OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Gore v. United States/Dissent Brennan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Warren Douglas Brennan
United States Supreme Court
357 U.S. 386
Gore v. United States
Argued: May 19, 1958. --- Decided: June 30, 1958
Mr. Justice BRENNAN, dissenting.
Even assuming the vitality of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306, I must dissent from the disposition of this case. In Blockburger the Court held that multiple punishment right be imposed as the consequence of a single sale of narcotics, provided that separate statutory offenses were involved in the same transaction. In determining whether there were separate statutory offenses the Court said:
'The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.' 284 U.S. at page 304, 52 S.Ct. at page 182. (Emphasis added.)
The Court's decision today is inconsistent with the principles of Blockburger because it allows separate offenses to be proved and separate punishments to be imposed upon the proof of a single fact. The petitioner has been convicted of a sale of narcotics 'not from the original stamped package' in violation of 26 U.S.C. (Supp. V) § 4704(a), 26 U.S.C.A. § 4704(a), and for having 'facilitated the concealment and sale' of narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. But § 4704(a) provides that 'the absence of appropriate taxpaid stamps from narcotic drugs shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this subsection by the person in whose possession the same may be found' and § 174 provides that 'whenever on trial for a violation of this subsection the defendant is shown to have or to have had possession of the narcotic drug, such possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains the possession to the satisfaction of the jury.'
Therefore under the statutes proof of the single fact of possession of unstamped narcotics suffices to convict the defendant of offenses under either § 4704(a) or § 174. Since under Blockburger punishment under separate sections can be sustained only if 'each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not,' 284 U.S. at page 304, 52 S.Ct. at page 182, the decision of the court below should be reversed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Grand River Dam Authority v. Grand-Hydro

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Douglas
United States Supreme Court
335 U.S. 359
Grand River Dam Authority v. Grand-Hydro
Argued: Oct. 12, 13, 1948. --- Decided: Nov 22, 1948
See 335 U.S. 900, 69 S.Ct. 298.
Mr. Howard E. Wahrenbrock, of Washington, D.C., for The United States as amicus curiae.
Mr. Robert L. Davidson, of Tulsa, Okl., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 360 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Robert Dade Hudson, of Tulsa, Okl., and S. Frank Fowler, of Knoxville, Tenn., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BURTON delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Grand Rapids Company v. Butler

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
159 U.S. 87
Grand Rapids Company v. Butler
T. J. O'Brien, for plaintiffs in error.
R. W. Butterfield and W. F. Keeney, for defendant in error.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Government by Treaty/Are Americans Ready for It?

From the New Orleans States, December 16, 1950.
The people of this country are the inheritors of liberties gained at great cost through the centuries.
These liberties—such as religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of peaceful assembly—are endangered by such proposed treaties as the Genocide Convention, already submitted by the President to the Senate for ratification, and the Covenant on Human Rights, which is near completion in the United Nations.
These treaties invade the precincts of domestic law.
These treaties reduce the powers of the States while strengthening the powers of a centralized government.
These treaties strengthen the powers of the executive branch of the Government, thus weakening the historic balance of the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.
These treaties, if ratified by the Senate and upheld by the Supreme Court, can destroy utterly our Bill of Rights, and our form of government.
Mr. Frank M. Ober of Baltimore, 1949–50 president of the Maryland Bar Association, writes in the September issue of the ABA Journal:
"This argument (that the treaty-making power is almost, if not entirely, without any constitutional limit) has received strong support from the implications of a recent decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Curtiss–Wright, where it is said 'the investment of the Federal Government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution;' but are 'necessary concomitants of nationality.' If it be true that the treaty-making power is not derived from the Constitution, then it logically is not limited by its other express provisions or any other restrictions implied from that document. Hence, on that hypothesis, there would seem to be nothing that would logically prevent, for example, denying freedom of religion or of the press by treaty, or the cession of some of our States to a foreign government—"
Mr. Ober declares it seems doubtful that the Supreme Court "would press the Curtiss–Wright doctrine that far," but points out these dangers:
1. Supreme Court rulings on implied limitations on the treaty-making power "are vague at best," and "the Supreme Court has never expressly declared a treaty invalid, and has cast doubt on its own power to do so in the Curtiss–Wright case;" and
"2. There is some indication that the Supreme Court might decline to take jurisdiction to declare treaties invalid on the ground that they involve political questions, thus leaving treaties subject to the unrestricted power of the President and Senate."
This is government by treaty.
Under this concept the House of Representatives will have no voice in adoption of any domestic legislation contained in a self-executing valid treaty. It means a change in our form of government, for the House of Representatives was fashioned to make its Members more directly answerable to the people by election every 2 years.
Government by treaty means, in the ultimate, destruction of the Bill of Rights.
Are Americans ready for that?
# Government by Treaty/What We Can Do About It

