The Northwest Ordinance was passed BEFORE the Bill of Rights
by a couple of years.
The Northwest Ordinance as pass BEFORE there were any states added after the orginal 13 states.
The Northwest Ordinance was kind of a model law on how new states would be added to the USA and what rights people in those states would have.
Because it was passed BEFORE the Bill of Rights it didn't give all the rights the Bill of Rights had.
The Northwest Ordinance did mention religion as part of government. Thank God the 1st Amenmdment in the Bill of Rights would later shut down that part.
Ricky Duncan tells me that the reason you don’t need a drivers license to drive on roads (if your doing non-commercial activities) is the:
Here is some stuff Ricky showed me out of the book
“American Democracy: A Documentary Record”Northwest Ordinance
July 13, 1787
I stole the text from here
The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens of the United States, and those of any other States that may be admitted into the confederacy, without any tax, impost, or duty therefor.
[Ricky says that it doesn’t say it but that commercial travel can be taxed and regulated, while the ordinance says that PRIVATE travel can’t be taxed or regulated]
Ricky also gave me this other stuff which relates why the state can’t force you to have a drivers license for non-commercial purposes.
Note: for useless information this is not the Northwest I think of which is Washington and Oregon. It was Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin which was the Northwest in 1787.
Some more stuff Ricky gave me that says you don't need a drivers license to drive if your not doing commercial stuff. Now I said you don’t need a driver’s license to drive on public roads if you’re only doing private stuff. But they can definitely force you to get a drivers license if you’re doing commercial stuff.
Does a license plate violate your 5th Amendment rights?I wonder does requiring your car to have license plates violate your Fifth Admendment rights?
The police use license plates to tell who you are, or at least identify the owner of the car. Is forcing you to tell them this by forcing you to put a license plate on your car a violation of your 5th Amendment right?
Also the police use license plates to tell if you have paid your car tax, or license and registration tax. If you don't have a current license plate on your car it gives the cops "probable cause" to pull you over and write you a ticket for not having paid your registration tax. I suspect this also violates your Fifth Admendment rights.
In this article the cops are using their computer with license plate reconication systems to identify cars that don't have valid papers and stop them.
I wonder if all this is Constitutional?
And of course this raises a couple of questions per the Northwest Ordinance. Is requiring a non-commercial vehicle to pay a license registration tax a violation of the Northwest Ordinance?
Is requiring a non-commercial car or truck to pay gasoline taxes a violation of the Northwest Ordinance? I don't know but I suspect it is!
License-plate scanning catching crooks, raising privacy worries
by Michael Ferraresi - Nov. 23, 2008 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
Officer David Callister parks his patrol car under a shady interstate overpass, angling his cameras to target a flurry of passing traffic. Then he waits.
Infrared units mounted to the front of Callister's vehicle scan the license plates of a Casa Grande firefighter, an Ohio State football fan and everyone else who drives past as he hunts for stolen vehicles.
Every plate is photographed, time-stamped, labeled on a GPS map and automatically logged into an Arizona Department of Public Safety database. An electronic voice alerts Callister to stolen vehicles within seconds after they pass, giving him the ability to make quick arrests.
Callister is among the growing number of Arizona officers who use cameras to scan thousands of plates on a daily basis, sweeping parking lots and highways to recover stolen vehicles faster than ever before.
In the past two years, the technology has been lauded as more than a tool to thwart car thieves. DPS claims its program has the potential to intercept violent criminals and Amber Alert suspects, though lawmakers and activists raise questions about invasion of privacy for average citizens whose plates are scanned.
In a state that routinely ranks among the top five in the U.S. in auto theft, DPS scanned more than 1.6 million plates since introducing its first cameras in 2006 - leading directly to 122 felony arrests.
Callister, a DPS Border Crimes Unit officer, uses a set of the agency's 25 plate-reader cameras to track stolen vehicles south of Phoenix. He said the system supplements everyday police work, freeing him from the routine checks that used to consume his time.
"Three years ago, all I had in my car was a radio to talk to a dispatcher, and I had to wait my turn," Callister said. "If I was lucky, I could run 10 vehicles a day," he said. "Now, with the plate reader and my computer, I've had days when I've read over 8,000."
Officers in Valley cities use cameras to recover missing passenger cars. But Callister said stolen trucks seized on freeways are often linked to other border-related crimes. Dodge pickups, F-250s, Escalades and Tahoes are more commonly recovered than the Hondas or Toyotas labeled as the most-stolen vehicles in the U.S.
"That's not what's going to Mexico," Callister said. "Those are the little joy-riding vehicles."
Callister said he uses his cameras to hunt the "baddest of the bad guys" - thieves wanted in connection to the trafficking of drugs, cash and illegal immigrants. Gov. Janet Napolitano recognized him in December for using the cameras to recover 75 stolen vehicles and 140 stolen license plates in a 16-month period.
As Arizona police expand plate-reader technology, officials in California, New York and throughout Europe continue to add systems.
New York, for example, boasts hundreds of cameras on toll roads, bridges and overpasses in addition to those on state troopers' vehicles. One such camera disproved a man's alibi earlier this year, showing his true location the night a family was slaughtered at their home in 2007, leading to his eventual conviction on murder charges.
DPS and other police agencies already have proven that plate-recognition cameras solve crimes. The question is where and how Arizona will expand the technology in the future.
Impact on Arizonans
Experts believe the influx of plate-reader cameras helped reduce Arizona's high rate of auto theft, at least in part, because the systems are becoming a more common aspect of everyday police work.
The arrest of just one auto thief leads to a substantial drop in stolen vehicles because a single thief can steal several cars in a day or week, according to Phoenix police.
