OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Constitution of the United States of America/Annotated/Introduction/Subjects Lacking Supreme Court Coverage

Online at https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.4-4-3/ALDE_00000019/
In cases where the Supreme Court has not spoken on the precise issue, but a lower court has, relevant lower court decisions may be included in the Constitution Annotated. For example, the Supreme Court has rarely interpreted the Third Amendment. Accordingly, the Constitution Annotated discussion of the Constitution’s prohibition on the quartering of soldiers notes a prominent lower court ruling on the issue. Discussion of such “gap-filling” lower court opinions is intended to elucidate issues that the Supreme Court has not addressed, but is circumscribed and included only for purposes of noting open questions and apparent limitations in the Supreme Court’s current doctrine.

## References in the original work

* ↑ See Amdt3.1 Third Amendment: In General Overview of Third Amendment, Quartering Soldiers (noting Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982)).

## Notes

* $^{[A]}$↑ Engblom v. Carey
# Constitution of the United States of America/Annotated/Introduction/Weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation

Online at https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.6-2/ALDE_00000049/
Weaknesses inherent in the Articles of Confederation became apparent before the Revolution out of which that instrument was born had been concluded. Even before the thirteenth state (Maryland) conditionally joined the “firm league of friendship” on March 1, 1781, the need for a revenue amendment was widely conceded. Congress under the Articles lacked authority to levy taxes. She could only request the states to contribute their fair share to the common treasury, but the requested amounts were not forthcoming. To remedy this defect, Congress applied to the states for power to lay duties and secure the public debts. Twelve states agreed to such an amendment, but Rhode Island refused her consent, thereby defeating the proposal.
Thus was emphasized a second weakness in the Articles of Confederation, namely, the liberum veto which each state possessed whenever amendments to that instrument were proposed. Not only did all amendments have to be ratified by each of the thirteen states, but all important legislation needed the approval of nine states. With several delegations often absent, one or two states were able to defeat legislative proposals of major importance.
Other imperfections in the Articles of Confederation also proved embarrassing. Congress could, for example, negotiate treaties with foreign powers, but all treaties had to be ratified by the several states. Even when a treaty was approved, Congress lacked authority to secure obedience to its stipulations. Congress could not act directly upon the states or upon individuals. Under such circumstances foreign nations doubted the value of a treaty with the new Republic.
Furthermore, Congress had no authority to regulate foreign or interstate commerce. Legislation in this field, subject to unimportant exceptions, was left to the individual states. Disputes between states with common interests in the navigation of certain rivers and bays were inevitable. Discriminatory regulations were followed by reprisals.
# Constitution of the United States of America/Annotated/Introduction/Treatment of Lower Court Decisions Generally

Online at https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.4-4-1/ALDE_00000017/
Because the Supreme Court hears only a small percentage of the cases in which its review is sought (and in many cases, parties do not even seek Court review), most litigation over the meaning of the Constitution does not reach the High Court. This leaves many constitutional matters to be decided by the lower federal courts and, in particular, the thirteen federal courts of appeal. State courts can also play a significant role in construing the U.S. Constitution and any comparable provisions in the state’s constitution. While many cases come to the Supreme Court directly from state courts of last resort, state courts usually have the last word on the meaning of state law. Given the statutory requirement to annotate the Supreme Court’s constitutional decisions, as well as considerations of space, the Constitution Annotated makes only limited references to lower court decisions. As a general rule, such decisions are not included unless they are particularly influential or address significant issues not addressed by the High Court.

## References in the original work

* ↑ See Ryan J. Owens & Donald A. Simon, Explaining the Supreme Court’s Shrinking Docket, 53 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1219, 1225 (2012) (Since the 2005 Term, the Court has decided an average of 80 cases per Term out of potentially thousands of petitions).
* ↑ As Justice Byron White once explained, “there is not just one Supreme Court in this country, there are 12 regional Supreme Courts [and the specialized Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit] . . . . For all practical purposes, the development of the federal law is very much in the hands of the 13 circuit courts of appeals.” See Byron R. White, Enlarging the Capacity of the Supreme Court, in The Federal Appellate Judiciary in the Twenty-First Century 145 (Cynthia Harrison & Russell R. Wheeler eds., 1989).
* ↑ See Nicole Mansker & Neal Devins, Do Judicial Elections Facilitate Popular Constitutionalism; Can They?, 111 Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar 27, 28 (2011) (“Moreover, state courts play a major role in interpreting and enforcing the Federal Constitution, and, perhaps more importantly, state courts are often at the cutting edge of recognizing rights that will eventually spill over into the national constitutional discourse.”).
* ↑ See The Supreme Court 2018 Term, The Statistics, 133 Harv. L. Rev. 412, Table II(E) (2019) (noting that, during the October 2018 Term, fifteen of the 106 cases disposed of by the Supreme Court came from state courts).
* ↑ State court decisions that are based on federal constitutional law are subject to Supreme Court review. See Klinger v. Missouri, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 257, 263 (1871); see also Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1043 (1983).

