WE. DEMAND. THE COMMON LAW. WE. DEMAND. THE COMMON LAW. WE, THE PEOPLE, DEMAND THE COMMON LAW.
https://zchg.org/hott/HOTT/923%20-%20Public%20Notice%20%231.mp3
STAY TUNED
Should we trust Google? No, we should not. I’ll probably take this down later on. But it gave me an idea which I don’t have time to address as yet…
Why does this grant article iv courts?New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
11:32 AM
The provided excerpt from Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (the Property Clause) allows for the creation of “Article IV courts” (also known as territorial or legislative courts) because it gives Congress the explicit power to “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
This brief phrase gives Congress the foundational authority to govern territories that are not yet states. Because a territory does not have its own state court system, Congress must establish local governments, which includes creating a local judiciary to handle legal disputes and maintain order. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The Core Mechanisms of the Grant
- Plenary Governance Power: The Supreme Court ruled in the landmark 1828 case American Insurance Co. v. Canter that Congress acts as both a local and national legislature when governing U.S. territories. To fulfill this duty, Congress must have the power to establish local courts. [1, 2]
- Exemption from Article III Rules: Judges in standard federal courts (Article III courts) are appointed for life and cannot have their salaries reduced. However, because Article IV courts are created using Congress’s regulatory power over territory, these judges do not need life tenure. Congress can limit their terms to a specific number of years (such as 10-year terms). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- Broad Local Jurisdiction: Unlike regular federal courts that can only hear specific federal or interstate lawsuits, Article IV courts act like a combined state and federal court. They have the power to handle routine local matters—such as divorces, local crimes, and traffic violations—alongside federal law. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Active Article IV Courts Today
While many former territorial courts dissolved when their territories became states, Congress still uses its Article IV powers to operate district courts in surviving U.S. territories: [1, 2]
- The District Court of Guam
- The District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands
- The District Court of the Virgin Islands [1]
(Note: The District Court of Puerto Rico was transitioned by Congress into a standard Article III constitutional court, meaning its judges hold life tenure.) [1]
Are you researching this for a constitutional law class, or are you looking into how modern territorial legal systems operate? Let me know so I can pull up specific case law or operational structures.
[image][image][image]
19 sites
- ArtIV.S3.C2.3 Power of Congress over Territories
Power of Congress over Territories | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress. Home > Browse the Constitution A…
[image]
Library of Congress – Constitution Annotated (.gov)
- American Insurance Co. v. Canter | Federal Judicial Center
An insurance company challenged the legitimacy of a sale of property approved by a Florida territorial court, claiming that the co…
[image]
Federal Judicial Center | (.gov)
- Property Clause | U.S. Constitution Annotated - Law.Cornell.Edu
Unanimously upholding a federal law to protect wild-roaming horses and burros on federal lands, the Court restated the applicable …
[image]
LII | Legal Information Institute
Show all
You said: admiralty courts?
11:33 AM
Article IV courts are explicitly tied to admiralty law because of the foundational 1828 Supreme Court case American Insurance Co. v. Canter. This landmark decision officially created the concept of “legislative courts” under Article IV. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The Context of the Case
The case began when a ship carrying cotton wrecked off the coast of the Florida Territory. A local, territorial court created by Congress—staffed by judges who lacked life tenure—ordered the cotton sold at auction to satisfy a salvage claim. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The insurance company challenged the sale, arguing that Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution grants exclusive admiralty jurisdiction to federal constitutional courts with life-tenured judges. They claimed a non-Article III territorial court had no legal power to hear a maritime salvage case. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Why Article IV Powers Apply to Admiralty
Chief Justice John Marshall rejected the insurance company’s argument and established how Article IV interacts with admiralty cases: [1, 2, 3]
- Constitutional Distinctions: Marshall explained that while Article III outlines the types of cases the national judiciary can hear (including admiralty), it does not restrict Congress’s broad power to govern territories under Article IV’s Property Clause. [1, 2]
- Plenary Power Implies Full Courts: Because Congress has total legislative control over a territory, it can create a local court system that handles all legal matters within that geography. This includes local property laws, crimes, and crucially, maritime salvage operations occurring off the territory’s coast. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- The “Two Hats” Principle: In a state, admiralty cases must go to a federal Article III court. But in a territory, the Article IV court wears “two hats.” It functions as both a local court and a federal court simultaneously, allowing it to legally exercise admiralty jurisdiction without violating the separation of powers. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Modern Impact
Because of this ruling, the modern Article IV courts operating today (such as the federal district courts in Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) have full legal power to hear complex international maritime and admiralty cases, despite their judges serving limited terms rather than holding life tenure. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Would you like to explore the specific jurisdiction rules of modern territorial courts, or look deeper into the legal reasoning of Chief Justice Marshall’s Canter opinion? Let me know how you want to break this down. [1, 2]