From the New Orleans States, December 18, 1950.
This newspaper is opposed to government by treaty. This newspaper is opposed to ratification of the Genocide Convention and the Covenant on Human Rights, because it believes them to be dangerous to our liberties and freedoms.
Members of the American Bar Association's committee on peace and law through the United Nations ask:
"Can we sacrifice fundamental principles of freedom on the altar of necessity for a compromise?
"For which standard of free speech and a free press will we be fighting under the banner of the United Nations—the standard of the covenant or the standard of the Constitution of the United States?"
Proponents of these treaties say that we must ratify them to assume the leadership expected of this Nation in the conflict of ideologies and the battle for men's minds.
But is it leadership to endanger the rights of our citizens to meet upon the common ground of agreement with other countries whose nationals do not possess nor understand nor, in some cases, desire the rights we as Americans hold dear?
If the Government's policy is to set an example, then we recommend the example set by the representatives of the United States, Great Britain, and Canada in refusing to approve the proposed treaty on public information because it included the same sort of general restrictions of public safety and public security that the covenant includes.
But if the policy of our Government ts to agree to these lower standards on the premise that forsaking our own historic ideals is necessary in the interest of world peace and understanding, then there is a way to implement that policy of compromise and still maintain our own traditional rights and freedoms.
This can be done by amending the Constitution to—
Forbid the invasion of domestic law by treaty unless specifically authorized by act of Congress;
Forbid the Congress to make treaties effective by laws not otherwise authorized by the Constitution; and
Forbid any fundamental change in our form of government as now constituted by the device of treaty ratification.
The American Bar Association has authorized a committee to study this suggestion of amending the Constitution to protect our Bill of Rights. But until these three steps—or some equally acceptable safeguards—are adopted to prevent destruction of the United States Constitution through government by treaty, the Senate should reject summarily any and all treaties which are judged to contain unacceptable restrictions on and derogations of our rights as free Americans.
# Government by Treaty/It Threatens Basic American Liberties

From the New Orleans States, December 11, 1950.
In March, 1949, this newspaper in a series of seven editorials pointed to the dangers in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in December 1948, by the General Assembly of the United Nations.
The United States delegation voted for this declaration. It was said by its proponents to be merely a statement of aspirations and ideals. It was not intended to have any legal effect in the United States.
It was to serve as a blueprint for a Covenant on Human Rights which would be legally binding upon any country which adopted it. The Declaration was likened to our Declaration of Independence and the Covenant to our United States Constitution.
The Human Rights Commission of the United Nations drew up, during March, April and May of 1950, a Covenant which is near completion and which the Senate may be asked, in the next 12 months, to ratify as a treaty.
The New Orleans States begins today a series of editorials on this Covenant.
If the Senate ratifies it as a treaty, this Covenant will become the law of the land, and will supersede all State laws and constitutions where they conflict and will stand equal with the United States Constitution and laws of the Federal Government.
Students of constitutional and international law point out that the effect of the Covenant may be even more far-reaching than that. It may be held to nullify articles of the Bill of Rights.
There is much in the various articles of the Covenant which can be criticized. This series of editorials will discuss four articles only.
For these four articles—articles 2, 13, 14, and 15—strike at the very heart of the freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights while professing to guarantee wider freedoms for all the world.
These four articles endanger some of our most precious heritages:
Freedom of worship.
Freedom of speech.
Freedom of the press.
Freedom of peaceful assembly.
Each of these liberties has its inception in the first amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There are no exceptions to these rights in the United States Constitution. But the Covenant on Human Rights contains so many restrictions, executions, and limitations that these rights are transmuted from the bright coinage of liberty to the fool's gold of dictatorial statism.
# Government by Treaty/Threat to a Free Press and Free Speech