## Notes

* $^{[A]}$↑ Klinger v. Missouri
* $^{[B]}$↑ Michigan v. Long
# Constitution of the United States of America/Preamble Annotations
## The Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

## Purpose and Effect of the Preamble

Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. “Its true office,” wrote Joseph Story in his Commentaries, “is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, ‘provide for the common defense.’ No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?”

## Notes

* ↑ Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905).
* ↑ E.g., the Court has read the preamble as bearing witness to the fact that the Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent States. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316, 403 (1819) Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (2 U.S.) 419, 471 (1793); Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. (14 U.S.) 304, 324 (1816), and that it was made for, and is binding only in, the United States of America. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891).
* ↑ 1 J. STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 462 (1833). For a lengthy exegesis of the preamble phrase by phrase, see M. ADLER & W. GORMAN, THE AMERICAN TESTAMENT 63-118 (1975).
(Return to the Constitution)
# Constitution of the United States of Brazil (1946)

* related portals: Constitutional documents, Brazil.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article.
This is an unofficial translation provided by the Brazilian-American Association.
We, the Representatives of the Brazilian People, assembled under the Protection of God in Constituent Assembly to Organize a democratic Regime, decree and promulgate the Following
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF BRAZIL
Enacted on the 18th Day of September 1946
Being the 125th Year of Brazilian Independence
And the 58th Year of the Brazilian Republic
* Title I - Federal Organization (Arts. 1-123)
    Chapter I - Preliminary Provisions
       Arts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36
    Chapter II - Legislative Power
       Section I - Preliminary Provisions
       Section II - Chamber of Deputies
       Section III - Senate
       Section IV - Attributes of Legislative Power
       Section V - Laws
       Section VI - The Budget
    Chapter III - Executive Power
       Section I - The President and Vice President of the Republic
       Section II - Attributes of the President of the Republic
       Section III - Responsibility of the President of the Republic
       Section IV - Ministers of State
    Chapter IV - Judicial Power
       Section I - Preliminary Provisions
       Section II - Federal Supreme Court
       Section III - Federal Court of Appeals
       Section IV - Military Judges and Tribunals
       Section V - Electoral Judges and Courts
       Section VI - Labor Judges and Courts
* Title II - State Justice (Arts. 124)
* Title III - The Public Ministry (Arts. 125-128)
* Title IV - The Declaration of Rights (Arts. 129-144)
    Chapter I - Nationality and Citizenship
    Chapter II - Individual Rights and Guaranties
* Title V - The Economic and Social Order (Arts. 145-162)
* Title VI - The Family, Education and Culture (Arts. 163-175)
    Chapter I - The Family
    Chapter II - Education and Culture
* Title VII - The Armed Forces (Arts. 176-183)
* Title VIII - Public Employees (Arts. 184-194)
* Title IX - General Provisions (Arts. 195-218)
* Schedule I - Signatories
* Schedule II - Transitory Provisions
# Cornhuskers/Young Bullfrogs

YOUNG BULLFROGS
Ditches along prairie roads of Northern Illinois
Filled the arch of night with young bullfrog songs.
Infinite mathematical metronomic croaks rose and spoke,
Rose and sang, rose in a choir of puzzles.
They made his head ache with riddles of music.
They rested his head with beaten cadence.
# Corning v. Burden

