“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. 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 except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgement, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth “may be a government of laws and not of men.” For, the very idea that man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370
Why was 16 Am Jur 2d seemingly quietly revised?
Here’s 11 Am. Jur 1D - Const. Law
..See it yet?
Lets go through a little thought experiment (nightmare) dystopian real-life experience of many in certain captured courtrooms in the era of the unlawful Flock camera c/o BIG BROTHER, 2026.
You walk into a courtroom. Before doing so, the security portal as guarded by two gruff security professionals who seem annoyed that you’ve interrupted their watching of Cops, a tv show from the 90’s (not really requiring an introduction, is it?) which bombards the viewer with unlawful arrest after unlawful arrest in prejudiced, color-of-law fashion. Just what is decorum, anyways? They seem wholly ignorant and/or disinterested in the true and proper law, but that is just hearsay, right, and as you walk into that public / not-public place it all becomes hearsay without a witness, at best, where it’s your word against that of public official(s).
After all, no electronic recording devices nor laptops are permitted on the campus, so it really is your word against that of a public official…
The sign on the front door reads “NOTICE: ALL PERSONS AND THEIR BELONGINGS ENTERING THESE PREMISES ARE SUBJECT TO SEARCH”
An ORDER is made:
“ORDER FOR HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT”
Alternatively, there is an “ORDER APPROVING APPEARANCE BY ZOOM” whereby…
“Participants must identify themselves when in the ZOOM waiting room.
Anyone who does not have their name listed will not be allowed to
participate in the hearing and will be removed from the waiting
room.”
The implicit undertone being if you do not appear, if such sacred law can be conflated with regulation, then what is now off limits?..
The victim is faced with a choice of cattle trough - experience fear in asserting right by addressing men with guns, men with black robes, color-of-law court “orders” just to attempt to restore previously guaranteed right. Acquiesce to the prejudice of the Zoom attendee having the advantage of access to ChatGPT, screen recording, and CTRL + F search functionality in 2026 while you are fumbling through dusty books - your laptop and recording device confiscated if utilized. No 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th (etc.) Amendment right in the courtroom; or risk acquiescing to a strange jurisdiction in the digital realm.
Big Brother peering into your private house, home, abode.
The toil and burden and getting up early to shave and shower and press the laundry which had traditionally been associated with going to court being removed as a naturally-cured burden designed to prevent the frivolous now touch-of-button by way of remote-lawyers who might not be in the same state, might not even be in the same country, and how to face such an accuser? Does that guy even need to wear pants in this strange new world?
Court of Record?
A court recorder who would lie to your face with a smile, feigning lack of knowledge that this 4th and 5th Amendment violation at the security entrance had ever occurred, or that words or actions verbed behind this sound-proof barrier were the same as when they were manifest, the very design of the recording stifled by systemic reduction of right? Stealthy blending of law and equity to make it all seem as though it’s on the up-and-up? A systemic corruption which the public official is incentivized to protect the moment they show up to work under banner of color of law? Regulation conflated with law, this is normal, this is fine. The alarm went off, we may need you to take off your belt and be touched, next your shoes, you may place your phone and laptop in the locker, you won’t need that, where you are going…
Show trials and show judges pretending they are overburdened, or being genuine the same, didn’t they buy this when was conflated that equity and law, tried twice, being civil but not criminal (per se) were not double-jeopardy?
Why can’t we just have vanilla?
Color of Law
… What’s This? (“Notes” section so well hidden a direct link doesn’t appear to work)
On your way out on another given day simply dropping off some docs, assuming you are not more tampered goods than has been normalized, the same security professional who had grumbled about having to turn the security machine back on when you arrived minutes before close to drop off a document is smoking a cigarette right at 4:30, standing at rested attention and holding the door for you, the smoke licking the edges of the threshold of the security portal. The new age.
Regulation Conflating with Law
^ The usual suspects? ^
Right to Work
And then there is the simple potential monopoly & prejudice on attorneys being able to bring laptops, but not pro se / in propria persona. Should this ever occur, it is a grave injustice as well. Although even one represented must be able to access their materials and defend themselves or to whisper in their attorney’s ear the communications part and parcel to their papers, electronic papers, and the WWW.
Further, kids these days who use phones to orate aren’t kids anymore. They’ve been adults a while now. Which means, in open court where devices go to locker, an entire generation is deprived of the means they’ve developed to communicate.
