The Righteous and the Corrupt Sovereign

A righteous sovereign keeps the trust it was given. A corrupt sovereign has broken it. This page states where the line between them lies, in the words of the sources that drew that line.

This page does not look for rationales that failed. It looks for the conditions that fit the words of the laws of nature, and asks how a reader would recognize them. When a corrupt sovereign is asked to free its people from its power and control, it invariably says no. That is to be expected. So a ruling in which the courts of that same sovereign rejected the argument carries little weight here. Such rulings are recorded on this site as facts, and as risks the reader must know. This approach is the author's.

Whether the conditions are present in the United States today is tested, hallmark by hallmark, on EVIDENCE OF THE BREACH.

This page is political and moral analysis. It is not legal advice. Read the LEGAL SELF DISCLAIMER before acting on anything written here.

Power is held in trust

The authorities below span more than two thousand years. In different words they say one thing. A sovereign does not own its power. It holds that power for the people, under law, and for stated ends. Several of them call it a trust.

Date Authority Formulation Source
c. 350 BC Aristotle, Politics III.6 Governments "which regard only the interest of the rulers are all defective and perverted forms" [1]
13th century Bracton, On the Laws and Customs of England, f. 5b The king is "under God and under the law, because law makes the king" [2]
1581 Act of Abjuration "a prince is constituted by God to be ruler of a people, to defend them from oppression and violence as the shepherd his sheep" [3]
1651 Hobbes, Leviathan ch. XXX The sovereign's office "consisteth in the end, for which he was trusted with the Soveraign Power, namely the procuration of the Safety Of The People" [4]
1689 Locke, Second Treatise §149 The legislative is "only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends" [5]
1689 Locke, Second Treatise §135 Its power "can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects" [5]
1698 Sidney, Discourses II.3 (section heading) "Government is not instituted for the good of the Governor, but of the Governed; and Power is not an Advantage, but a Burden." [6]
1758 Vattel, The Law of Nations I.iv §51 Power is given "with the tacit reserve that the sovereign shall use it for the safety of the people, and not for their ruin" [7]
1765 Blackstone, Commentaries I ch. 6 "protection and subjection are reciprocal" [8]
1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights §2 "all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them" [9]
1776 Declaration of Independence Governments are instituted "to secure these rights" [10]
1784, in force New Hampshire Constitution Pt. I art. 10 Government is "instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men" [11]
1788 Madison, Federalist No. 46 "The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people" [12]
1867, in force Maryland Declaration of Rights art. 6 "all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct" [13]

In the United States the oath of office is sworn to the Constitution, not to any person who holds office: to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (5 U.S.C. §3331) [14]. The same oath pledges to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same" [14]. The question on this page is when those who govern have left that order.

This site calls the trust described above the Paramount Trust. The name is the author's. The doctrine is in the sources quoted.

Register: HSRP-398. Grade: ESTABLISHED. The texts quoted say this.

The line at the level of a single act

The first line is crossed by a single act. An officer who acts beyond the law has no authority in that act [5].

"Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm" (Locke, Second Treatise §202) [5]

The officer who does it, Locke says, "ceases in that to be a magistrate" (§202) [5]. Hamilton states the American rule: "every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void" (Federalist No. 78) [12]. Aquinas limits obedience the same way: "Man is bound to obey secular princes in so far as this is required by order of justice" (Summa Theologiae II-II q.104 a.6 ad 3) [15]. Vattel, who asks subjects to bear a great deal, adds: "Nevertheless this ought not to be entirely a blind obedience." (§54) [7]

What follows at this level is narrow. A person refuses to take part in an act that is manifestly unlawful. A person challenges a doubtful act through lawful channels. Those duties are set out on YOUR DUTY. This first line judges the act. It does not judge the sovereign as a whole.

Register: HSRP-399. Grade: ESTABLISHED. The texts quoted say this.

The line at the level of the whole

The second line concerns the sovereign as a whole. Here the sources say the trust itself is forfeited: "the trust must necessarily be forfeited" (Locke §149) [5]. They describe two routes to that result. The words are theirs. The arrangement into two routes is this project's.