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
56 U.S. 252
Corning v. Burden
THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York.
Peter A. Burden, as assignee of Henry Burden, brought his action against Corning and Winslow, for a violation of a patent granted to Henry, as the original and first inventor and discoverer of a new and useful machine for rolling puddle balls or other masses of iron, in the manufacture of iron.
What took place at the trial is set forth in the opinion of the court. Under the instructions of the Circuit Court, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, with one hundred dollars damages; upon which the defendants brought the case up to this court by a writ of error.
It was argued by Mr. Seymour and Mr. Keller, for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Stevens, for the defendants in error.
Each one of the four counsel filed a separate brief. The points presented on the part of the plaintiffs in error are taken from the brief of Mr. Seymour, and those on the part of the defendant in error from the brief of Mr. Stevens.
Points and Authorities submitted on the part of the Plaintiffs in Error.
First exception to the charge.-The court erred in charging the jury that 'the letters-patent which have been given in evidence by the plaintiff are for a new process, mode, or method of converting puddlers' balls into blooms by continuous pressure and rotation of the balls between converging surfaces, thereby dispensing with the hammer, alligator jaws, and rollers, accompanied by manual labor, previously in use to accomplish the same purpose; and the said letters-patent secure to the patentee the exclusive right to construct, use, and vend any machine adapted to accomplish the objects of his invention, as above specified, by the process, mode, or method above-mentioned.'
I. The court erred in charging the jury that Burden's patent was for a new process, mode, or method.
A process or mode may be patented. Curtis, p. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, and cases there cited, from § 77 to § 83.
1. Burden did not patent a process, but a machine.
What he designed to cover by his patent is to be gathered from the patent itself, the specification, and its summing up. Webster on Subject-Matter, p. 18, and note Z; Davoll v. Brown, 1 Woodbury & Minot, 59; Russell v. Crowley et al. 1 Cromp. Meeson & Roscoe, 864; Moody v. Fiske, 2 Mason, 112; Rex v. Cutler, 1 Starkie's Rep. 283; Leroy v. Tatham, 14 Howard, 156, 171; Wyeth v. Stone, 1 Story's Rep. 285; Gray v. James, Peters's C. C. R. 394, 400; Mr. Justice Nelson's Opinion, in Appendix A, annexed.

## 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
# Cornhuskers/end matter

Layout 2
ROBERT FROST
"An authentic original voice in literature."—The Atlantic Monthly.
MOUNTAIN INTERVAL
"A remarkable work touched with prophecy and poetic passion."—Brooklyn Eagle.
"A poetic art almost classical in its restraint."—Review of Reviews.
"The same distinguished and distinctive features as its predecessors, with perhaps still finer finish, color, mellowness, delicacy and half-hid humor."—Chicago Herald
NORTH OF BOSTON
"The poet had the insight to trust the people with the book of people and the people replied 'Man, what is your name?'"—New York Evening Sun.
"The first poet for half a century to express New England life completely with a fresh, original and appealing way of his own."—Boston Transcript.
A BOY'S WILL Mr. Frost's First Volume of Poetry
"We have read every line with that amazement and delight which are too seldom evoked by books of modern verse."—The Academy (London):
| MOUNTAIN INTERVAL. | Cloth. $1.25 net. |
| NORTH OF BOSTON. | Cloth. $1.30 net. |
| A BOY'S WILL. | Cloth. $1.00 net. |
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY
BY LOUIS UNTERMEYER
THE POEMS OF HEINRICH HEINE
Three Hundred and Twenty-five Poems, Selected and
Translated by Louis Untermeyer. With a
biographical sketch. $2.25 net
To all, whether they read German or not, this volume brings a new and interesting point of view. Mr. Untermeyer has got at the heart of Heine's puzzling complexities. He shows him, not a German, nor a "joyous Hellene," as Heine called himself, but a Jew with all the Jewish sensitiveness, bitterness, irony, and voluptuous love of the color and flavor of life.
Those who know the Buch der Lieder and who love the Schumann and Franz music for Heine's lyrics will delight in the delicacy and exactness of the translation and the blending of Mr. Untermeyer's words with the music.
Those who have not before been able to read Heine will feel that they have discovered a new poet.
THESE TIMES
$1.25 net
Poems full of intense love of the life of the senses, rebellious over social wrongs, and all vigorous with a love of living.
"Mr. Untermeyer is conspicuous for the success with which he fuses lyric beauty and the modern spirit of poetry. He has achieved genuine poetry, but his work is more than an achievement, it is a promise."
—Boston Transcript.
"———— AND OTHER POETS"
$1.25 net
Parodies of such modern Parnassians as Masefield, Frost, Masters, etc.
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY
# Cornhuskers/Village in Late Summer

VILLAGE IN LATE SUMMER
Lips half-singing at a window.
Eyes half-dreaming in the walls.
Feet half-dancing in a kitchen.
Even the clocks half-yawn the hours
# Cornhuskers/Washerwoman

WASHERWOMAN
And over the tub of suds rubbing underwear clean
She sings that Jesus will wash her sins away
And the red wrongs she has done God and man
Shall be white as driven snow.
# Cornhuskers/Wilderness

WILDERNESS
# Cornhuskers/front matter

By the same author
Chicago Poems. $1.35 net.
Henry Holt and Company
Publishers New York
# Converse v. Burgess