From the New Orleans States, December 14, 1950.
Article 14 of the Covenant on Human Rights sets forth rights and privileges of speech and the press, and then limits them to a degree heretofore unheard of in free countries.
Similar restrictions are placed upon the right of peaceful assembly in article 15.
Article 14 reads:
"1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
"2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardlcss of frontiers, either orally, in writing, or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
"3. The right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to certain penalties, liabilities, and restrictions, but these shall be such only as are provided by law and are necessary for the protection of national security, public order, safety, health, or morals, or of the rights, freedoms, or reputations of others."
Articie 15 reads:
"The right to peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary to insure national security, public order, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
And as if these limitations and restrictions on these vital rights were not enough, article 2 of the covenant gives signatory nations the privilege of canceling articles 14 and 15 among others "in the case of a state of emergency officially proclaimed by the authorities."
An American Bar Association committee named to study this proposed treaty asks of it:
"Is this not prostituting these fundamental rights to the readily invented emergency declarations of the all-powerful state?"
And says:
"The government could, for example, close down newspapers just as in other emergencies the President has closed down banks."
The Government could also close down universities and radio stations, seize and burn books and pamphlets, and disperse any assembly of citizens gathered together to question such steps.
Are these the "rights" a free people will welcome for themselves?
# Government by Treaty/We Can Lose Our Rights Through Treaty

From the New Orleans States, December 12, 1950.
The first amendment planted the seeds of freedom of worship, freedom of speech and the press, and freedom of peaceful assembly into the United States Constitution. But it took a long line of judicial decisions to firmly root them in constitutional law.
The courts early recognized some limitations on free speech; as an example, Mr. Justice Holmes put it this way:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a theater and causing a panic."
And, of course, there are laws of libel and slander to make certain that liberty of language is not license.
But as Mr. Justice Holmes also said of free speech:
"The question in each case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has the right to prevent."
Holmes was the father of the "clear and present danger" doctrine—a philosophy of the widest possible latitude in the interests of liberty. This doctrine has since his time guided our courts in decisions bearing upon free speech and a free press.
All of this is endangered if we ratify as a treaty this covenant on human rights. For if ratified by the Senate, it will become the law of the land, and may be held even to override the Constitution by the courts.
An American Bar Association committee, which had this covenant under study since its inception points out:
"Free speech and a free press are not in express terms guaranteed by our Constitution. It is only provided that Congress and the States may not pass laws impairing these rights; there is no similar express restriction on the Senate and the President in making, ratifying, and approving treaties."
The United States Supreme Court already has held:
That the treaty-making power extends to all proper subjects of negotiation between our Government and other nations; and
That the treaty-making power is not subject to limitations imposed by the Constitution on the power of Congress to enact legislation.
If the Senate ratifies the covenant on human rights and the Supreme Court upholds it under the established principles outlined above, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of peaceful assembly may be destroyed by our own Government at any time by an official proclamation of a state of emergency. The covenant contains that power.
# Frog Poem (Chamberlain)

* The old pond, aye!
* And the sound of a frog
* leaping into the water. 1681/6, transl. 1910
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Frog Poem (Hearn)

* Old pond - frogs jumped in - sound of water 1681/6, transl. 1898
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Frogs (Murray 1912)