Route A: a design made visible

Date Authority Formulation Source
1581 Act of Abjuration A prince who oppresses his people is a tyrant, "particularly when this is done deliberately, unauthorized by the states" [3]
1689 Locke §225 "if a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people" [5]
1689 Locke §222 Those who "either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption" reach for absolute power: "by this breach of trust they forfeit the power" [5]
1751 Burlamaqui, Politic Law, Part II ch. 6 §XXI When "it appears evident, that he has formed a design to destroy the liberty of his subjects" [16]
1776 Declaration of Independence "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" [10]

Route B: the ends manifestly neglected or ruined

Date Authority Formulation Source
1581 Act of Abjuration "when he does not behave thus, but, on the contrary, oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe their ancient customs and privileges, exacting from them slavish compliance, then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant" [3]
1689 Locke §149 "whenever that end is manifestly neglected, or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it" [5]
1689 Locke §219 The executive who "neglects and abandons that charge, so that the laws already made can no longer be put in execution" [5]
1751 Burlamaqui, Politic Law, Part II ch. 6 §XVI "the extreme abuse of sovereignty, which degenerates manifestly into tyranny, and tends to the intire ruin of the subjects" [16]
1751 Burlamaqui, Politic Law, Part II ch. 6 §XXX When "all his actions manifestly tend to oppress them, and that he is marching boldly on to the ruin of the state" [16]
1758 Vattel I.iv §51 (section heading) "But the nation may curb a tyrant, and withdraw itself from his obedience." [7]
1776 Declaration of Independence "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" [10]
1867, in force Maryland Declaration of Rights art. 6 "whenever the ends of Government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the People may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new Government" [13]

Register: HSRP-400. Grade: WORKING. Each text quoted is ESTABLISHED. The arrangement into two routes is this project's reading.

What stays below the line

The same writers set limits. Ordinary failings do not cross the line.

They also set the standard of proof.

The presumption runs in favor of the sovereign (Burlamaqui §XXXV) [16]. So the burden lies on whoever says the line has been crossed. This site accepts that burden.

Register: HSRP-401. Grade: ESTABLISHED. The texts quoted say this.

No duty to wait

The line does not have to be fully crossed before the people may see where things are going.

This project adds a rule of its own. A tendency is shown by what the government itself has already done, or left undone. It is not shown by an election result, or by opinions alone.

Register: HSRP-402. Grade: WORKING.

The knowledge standard

This site holds a further standard. It is the author's own. A deviation from natural law that is known to be present is malice. When a government has knowledge that it is operating in opposition to natural law, that is where malice and tyranny are found.

The sources give that standard its ground. Burlamaqui excuses a moderate abuse because it "may be attributed to human weakness, rather than to an intention" (§XVI) [16]. This project reads it so: once a failing is known and still continued, weakness no longer explains it. Locke puts the blame on those who could have avoided it: "Who can help it if they, who might avoid it, bring themselves into this suspicion?" (§230, modernized text) [5]. Aquinas holds that ignorance is no excuse when it is chosen, "as when a man wishes not to know, that he may have an excuse for sin" (Summa Theologiae I-II q.6 a.8) [15]. He calls that "affected ignorance" [15].

The oldest picture of it is Pharaoh. He refuses: "I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go" (Exodus 5:2) [18]. He admits the wrong: "I have sinned this time: the LORD is righteous, and I and my people are wicked" (Exodus 9:27) [18]. Then, when the pressure eases, "he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart" (Exodus 9:34) [18]. This is an analogy, and it is offered as one.

The government's own courts apply the same measure to others. A prison official is not liable under the Eighth Amendment unless he "knows of and disregards an excessive risk" (Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)) [19]. Those who take deliberate steps to avoid knowing "are just as culpable as those who have actual knowledge" (Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 766 (2011)) [20]. These rulings are cited as parallels. They show how the government itself defines guilty knowledge. They are not cited as authority on its legitimacy.

Knowledge is shown by the record. That means dated warnings from a government's own auditors, trustees and budget office, and rulings of its own courts, each followed by the same course. One limit must be stated plainly. Records of that kind show that the facts and the risks were known. They do not contain an admission of wrong. The step from knowing the facts to knowing the wrong is an inference, and this site states it as an inference.

Locke's own line does not require malice. He lists "folly" beside "corruption" among the causes of forfeiture (§222) [5]. The knowledge standard is stricter than his. It marks the point where failure becomes malice.

Register: HSRP-403. Grade: AUTHOR'S POSITION. Its textual ground is WORKING.

The hallmark: the hold kept at all cost

The hallmark of a corrupt sovereign is holding onto power and control at all cost. The tenacity is fueled by PSYCHO-VULGARISM in individuals who are blinded to the wrong of enslaving the populace. They have forgone natural law to such an extent that their people suffer, and yet they refuse to free them. That is the author's reading. The record carries the same mark.

Each hallmark, with its history and its present-day status, is set out on EVIDENCE OF THE BREACH.

Register: HSRP-404. Grade: AUTHOR'S POSITION. The historical instances are WORKING.

How the line has been crossed before

Past crossings were made in lawful form. The table gives each crossing, and each instrument that named one, in its own legal words.

Date Place In its own words Source
27 BC onward Rome "The offices established by the laws, it is true, are maintained even now, except that of censor; but the entire direction and administration is absolutely in accordance with the wishes of the one in power at the time." (Cassius Dio 53.17.3) [22]
1628 England The Petition of Right complains of charges taken "without common consent by act of parliament" and of subjects "imprisoned without any cause shewed" [23]
1689 England The Bill of Rights condemns "a Power of Dispensing with and Suspending of Lawes and the Execution of Lawes without Consent of Parlyament" [24]
1776 America "He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries." [10]
1789 France The standard France set itself: "Any society in which no provision is made for guaranteeing rights or for the separation of powers, has no Constitution." (Declaration of 1789, art. 16) [25]
1793 France Four years later, by decree of the assembly: "The provisional government of France is revolutionary until the peace." [26]
1919 Germany The constitution allowed the President only to "temporarily abrogate" seven rights articles (Weimar Constitution art. 48) [27]
1933 Germany The decree of 28 February declared those articles "suspended until further notice" [28]
1933 Germany The law of 24 March, passed by the Reichstag: "The national laws enacted by the Reich Cabinet may deviate from the Constitution" [29]
1934 Germany The law of 30 January, passed by the Reichstag: "Die Reichsregierung kann neues Verfassungsrecht setzen." (The Reich government may make new constitutional law.) [30]

Four things recur in these crossings. Each is on the record.

This site presumed that power is taken by the pattern Jeremy Locke sets out in The End of All Evil [32]. He is a different writer from John Locke. The record above confirms that pattern in part. It confirms the part that describes how power is taken in lawful form. In the book's words: "Laws are decreed and written to legitimize obedience. Law impersonates principle." [32] And: "The more people that obey the new authority, the more likely it is that others will follow." [32]

The parts of the pattern that turn on design are not yet confirmed. They stay presumed. They are the claim that enemies "are only created to ease the burden of obedience" [32], and the claim that "Cultures are created to protect power structures." [32] The evidence for them has not yet been found. It is not yet known whether it will be found.

The crossings in Rome, France and Germany ran through votes and assemblies [22] [26] [29] [30]. So did the instruments of 1628, 1689 and 1776 that answered earlier crossings [23] [24] [10]. What divided the two was not the form of the vote. It was the content. That is examined on THE TWO-PARTY HIVE MIND.

Register: HSRP-405. Grade: WORKING. The pattern of The End of All Evil is CONFIRMED IN PART.

The test

This project has put the sources above into seven questions. It calls them the Breach Test. Any reader can put them to any act of any government.

  1. The act. What did the government itself do, or fail to do? When? Under what claimed authority? Acts of other states, of parties or of private bodies do not count.
  2. The grant. Was the act within lawful authority when it was first done?
  3. The end. Which end, owed equally to every person, did it defeat: life, liberty, estate, consent, equal law, protection, prosperity? A claim to hold power over other persons is never an end. A government's own appeal to necessity or safety is an act to be tested. It is never a justification.
  4. The train. Is the act one of a long train, tending the same way, whichever party governs?
  5. The knowledge. Was the harm warned of, reported or acknowledged on the record, and the course held anyway?
  6. Breadth and direction. Is it advancing? Is it felt across every person subject to the government?
  7. The remedies. Which lawful remedies were tried, and how were they answered?