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
59 U.S. 413
Converse v. Burgess
THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts.
The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court. It is only necessary to add the protest and evidence offered as they were stated in the bill of exceptions, namely:--
'I this day pay to Philip Greely, jr., collector of this port, on behalf of Messrs. B. Burgess and Sons, the sum of sixteen hundred forty-three dollars and 48/100, more or less, claimed by him as due to the United States from them, on merchandise imported by them in the brig Eliza Burgess, under protest, with the intention of reclaiming the same or any part thereof, as may be found to have been illegally paid by them. Said sum is claimed by advance of value on the merchandise by the appraisers, thereby increasing the duties and assessing a penalty-all of which we protest against on the ground of fair valuation in the invoice, and that the goods were not fairly and faithfully examined by the appraisers.
N. B. GIBBS.'
The plaintiffs further offered to prove, under said protest, that the merchant appraisers did not examine or see any of the original packages of the merchandise in question, and only saw samples which had been taken on the 26th of April, 1850, from one in ten of the packages described in the invoice, and that such samples, so drawn and exposed to the air, would not afford a fair criterion by which to judge of the importation, and claimed the right to go behind the return of the said merchant appraisers, on the ground that they had not examined the sugars, as required by law, and to put it as a question of fact to the jury without alleging fraud.
The defendant objected to the admission of such evidence to go to the jury in the absence of fraud on the part of the appraisers, and claimed that their decision was in the nature of an award, and final under the statute, and not open under this protest. But this court ruled that the evidence was admissible, and that the plaintiffs might go to the jury on the facts, whether the examination made by the merchant appraisers was, in substance and effect, equivalent to an examination of one package in ten of the importation, and if it was not, that the appraisement was void. Whereupon the counsel for the defendant did then and there except to the said rulings of the court, and thereupon the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, for $2,127.68.
The case was submitted, on printed arguments, by Mr. Cushing, (attorney-general,) for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Andros, for the defendants.
Mr. Justice CAMPBELL 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
# Converse v. Aetna National Bank Theodore Railroad Converse

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
212 U.S. 567
Converse v. Aetna National Bank Theodore Railroad Converse

## 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
# Converse v. Aetna National Bank Theodore Railroad Converse/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
212 U.S. 567
Converse v. Aetna National Bank Theodore Railroad Converse
Messrs. William Waldo Hyde and Charles Welles Gross for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Gardiner Greene, Frank T. Browne, and Charles E. Serles for defendants in error.
Per Curiam: Judgments reversed with costs, on the authority of Bernheimer v. Converse, 206 U.S. 516, 51 L. ed. 1163, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 755, and cases remanded for further proceedings in conformity to law.

## 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
# Converse v. Hamilton

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
224 U.S. 243
Converse v. Hamilton
Argued: November 7, 1911. --- Decided: April 1, 1912
[Syllabus from pages 243-245 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Cordenio A. Severance, Burr W. Jones, E. J. B. Schubring, Frank B. Kellogg, and Robert E. Olds for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 245-247 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Charles E. Buell, John B. Sanborn, and Chauncey E. Blake for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 247-251 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Van Devanter 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
# Converse v. United States

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

## Dissenting Opinion

    Campbell
United States Supreme Court
62 U.S. 463
Converse v. United States
THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts.
The case is explained in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Russell and Mr. Cushing for the plaintiff in error, and submitted by Mr. Stanton on a brief by Mr. Black (Attorney General) for the United States.
The examination, by the counsel, of the various acts of Congress bearing upon the point in dispute is rendered unnecessary by the investigation of them contained in the opinion of the court, and also in the opinion of the dissenting judges.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY 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
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/A/Agazzari, Augustino

Agazzari, Augustino. Born of a noble family at Sienna, was chapel-master at Rome according to Quadro, he was the first who introduced instrumental concertos into the church about the beginning of the sixteenth century but by the word concerti, used in the title page of his work, is only meant "Salmi Concertati," or psalms accompanied with violins. Agazzari wrote, in 1538, a work on ecclesiastical music.
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/A/After notes

After notes. Small notes which occur on the unaccented parts of the measure, taking their time from the preceding note.
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/A/Agathon

Agathon, a Greek singer, lived about 400 years before Jesus Christ ; his style of singing was proverbially excellent.
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/A/Affilard

Affilard. A didactic writer on music in Paris, at the beginning of the last century. He published " Easy Rules for Singing at Sight," in which the time of the airs is regulated by a pendulum.
# Complete Encyclopaedia of Music/A/Affinity

Affinity. Relation, agreement. Chords have an affinity which admit of an easy and natural transition from one to the other.