|
Author
|
Topic: Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur?
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
Freedom Convoy Goes Global
This is the greatest gift America gave to the world. Freedom. We may be crippled now, under siege by a fraudulent regime that stole the election but the rest of the world has taken on the mantle of freedom.
Fight fascism. Now is the time. ...
Dear Father of Heavenly lights,
Guide and protect your heritage..
In Jesus Name,
Amen.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
AVE MARIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 7:1
Copyright © 2008 Ave Maria Law Review
THE SIGN AND SEAL OF JUSTICE
Rafael Alberto Madan †
The United States Department of Justice often is asked about the
origins and history of its seal and it s various elements, and in particular,
to render in English the Latin motto that figures prominently thereon:
QUI PRO DOMINA JUSTITIA SEQUITUR. These queries are not of
merely academic or historical interest. A motto is more than a
supermarket jingle, commercial tag-line, or campaign slogan; its
function, rather, is to encapsulate the aspirational intention or purpose
of an individual or a sociological group—be it a family or society, a
people or nation, an entity or institut ion—in a word or succinct phrase.
Thus, interest in the Department’s motto (and, derivatively, its seal) is
unsurprising: these are, after all, words it is to live by. 1 What may be
surprising is that none of the serious efforts undertaken to date to arrive
at definitive responses to these queries has been entirely successful—in
fact, the queries have generated some obscure answers that hark back to
before the founding of the Republic and to distant reaches of the world.
To go to the heart of these queries, the motto itself has been
described as “hopeless: its translation ha[ving] baffled more than one
good Latin scholar”; 2 “couched in . . . eliptic [sic] Latin”; 3 “a never-
ending source of speculation”; 4 “a puzzle . . . [whose] translation is
disputed”; 5 a puzzle that, perhaps “due to sheer ignorance or to
carelessness . . . , [was caused by] a mistake . . . in the wording”; 6 “a
‘hopeless’ grammatical construction that defies translation into
understandable English,” but “not a mere hapless archaic expression,
Fall 2008] THE SIGN AND SEAL OF JUSTICE
[being,] rather[,] a descriptive expression of some classical worth”;7 a
focus of “much speculation and disagreement over [its] origins and
meaning”;8 and “a somewhat strange Latin . . . [that] offers as much of a
bafflement to some . . . as [Attorney General Thornburgh] confess[ed] it
first did to [him, and that] . . .is one of the great mysteries of the western
world—even to scholars who know Latin.”9
The primary difficulty in responding accurately to th e queries arises
from the curious fact that it is not now known exactly when the original
of the Department’s current seal was adopted or first came into use, or
when the motto first appeared on it. The so-called Judiciary Act of 1789,
which created the office of the Attorney General10 (antecessor of the
Department11), made no express provision for a seal. This omission was
left uncorrected for some sixty year s, until the Act for Authenticating
Certain Records (February 22, 1849), which provided
[t]hat all books, papers, documents, and records in the . . . Attorney
General’s office, may be copied and certified under seal . . . , and the
said Attorney-General shall cause a seal to be made and provided for
his office, with such device as the President of the United States shall
12
approve.
Despite repeated research in the Department archives since before
1904 by numerous scholars (and later by the author), no record has been
found that indicates even the approxim ate date of creation of this seal,
its (presumed) approval by the President, or its adoption by the Attorney General. 15 Moreover, in his own page-by-page review of the thirty-five
some bound tomes of filings (many fr om the Attorneys General) in the
U.S. Supreme Court from 1848 to 1857, the author found no evidence of
use of any official Attorney General seal. 16 Of course, this absence of
evidence may be unremarkable, given that early Attorneys General,
while in office, often argued cases before that Court in their private
capacities, as attorneys for private (paying) litigants:
From the beginning, Presidents were aware that the low salary paid
the Attorney General made it difficult to attract high-grade men to the
office. They baited the hook with the lure of remunerative private
practice. . . .
[The first Attorney General, Edmund Jennings Randolph of
Virginia,] burdened with heavy financial obligations . . . took the bait and the
job. During his tenure [(1789–1794)], he substantially augmented his
income by representing private clients. Twenty-two of his successors
followed his example, some of them appearing as counsel in the most
noted cases of their times.[17.H USTON, supra note 15, at 11; see also 6 REG . D EB . 324 (1830) (Senator John Holmes of
Maine observing “that the salary of the Attorney General was now fixed at three thousand five
hundred dollars per annum; and the reason why it was not so large as the salaries of other heads of
Departments [(then $6,000)] was, that, by being permitted to pursue his other avocations, which
were acknowledged to be profitable, he more than made up to himself the amount of compensation
received by the others who were confined to their offices.”); 1 J ULIUS G OEBEL, JR ., H ISTORY OF
THE S UPREME C OURT OF THE U NITED S TATES : A NTECEDENTS AND B EGINNINGS TO 1801, at 726
(1971) (“Attorney General Randolph[’s] . . . official emoluments were so meagre that his living
depended upon the effectiveness with which he represented private clients.”); Bernard A.