The answers give one of three results. A slip, or a moderate abuse: bear it, and petition. A wrong at the level of the act: refuse to take part, and challenge it lawfully. A breach at the level of the whole: by Route A or by Route B, on the highest evidence, laid before a candid public.

The test runs one way. It can release a person from an obligation, or ground a refusal. It never creates an offense, a power or a punishment.

Register: HSRP-406. Grade: WORKING. The questions are this project's. Each rests on the sources above.

Who judges, and what follows

Locke answers the first question plainly: "The people shall be judge" (§240) [5]. Sidney agrees: "The People for whom and by whom the Magistrate is created, can only judge whether he rightly perform his Office or not." (Discourses III.41, section heading) [6] Burlamaqui adds that "in cases of manifest tyranny, every one is in a condition to judge" (§XXXV) [16]. On this site "the people" means each person, and the candid public. It never means a majority vote. A vote does not make a crossing righteous.

What follows is lawful. This site's remedy is righteous non-cooperation inside the zone the law itself protects: knowledge, speech, petition, argument, boycott, challenge in court, and refusal to take part in what is manifestly unlawful. The Declaration's own first step was petition: "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms" [10]. The Supreme Court has held a peaceful political boycott protected. A State's power to regulate could not justify "a complete prohibition against a nonviolent, politically motivated boycott designed to force governmental and economic change" (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 914 (1982)) [33].

Three facts the reader must know.

  1. A finding that the line has been crossed is a political and moral judgment. It is not a defense in any court, and it places no one outside the reach of the law. Courts reject that claim outright: "that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts" (United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011)) [34].
  2. An injunction issued by a court with jurisdiction must be obeyed until a court changes it, "however erroneous the action of the court may be" (Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 314 (1967)) [35]. The lawful course is to ask the court to modify or dissolve the order (Walker, 388 U.S. at 317) [35].
  3. This site does not advocate force. Nothing on this page is to be read as doing so.

Register: HSRP-407. Grade: WORKING. The court rulings cited are ESTABLISHED as facts of record.

Where the present stands

This page fixes the line. It does not say on which side of the line the United States now stands. That is the work of EVIDENCE OF THE BREACH. The duties that follow from the answer are on YOUR DUTY. The law of nature on which the line rests is on NATURAL LAW.

