 1970), Vol. III, p. 726, Sec. 1868, and p. 727, Sec.
          > > 1869. See also
          > > Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the
          > > Constitution of the United
          > > States (MA: Marsh, Capen Lyon, and Web, 1840;
          > > reprinted Washington,
          > > D.C.; Regnery Gateway, 1986), p. 314, Sec. 441, p.
          > > 316, Sec. 444.
          > > David Barton, The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX:
          > > WallBuilder Press,
          > > 1991), p. 79-80. "Our Christian Heritage," Letter
          > > from Plymouth Rock
          > > (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation), p.
          > > 5.
          > >
          > > In 1844, case of Vidal v. Girard's Executors,
          > > Justice Joseph Story
          > > delivered the United States Supreme Court's
          > > unanimous opinion:
          > >
          > > "Christianity... is not to be maliciously and openly
          > > reviled and
          > > blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or
          > > the injury of the
          > > public....
          > >
          > > "Why may not laymen instruct in the general
          > > principles of Christianity
          > > as well as ecclesiastics.... And we cannot overlook
          > > the blessings,
          > > which such [lay]men by their conduct, as well as
          > > their instructions,
          > > may, nay must, impart to their youthful pupils.
          > >
          > > "Why may not the Bible, and especially the New
          > > Testament, without note
          > > or comment, be read and taught as a Divine
          > > Revelation in the [school]
          > > - its general precepts expounded, its evidences
          > > explained and its
          > > glorious principles of morality inculcated?
          > >
          > > "What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian,
          > > upon the general
          > > evidences of Christianity, from being read and
          > > taught in the college
          > > by lay teachers? It may well be asked, what is
          > > there in all this,
          > > which is positively enjoined, inconsistent with the
          > > spirit or truths
          > > of the religion of Christ? Are not these truths all
          > > taught by
          > > Christianity, although it teaches much more?
          > >
          > > "Where can the purest principles of morality be
          > > learned so clearly or
          > > so perfectly as from the New Testament?" - 1844.
          > > Vidal v. Girard's
          > > Executors, 43 U.S. 126, 132 (1844), pp. 198,
          > > 205-206. David Barton,
          > > The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder
          > > Press, 1991), pp.
          > > 62-63. William W. Story, Life and Letters of Judge
          > > Story, Vol. II,
          > > Chap. XII. Stephen Abbott Northrop, D.D., A Cloud
          > > of Witnesses
          > > (Portland, Oregon: American Heritage Ministries,
          > > 1987), p. 434.
          > >
          > > In his commentary of the First Amendment's original
          > > meaning, Justice
          > > Joseph Story clarified:
          > >
          > > "The real object of the First Amendment was not to
          > > countenance, much
          > > less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or
          > > infidelity, by
          > > prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry
          > > among Christian
          > > sects [denominations] and to prevent any national
          > > ecclesiastical
          > > patronage of the national government." - Judge
          > > Brevard Hand, in
          > > Jaffree v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile
          > > County, 544 F.
          > > Supp. 1104 (S. D. Ala. 1983). Russell Kirk, ed.,
          > > The Assault on
          > > Religion: Commentaries on the Decline of Religious
          > > Liberty (Lanham NY:
          > > University Press of America, 1986), p. 84. Gary
          > > DeMar, The Untold
          > > Story (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, Inc., 1993), p.
          > > 113.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.