Family Law I... FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF OHIO STATE LAW: (U.S. 9th and 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Federal Court Jurisdiction over Cuyahoga County, Ohio Juvenile Court Matter); IMPLIED JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS ACCORDED THE INDIVIDUAL U.S. CIRCUIT COURTS AS SET FORTH BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 768 n.18 (1982) AND BY Art. IV, Sec. 2, cl.1 of the United States Constitution UNDER THE EXCEPTION TO THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AS FURTHER CLEARLY PROVIDED FOR BY THE OHIO SUPREME COURT IN In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92, 2002-Ohio-5368 THE TWO FORMER PRECEDING FEDERAL PROTECTIONS AND HOLDINGS, SUPERSEDE BY FEDERAL PREEMPTION AND AMPLIFIES THE LATTER STATE ACCORDED HOLDING UNDER DUAL SOVEREIGNTY LEGAL PRINCIPLES Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 367-368, 370-371 (1886): "It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision, and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage." "nevertheless, such a construction would afford no warrant for such an exercise of legislative power as, under the pretence and color of regulating, should subvert or injuriously restrain the right itself." Id. Art. IV, Sec. 2, cl.1 of the United States Constitution provides and states that: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to [ALL] PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES." Id. “A more comprehensive word than ‘all’ cannot be found in the English language” Moore v. Virginia F. & M. Ins. Co., 28 Gratt. (69 Va.) 598, 516, 26 Am R. 373. “Read naturally, the word ‘any’ has an expansive meaning, that is, ‘one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind.’ ” “No exceptions appear on the face of the statute; “[n]o modifier is present, and nothing suggests any restriction,” “on the scope of the term “court.” Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005) (Justice Thomas, dissenting at paragraph II, with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy also join, dissenting) citing United States v. Gonzales, 520 U. S. 1, 5 (1997) (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 97 (1976) (hereinafter Webster’s 3d)); United States v. Alvarez-Sanchez, 511 U. S. 350, 356, 358 (1994); Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55, 60 (1980). “the word “every” is equivalent to “all”; and “each and "every." Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed. citing State v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 66 Me. 510; Sherburne v. Sischo, 143 Mass. 442, 9 N. E. 797. “When the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: “judicial inquiry is complete.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54 (1992) (citations omitted). In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92, 2002-Ohio-5368: The Ohio Supreme Court has noted that, “Permanent termination of parental rights has been described as ‘the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case.’ * * * Therefore, parents ‘must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law allows,’ In re Hoffman, supra, at ¶14 citing In In re Hayes (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d. 46, 48, 679 N.E.2d 680” quoting In re Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16, 601 N.E.2d 45. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 ***(2010**) (J., Thomas concurring): “The notion that a constitutional provision that guarantees only “process” before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property could define the substance of those rights strains credulity for even the most casual user of words. Moreover, THIS FICTION IS A PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS ONE. The one theme that links the Court’s substantive due process precedents together is their lack of a guiding principle to distinguish “fundamental” rights that warrant protection from nonfundamental rights that do not. Today’s decision illustrates the point.” Id. "The inquiry is,” wrote Justice Washington, “what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? ********We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union . . . .”********** Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546, 551-552 (No. 3,230) (C.C.E.D. Pa., 1823). Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823) Some of the rights protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause include the freedom of movement through the states, THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS, the right to purchase and hold property, an exemption from higher taxes than those paid by state residents, and the right to vote. Strictly speaking, not an opinion issued by the Supreme Court, but a case decided by Supreme Court Justice Bushrod Washington while riding circuit, in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Notable for Washington asserting the existence of cognizable rights within the ambit of the Privileges and Immunities clause (Art. IV, Sec. 2, cl.1). Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 36 36 (1872), ( Slaughterhouse Cases [*] () 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36): “The Due Process Clause includes protections of substantive due process-- as Justice Stephen J. Field, wrote, in a dissenting opinion to the Slaughterhouse Cases wrote that "the Due Process Clause protected individuals from state legislation that infringed upon their “privileges and immunities” under the federal Constitution. Id. Mr. Justice FIELD, (dissenting) at 83-124 with (CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice SWAYNE, and Mr. Justice BRADLEY concurring with Justice FIELD’s dissenting opinion). “[T]he Court’s duty to refrain from interfering with state answers to domestic relations questions has never required that the Court should blink at CLEAR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS . . . .” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 768 n.18 (1982). " the Sovereigns of the country", "are equal"[,] "as joint tenants in the Sovereignty." Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U.S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L.Ed 440, pp. 471-472. “The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated by under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler 263 U.S. 22, 24 (1923). “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966). **“the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of ***EQUAL LAWS."** "**ALL PERSONS** within the jurisdiction of the United States **SHALL have the same right in EVERY STATE and Territory TO** make and enforce contracts, TO sue, BE parties, **GIVE evidence**, **AND to the full and equal benefit of all laws** AND proceedings **FOR the security of persons** AND property **AS is enjoyed by white citizens****and SHALL be subject TO** like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, AND EXTRACTIONS OF EVERY KIND, AND **TO NO OTHER."** Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). “The mandatory ‘shall’ “... creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion.” Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998). “When the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: “judicial inquiry is complete.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54 (1992) (citations omitted). “If a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, there is no daylight between the federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires.” Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019) (Slip Opinion) at the Syllabus of the Court citing McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 767 (2010).

Posted by El Hotepsekhemwy Pero at 2020-11-30 04:54:31 UTC