Sources

  1. Aristotle. Politics. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Book III, part 6 (Bekker 1279a17-21; the Bekker numbers are the standard ones and are not printed on the host page). Text read: MIT Internet Classics Archive. OA SRC-636
    https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html
  2. Bracton, Henry de (attributed). De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (On the Laws and Customs of England). Edited by George E. Woodbine, translated by Samuel E. Thorne (1968). Vol. 2, p. 33 (folio 5b). Latin read: Harvard Law School Library, Bracton Online. The Latin reads "sub deo et sub lege, quia lex facit regem". Thorne's English is in copyright; short extract only. OA SRC-637
    https://amesfoundation.law.harvard.edu/Bracton/Unframed/Latin/v2/33.htm
  3. Act of Abjuration (Plakkaat van Verlatinghe), States General of the United Provinces, 26 July 1581. English translation as printed in Oliver J. Thatcher, ed., The Library of Original Sources, vol. V (Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1907), pp. 189-197, as credited by the host. OA The 1907 volume itself was not opened, so the credit to Thatcher rests on the host. SRC-638
    https://declarationproject.org/?p=1171
    https://faculty.etsu.edu/history/documents/dutchdeclare.htm
  4. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan (London: Andrew Crooke, 1651). Chapter XXX, "Of the Office of the Soveraign Representative". Text read (1651 spelling): Toronto Metropolitan University Pressbooks. OA SRC-639
    https://pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca/leviathan/chapter/chapter-xxx-of-the-office-of-the-soveraign-representative/
  5. Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government (published 1689; title page dated 1690). Sections 135, 149, 202, 219, 220, 222, 225, 230, 240. Text read (1690 spelling, e.g. "born", "persuation"): Marxists Internet Archive chapter pages (ch11.htm for §135; ch13.htm for §149; ch18.htm for §202; ch19.htm for §§219-240). The one sentence from §230 marked "modernized text" was read at Teaching American History. Section numbers are the same in every edition; spelling is not. OA SRC-225
    https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/politics/locke/
    https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/second-treatise-chapters-16-19/
  6. Sidney, Algernon. Discourses Concerning Government (London, 1698). Section headings of Chapter Two, Section 3 and Chapter Three, Section 41. Headings read: Constitution Society table of contents. OA SRC-640
    https://constitution.org/2-Authors/as/dcg_000.htm
  7. Vattel, Emer de. The Law of Nations (Le Droit des gens, 1758). Book I, chapter IV, §§51 and 54. English text read: LONANG Institute. The page read names no translator; LONANG's index credits the Chitty edition. OA SRC-226
    https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-104/
  8. Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I (1st ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1765). Chapter 6, "Of the King's Duties". Text read: The Avalon Project, Yale Law School. The host prints the long s as "f" ("fubjection"); it is modernized in the quotation. OA SRC-202
    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch6.asp
  9. Virginia Declaration of Rights (adopted 12 June 1776), section 2; in force as Article I of the Constitution of Virginia. Text read: The Avalon Project, Yale Law School. OA SRC-641
    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/virginia.asp
  10. The Declaration of Independence (in Congress, 4 July 1776). Transcription: U.S. National Archives. OA SRC-203
    https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
  11. Constitution of New Hampshire, Part First, Article 10 ("Right of Revolution"), 2 June 1784; in force. Text read: Justia. OA The State's own copy could not be opened. SRC-642
    https://law.justia.com/constitution/new-hampshire/billofrights.html
  12. The Federalist. No. 46 (James Madison; New York Packet, 29 January 1788) and No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton; 28 May 1788). Texts read: The American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara. OA SRC-592 (No. 78); SRC-643 (No. 46)
    https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/federalist-no-46-the-influence-the-state-and-federal-governments-compared
    https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/federalist-no-78-the-judiciary-department
  13. Constitution of Maryland (1867), Declaration of Rights, Article 6; in force. Text read: Maryland State Archives, Maryland Manual On-Line. OA SRC-644
    https://2014mdmanual.msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/00dec.html
  14. United States Code, Title 5, §3331 (oath of office), as quoted by the Supreme Court of the United States, "Oaths of Office: Texts, History, and Traditions". OA SRC-645
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/oathsofoffice.aspx
  15. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 2nd rev. ed. (1920). I-II q.6 a.8 and II-II q.104 a.6 ad 3. Text read: New Advent. OA SRC-217
    https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2006.htm
    https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm
  16. Burlamaqui, Jean-Jacques. The Principles of Natural and Politic Law. Translated by Thomas Nugent (1748, 1752). The Principles of Politic Law (1751), Part II, chapter 6, §§XVI, XVII, XXI, XXIX, XXX, XXXV. Text read: LONANG Institute, from the corrected 5th edition (Cambridge, Mass., 1807). Modern edition: Petter Korkman, ed. (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2006). OA SRC-200
    https://lonang.com/library/reference/burlamaqui-natural-politic-law/burl-2206/