Investigators believe a recently adopted Arizona law that requires victims to accurately report auto theft also will continue to help the numbers fall.
Phoenix reported a 26 percent drop in auto theft since 2007. The Arizona Automobile Theft Authority, a state agency funded by insurance companies, reported that statewide thefts dropped 11.9 percent last year alone. Arizona auto-theft rates had been on a slight decline since police reported more than 56,800 vehicles stolen in 2002.
Enrique Cantu, executive director of the Arizona Automobile Theft Authority, said more Arizona cities have applied for grants through the agency with the hope of placing plate readers on local streets.
As local agencies acquire the technology, larger agencies such as DPS will continue to test the next generation of cameras. A wireless plate reader hidden in an orange construction barrel, for instance, allows an officer to monitor traffic going the opposite way from the patrol vehicle.
Victims are often grateful to see their stolen vehicles quickly returned by officers using plate-readers.
Joseph Justice, a north Phoenix resident, said his Chevy Silverado went missing in July from a Paradise Valley Mall parking lot.
"It's a hell of a feeling," the 63-year-old said. "You walk out of the mall and see your truck isn't there. You feel like you've been violated."
Justice reported his truck missing around 10 a.m. By 3 p.m., DPS found it.
Callister recovered the truck on Interstate 10 when it passed his plate reader - along with a Dodge truck that had been stolen from a Goodyear movie-theater parking lot.
U.S. plate readers were introduced as an auto-theft deterrent, but investigators talk about using the cameras to create a virtual Arizona crime map, widening the scope beyond stolen vehicles.
By logging the daily location of thousands of registered automobiles, investigators may be able to narrow down the locations of people they are looking for.
The automated technology, for instance, gives officers the ability to check the license plate of each vehicle parked outside a known drug house or note what cars were parked outside a bank before and after a heist.
In October, Callister stopped a motorist on I-10 near Casa Grande for driving too close to another vehicle. The stop led to the discovery of $175,000 in cash and raised suspicions of money laundering.
To search for the man's possible criminal associates, detectives could easily check the list of license plates on vehicles that passed before and after the man's vehicle.
Plate-readers might be a boon for investigators, but agencies such as DPS already have grappled with the possibility of public resistance from those who fear the technology threatens the civil rights of law-abiding citizens. Of the thousands of license plates scanned each day, only a small fraction of the vehicles are tied to some possible criminal activity.
DPS, working with statewide task forces, could emerge as the central agency to store the data from the scans - but the agency has yet to establish guidelines on how to use the data and how long that information would be saved.
"That's where some people might consider it an invasion of privacy," Callister said, but he downplayed the idea, saying the plates are public information seen on public streets.
"This database is just a big pile of plates and GPS locations," he said, adding that the potential to solve crimes outweighs privacy concerns. "If somebody is involved in a bank robbery, or kidnaps a kid, and they do have a plate, they can go back to see the vehicle was at a (specific) location."
Cmdr. Larry Scarber, who oversees the DPS plate-reader program, said information from the cameras is used strictly to prevent crime.
"We have to be very cautious," Scarber said of the records of vehicle locations. "Right now, we haven't gotten rid of anything."
Police leaders met recently with Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard to discuss how to manage the vast amount of data without treading on motorists' civil liberties or limiting the technology's crime-fighting potential.
Big Brother concerns
A Goddard spokeswoman said discussions about how to regulate DPS plate-reader data are ongoing.
Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, said she is concerned about how police technology could outpace legal standards.
"The problem is we really have no reassurance it's going to be focused on the bad guys," Soler Meetze said.
Arizona legislators have provided little guidance on how to regulate the technology since Mesa police pioneered Arizona's first plate-readers in 2005.
State Sen. Pamela Gorman, R-Anthem, who did not return calls for comment, introduced a bill in 2007 that suggested DPS should dispose of license-plate images within 24 hours unless the data is tied to an ongoing investigation. The bill went nowhere.
State Rep. Jerry Weiers, R-Glendale, has introduced legislation to help fight license-plate fraud and is a supporter of plate scanners. He said he hears more opposition to automated enforcement technology from legislators seeking to regulate government surveillance than from constituents who want their stolen cars back.
"Big Brother - it's one more thing where people are concerned that the government is looking at you," Weiers said.
No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways
U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive On Public Highways and StreetsOddly I could not find any mention of the Northwest Ordinance in this article.
The Northwest Ordinance was one of the first laws passed by the US Congress in the late 1700's.
The Northwest Ordinance says that as a condition of new states entering the Union, they can't tax people who travel on "public highways" for "non-commercial reasons".
The more I read this article, the more I wonder if it's a bogus article from some publication like the Onion.
Note that no Supreme Court was cited by the article as for this Supreme Court Decision.
Although they did cite a number of OTHER Supreme Court Decisions.
U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
Dec 12, 2015
U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 "The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." -
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 "… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .” Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. "The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 "The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways."
-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: "(6) Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…" 10) The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."
-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’"
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 "Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled" - Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 "
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of."
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). "...a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon..." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 "the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all." -
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. "No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances."
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. "Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle "Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right."
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation."
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 "Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen." Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” -
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). "With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority." Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. "The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution."
(Paul v. Virginia). "[T]he right to travel freely from State to State ... is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." (U.S. Supreme Court,
Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. ...'Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.'
Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”
Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a "statute." A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. "A soldier's personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’
U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235" 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. "[I]t is a jury question whether ... an automobile ... is a motor vehicle[.]"
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: -
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 -
TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 - WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 - CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 - THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 - U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) -
GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) - CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 -
SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) - CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.