Supreme Court of Tennessee

“ There has been considerable controversy and litigation over these last 3 miles of the boundary, and a number of witnesses have testified in the case of Virginia against Tennessee, Supreme Court, United States, October term, 1891, that there were none of the marks of the previous surveys remaining between Station creek and the summit of Cumberland mountain, owing to the destruction of the timber in that area during the military operations of the Civil War. ”

“ As Justice McLean explained, “ [t] hat the federal government is one of limited powers, is a principle so obvious as not to admit of controversy.” Id., at 938. Yet the Indian lands at issue were not located within a federal territory, and there had not been “any cession of jurisdiction by the state of Tennessee.” Id., at 939. [5] Nor was the criminal statute in any way related to “commerce” with the Indian tribes. Ibid. Indeed, Justice McLean asked, if Congress could enact this statute, “why may not [C] ongress legislate on crimes for the states generally?” ”

“ The Legislature may also vest such jurisdiction in Corporation Courts as may be deemed necessary. Courts to be holden by justices of the peace may also be established.
Section 2. The Supreme Court shall consist of five judges, of whom not more than two shall reside in any one of the grand divisions of the state. The judges shall designate one of their own number who shall preside as chief justice. The concurrence of three of the judges shall in every case be necessary to a decision. ”

“ No Judge of the Supreme or Inferior Courts shall preside on the trial of any cause in the event of which he may be interested, or where either of the parties shall be connected with him by affinity or consanguinity, within such degrees as may be prescribed by law, or in which he may have been of counsel, or in which he may have presided in any inferior Court, except by consent of all the parties. ”

“ The governor, judges of the Supreme Court, judges of the inferior courts, chancellors, attorneys for the state, treasurer, comptroller, and secretary of state, shall be liable to impeachment, whenever they may, in the opinion of the House of Representatives, commit any crime in their official capacity which may require disqualification but judgment shall only extend to removal from office, and disqualification to fill any office thereafter. ”

“ A federal court enforcing the Federal Constitution is not, to be sure, bound by the remedial doctrines of the state courts. But it must consider as pertinent to the propriety or impropriety of exercising its jurisdiction those state law effects of its decree which it cannot itself control. A federal court cannot provide the authority requisite to make a legislature the proper governing body of the State of Tennessee. ”

“ The complaint, in addition to the claims under the Federal Constitution, also alleges rights, and the General Assembly's duties, under the Tennessee Constitution. Since we hold that appellants have — if it develops at trial that the facts support the allegations — a cognizable federal constitutional cause of action resting in no degree on rights guaranteed or putatively guaranteed by the Tennessee Constitution, we do not consider, let alone enforce, rights under a State Constitution which go further than the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. ”

“ Luebbers Superintendent Farmington Correctional Center 543 U.S. 1189 (2005) Ramirez v. United States 543 U.S. 1189 (2005) Conner v. McBride Superintendent Maximum Control Facility 543 U.S. 1189 (2005) Lanzilotta-Dicks v. Thomas More College 543 U.S. 1189 (2005) Workman v. Summers Attorney General of Tennessee et al. 543 U.S. 1189 (2005) Richmond v. Polk Warden 543 U.S. 1189 (2005) Wagatha v. Satellite Beach Police Department 543 U.S. 1189 (2005) Robinson v. Diguglielmo Superintendent State Correctional Institution at Graterford et al. ”

“ Not only is it the same body politic now, but it has always been the same. There has been perpetual succession and perpetual identity. There has from that time always been a State of Tennessee, and the same State of Tennessee. Its executive, its legislative, its judicial departments have continued without interruption and in regular order. It has changed, modified, and reconstructed its organic law, or State Constitution, more than once. It has done this before the rebellion, during the rebellion, and since the rebellion. ”

“ State, 3 Head, 689, only goes to show that the illegality of an appointment to a judicial office does not affect the validity of the acts of the judge. The constitution of Tennessee requires a judge to be 30 years of age. A judge under that age having been appointed, it was held that he could be removed by a proper proceeding, but until that was done his acts were binding.
In Fowler v. Bebee, 9 Mass. 231, the legislature passed an act erecting the county of Hampden, and provided that the law should take effect from the first of August next ensuing. ”

“ We do not mean to say that Congress, in cases of controversies between citizens of different states, might not so enlarge the scope of the statute regulating the jurisdiction of the Federal courts as to enable the circuit court, sitting in Tennessee, to suppress the nuisance in question. ”

“ IV Appellants, however, contend that the federal courts may provide the standard which the Fourteenth Amendment lacks by reference to the provisions of the constitution of Tennessee. The argument is that, although the same or greater disparities of electoral strength may be suffered to exist immune from federal judicial review in States where they result from apportionment legislation consistent with state constitutions, the Tennessee Legislature may not abridge the rights which, on its face, its own constitution appears to give, without by that act denying equal protection of the laws. ”

“ The sole contentions which are open for our consideration are, Did this judgment fail to give full faith and credit to the judicial proceedings in the Tennessee courts as required by § 1 of article 4 of the Constitution? ”

“ Every possible presumption is in favor of the validity of a statute, and this continues until the contrary is shown beyond a rational doubt. One branch of the government cannot encroach on the domain of another without danger. The safety of our institutions depends in no small degree on a strict observance of this salutary rule.'
The challenge of the power of the Tennessee Valley Authority rests wholly upon the claim that the act of Congress which authorized the contract is unconstitutional. ”