  17. Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XIII. Edited by William Peden (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1954), pp. 120-121, as printed in The Founders' Constitution, vol. 1, ch. 10, document 9. OA SRC-646
    https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch10s9.html
  18. The Holy Bible, King James Version. Exodus 5:2, 8:15, 9:27, 9:34. Text read: King James Bible Online. OA SRC-278
    https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-Chapter-5/
  19. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (Souter, J.). Text read: FindLaw. Pinpoint confirmed on the Library of Congress print of the United States Reports, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511825/usrep511825.pdf. OA SRC-647
    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/511/825.html
  20. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 766 (2011) (Alito, J.). Text read: U.S. Reports print (PDF). OA SRC-648
    https://www.benefitslawadvisor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/172/2020/02/Global-Tech-Appliances_-Inc.-v.-SEB-S.A._-563-U.S.-754.pdf
  21. Augustus. Res Gestae Divi Augusti (c. AD 14), 34.1. Translated by Frederick W. Shipley (Loeb Classical Library, 1924). Text read: Livius.org. OA SRC-649
    https://www.livius.org/sources/content/augustus-res-gestae/
  22. Cassius Dio. Roman History, Book LIII (53.11.2; 53.12.1; 53.13.1; 53.16.2; 53.17.3). Translated by Earnest Cary (Loeb Classical Library, 1917). Text read: Lexundria. OA SRC-650
    https://lexundria.com/dio/53/cy
  23. The Petition of Right (3 Car. 1 c. 1, June 1628), paragraphs V and X. Text read: The Founders' Constitution, vol. 5, Amendment I (Petition and Assembly), document 3. OA SRC-651
    https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_assemblys3.html
  24. The Bill of Rights (1 Will. & Mar. Sess. 2 c. 2; passed 1689, dated 1688 by the old-style year). Enacted text: legislation.gov.uk. OA SRC-652
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/enacted
  25. Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 26 August 1789 (Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen), Article 16. Official English translation: Conseil constitutionnel. OA SRC-653
    https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/en/declaration-of-human-and-civic-rights-of-26-august-1789
  26. National Convention (France). Decree of 10 October 1793 (19 Vendémiaire Year II), Article 1. English text read: Alpha History. The host names no translator. OA SRC-654
    https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/national-convention-emergency-government-1793/
  27. Constitution of the German Reich (Weimar Constitution), 11 August 1919, Article 48(2). English translation: Louis L. Snyder, ed., Documents of German History (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1958), pp. 385-392, as printed by German History in Documents and Images (GHDI). OA SRC-655
    https://germanhistorydocs.org/en/weimar-germany-1918-1933/the-weimar-constitution-august-11-1919
  28. Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State, 28 February 1933 (Reichsgesetzblatt 1933 I, p. 83), title and §1. The German title ends "zum Schutz von Volk und Staat". English translation: Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, vol. III (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946), Document 1390-PS, pp. 968-970, translation edited by GHI staff, as printed by GHDI. OA SRC-656
    https://germanhistorydocs.org/en/nazi-germany-1933-1945/decree-of-the-reich-president-for-the-protection-of-the-people-and-state-reichstag-fire-decree-february-28-1933
  29. Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich ("Enabling Act"), 24 March 1933 (Reichsgesetzblatt 1933 I, p. 141), Article 2. English translation: U.S. Department of State, National Socialism (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943), Appendix, Document 11, pp. 217-218, translation edited by GHI staff, as printed by GHDI. OA SRC-657
    https://germanhistorydocs.org/en/nazi-germany-1933-1945/the-enabling-act-march-24-1933
  30. Gesetz über den Neuaufbau des Reichs (Law on the Reconstruction of the Reich), 30 January 1934 (Reichsgesetzblatt 1934 I, p. 75), enacting formula ("einstimmig") and Article 4. German text read: verfassungen.de. The English gloss on the page is this site's own. OA SRC-658
    https://www.verfassungen.de/de33-45/neuaufbau34.htm
  31. Tacitus. Annals, Book I, chapter 2. Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb. Text read (English and Latin in parallel, chapter numbers printed): sacred-texts.com. OA SRC-523
    https://sacred-texts.com/book/the-works-of-tacitus/read/book-1-1
  32. Locke, Jeremy. The End of All Evil (self-published, 2005; ISBN 0-9777451-0-4; 96 pp.). Chapters 3 and 4. Copy read: Internet Archive. Copyrighted work; short quotations only. OA SRC-208
    https://archive.org/stream/EndOfAllEvil/End%20Of%20All%20Evil_djvu.txt
  33. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 914 (1982). Text read: Library of Congress, United States Reports, volume 458 (official print), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep458/usrep458886/usrep458886.pdf. OA SRC-659
    https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep458/usrep458886/usrep458886.pdf
  34. United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011). Text read: CourtListener. OA SRC-584
    https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/223528/united-states-v-benabe/
  35. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 314 and 317 (1967). Text read: FindLaw. OA SRC-660
    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/388/307.html
⌘