Weisberger, D.C. Law, A M. H ERITAGE, May–June 1993, at 20−24 (“Randolph . . . continued his
private practice without embarrassment or reproach. So did all his successors until 1853, and with
good reason. The duties of the office were limited and imprecise at best . . .
Very interesting read.
If, as indicated here, judges, law professors, and practicing
attorneys—and even Department pers onnel—have found it difficult to
state correctly the source, text, location, appearance, authority, and legal
weight of an English-language inscription on a seventy-four-year-old
public building in the nation’s capital, small wonder ought there to be
that doubt should swirl about the source, meaning, and adoption of a similarly ordered Latin motto, nearly a hundred years older and with
ancient roots in the common law. Who fashioned that motto into its
present shape and bequeathed it to the Department of Justice, and
when, are facts now utterly forgotten. Nor is it now known what precise
English meaning the motto was intended to convey. Perfect knowledge
being unavailable on this last point, one must be content with a likely
meaning: the motto refers to the Attorney General (and those under him
in service to the public weal) “ who prosecutes on behalf of justice ”—
surely, a fine vocation, and entirely worth recalling. Divine, perfect
justice can hardly be expected in this vale of tears; human justice,
however, remains within reach, when the servants of the law seek
diligently, humbly, and faithfully to pursue justice and prosecute their
duty on her behalf. Let’s roll?
As of this date American Citizens have been ILLEGALLY DETAINED in Washington under conditions that are never put on Biblical REAL enemies or illegal immigrants?
November 11, 2021
What Is an America that Holds Prisoners Indefinitely without Charging Them?
By E. Jeffrey Ludwig
The U.S. is facing a serious constitutional crisis over the handling of the cases of defendants in the Jan. 6 so-called "insurrection" in Washington, D.C. to protest the presidential election modus operandi and the results. Those being held for many months without a trial are being denied their habeas corpus rights under the U.S. Constitution and even dating back to English law hundreds of years before our Constitution was implemented. Not only are they being incarcerated without having had a trial, but there is some evidence that they are being mistreated or are being held 23 hours a day in solitary confinement, which is a punishment accorded only the most dangerous criminals, such as serial killers and terrorists.
What are habeas corpus rights? According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), "[h]abeas corpus is a fundamental right in the Constitution that protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. Translated from Latin it means 'show me the body.' Habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument to safeguard individual freedom against arbitrary executive power." A citizen must be charged and cannot be held indefinitely. A charge requires a trial, and, if found guilty in a trial, there is a sentence for a specific amount of time.
Even PolitiFact — hardly an unbiased fact-checker — relates, "The vast majority of defendants have been released from custody while awaiting trial, but some [my italics] held in jail have been kept in solitary confinement." The fact that exact numbers for how many are held in solitary confinement or for how long suggests to this writer evasion by the Washington, D.C. jail authorities.
Despite the attempt by outlets like PolitiFact to minimize the problem of solitary confinement, a number of GOP senators have voiced their concern about this problem, and even the ACLU — certainly not an outreach arm of the Republican Party — has become involved. However, the Republican senators who are concerned do not have a specific number. The lack of definitiveness in this area is alarming.
Even saying that "it's only a few bad dudes" being held without habeas corpus does not dilute the evil that suspension of habeas corpus is. Only a couple of weeks after seven Southern states seceded from the Union in 1861, Pres. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and arrested an individual in Maryland — a state that had not seceded — for advocating secession. The U.S. Circuit Court ruled that Lincoln's action violated the U.S. Constitution. Although Lincoln did not rescind his setting aside of habeas corpus, John Merryman, the object of this action, was allowed to post bail three months later and was never brought to trial. Charges of treason against him were eventually dropped. This was only one case in the context of social turmoil much greater than that of Jan. 6 in Washington, D.C., yet the Circuit Court and many citizens who supported our fight against the secessionist states still deemed Lincoln's action an overreach.
US released 375,000 illegal ... - Washington Examiner. February 17, 2020 12:00 AM More than 375,000 of the 473,682 immigrants who were caught illegally crossing the southern border with a family member in fiscal 2019 were released by "FAKE"federal law...
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