* related portals: Ancient Greek drama.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
This is the corrected 1912 edition. Murray's English translation was first published in 1908, with the erroneous header "Euripides" on the verso of each leaf.
Layout 2
THE FROGS
OF
ARISTOPHANES
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH RHYMING VERSE BY
GILBERT MURRAY, M.A., LL.D.
EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW; FELLOW OF NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD
LONDON GEORGE ALLEN & COMPANY, LTD. 44 & 45 RATHBONE PLACE 1912
* Characters
* The Frogs
* Notes
Printed by Ballantyne, Hanson & Co. At the Ballantyne Press, Edinburgh
THE ATHENIAN DRAMA
FOR ENGLISH READERS
A Series of Verse Translations of the Greek Dramatic Poets, with Commentaries and Explanatory Notes.
'Crown 8vo, cloth, gilt top, 7s. 6d. each net. Each Volume Illustrated from ancient Sculptures and Vase-Painting.
ALSO UNIFORM WITH THE ABOVE
THE PLAYS OF EURIPIDES
Translated into English Rhyming Verse, with Explanatory Notes, by Prof. Gilbert Murray.
| Hippolytus. | 14th Thousand. | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Paper Covers, Impl. |
| Bacchae. | 10th Thousand. | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | 16mo, 1s. each net. |
| $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ ||
| Electra. | 11th Thousand. | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ |
| Medea. | 8th Thousand. | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ |
| $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ ||
| The Frogs of Aristophanes. | The Frogs of Aristophanes. | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Also crown 8vo, |
| | 10th Thousand. | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | cloth, gilt top, 2s. |
| Œdipus Tyrannus of Sophocles. | Œdipus Tyrannus of Sophocles. | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | each net. |
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Frog

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Frog."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* Frogs, a play by Aristophanes
* "The Frogs", a poem by Florence Earle Coates. ("The perfect eloquence of silence; then")
* "Frog," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)
* "The Frogs", a poem by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. ("A pool was once congealed with frost")
* "Frogs," a poem by Itō Sachio
* "The Frog", a fairy tale by Andrew Lang
* "Frog Poem", a haiku by Matsuo Bashō
* "The Frog," a short story by Frank Owen
# Frog Legs Rag

"Frog Legs Rag" is a classic rag composed by James Scott and published by John Stillwell Stark in December 1906. It was James Scott's first commercial success. Prior to this composition Scott had published marches. With "Frog Legs Rag," Scott embarked upon a career as a successful and important ragtime songwriter.
    Warning: template has been deprecated.
James Scott Frog Legs Rag 1b.jpg Frog Legs Rag 2.ogg
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Frog Poem

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
The most famous haiku by Bashō, composed in 1681/6 (IB-265, HS-270, JR-152).
English-language translations of Frog Poem include:
* Frog Poem by Lafcadio Hearn (1898)
* Frog Poem by William George Aston (1899)
* Frog Poem by Basil Hall Chamberlain (1910)
* Frog Poem, Wikisource translation by Alexander Sitnitsky
* Frog Poem, Wikisource translation by Dmitri Smirnov
* Frog Poem, Wikisource translation by William Shaw
# Fritzlen v. Boatmen's Bank

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
212 U.S. 364
Fritzlen v. Boatmen's Bank
Argued: January 28, 29, 1909. --- Decided: February 23, 1909
Messrs. D. R. Hite, H. J. Bone, and F. C. Price for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. James S. botsford, Buckner F. Deatherage, and Odus G. Young for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Frogs (Aristophanes)

* related portals: Ancient Greek drama.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
"Frogs" (Βάτραχοι Bátrachoi, Latin: Ranae) is a comedy by Aristophanes, and was was first produced in 405 BCE. The play tells the story of the god Dionysus, who, despairing of the state of Athens' tragedians, travels to Hades to bring the playwright Euripides back from the dead. Warning: template has been deprecated. As with all ancient Greek dramas, the interpretation may vary, given the condition of available manuscripts, the current study of ancient Greek language, and changes in the English language. As a result, varying English translations exist.
English-language translations of Βάτραχοι include:
* The Frogs: a comedy, translated by Charles Dunster (1785)
* The Frogs, translated by C. A. Wheelwright (1837)
* The Frogs, translated by John Hookham Frere (1839)
* The Frogs of Aristophanes, translated by Charles Cavendish (1848)
* The Frogs, translated by William James Hickie (1853)
* Frogs, translated by Leonard-Hampson Rudd (1867)
* The Frogs, translated by Benjamin Bickley Rogers (1902)
* The Frogs of Aristophanes, translated by Gilbert Murray (1912) [first printed 1908]
* The Frogs, published by The Athenian Society (1912), anonymous translator presumed to be Oscar Wilde
This work is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago. Translations of this work may be copyrighted.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse