The hobbesian constitution: Governing without authority

Northwestern University Law Review

Volumn 95, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 581-628

  Lawson, Gary ^a   Seidman, Guy ^a  

^a INTERDISCIPLINARY CENTER   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041866752     PISSN: 00293571     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (225)

1. 57 U.S. (16 How.) 164 (1854).
2. See RONALD D. ROTUNDA & JOHN E. NOWAK, TREATISE ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: SUBSTANCE AND PROCEDURE (3d ed. 1999); LAURENCE H. TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (3d ed. 2000).
3. See RONALD D. ROTUNDA & JOHN E. NOWAK, TREATISE ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: SUBSTANCE AND PROCEDURE (3d ed. 1999); LAURENCE H. TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (3d ed. 2000).
4. See JEROME A. BARRON, C. THOMAS DIENES, WAYNE MCCORMACK & MARTIN H. REDISH, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICY (4th ed. 1992); PAUL BREST & SANFORD LEVINSON, PROCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONMAKING (3d ed. 1992); DANIEL A. FARBER, WILLIAM N. ESKRDIGE, JR. & PHILIP P. FRICKEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: THEMES FOR THE CONSTITUTION'S THIRD CENTURY (2d ed. 1998); GERALD GUNTHER & KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (13th ed. 1997); DOUGLAS W. KMIEC & STEPHEN B. PRESSER, THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER (1998); WILLIAM B. LOCKHART, YALE KAMISAR, JESSE H. CHOPER, STEVEN H. SHIFFRIN & RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION (8th ed. 1996); WILLIAM B. LOCKHART, YALE KAMISAR, JESSE H. CHOPER, STEVEN H. SHIFFRIN & RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th ed. 1996); GEOFFREY R. STONE, LOUIS M. SEIDMAN, CASS R. SUNSTEIN & MARK L. TUSHNET, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (3d ed. 1996).
5. See JEROME A. BARRON, C. THOMAS DIENES, WAYNE MCCORMACK & MARTIN H. REDISH, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICY (4th ed. 1992); PAUL BREST & SANFORD LEVINSON, PROCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONMAKING (3d ed. 1992); DANIEL A. FARBER, WILLIAM N. ESKRDIGE, JR. & PHILIP P. FRICKEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: THEMES FOR THE CONSTITUTION'S THIRD CENTURY (2d ed. 1998); GERALD GUNTHER & KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (13th ed. 1997); DOUGLAS W. KMIEC & STEPHEN B. PRESSER, THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER (1998); WILLIAM B. LOCKHART, YALE KAMISAR, JESSE H. CHOPER, STEVEN H. SHIFFRIN & RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION (8th ed. 1996); WILLIAM B. LOCKHART, YALE KAMISAR, JESSE H. CHOPER, STEVEN H. SHIFFRIN & RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th ed. 1996); GEOFFREY R. STONE, LOUIS M. SEIDMAN, CASS R. SUNSTEIN & MARK L. TUSHNET, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (3d ed. 1996).
6. See JEROME A. BARRON, C. THOMAS DIENES, WAYNE MCCORMACK & MARTIN H. REDISH, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICY (4th ed. 1992); PAUL BREST & SANFORD LEVINSON, PROCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONMAKING (3d ed. 1992); DANIEL A. FARBER, WILLIAM N. ESKRDIGE, JR. & PHILIP P. FRICKEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: THEMES FOR THE CONSTITUTION'S THIRD CENTURY (2d ed. 1998); GERALD GUNTHER & KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (13th ed. 1997); DOUGLAS W. KMIEC & STEPHEN B. PRESSER, THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER (1998); WILLIAM B. LOCKHART, YALE KAMISAR, JESSE H. CHOPER, STEVEN H. SHIFFRIN & RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION (8th ed. 1996); WILLIAM B. LOCKHART, YALE KAMISAR, JESSE H. CHOPER, STEVEN H. SHIFFRIN & RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th ed. 1996); GEOFFREY R. STONE, LOUIS M. SEIDMAN, CASS R. SUNSTEIN & MARK L. TUSHNET, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (3d ed. 1996).
7. See JEROME A. BARRON, C. THOMAS DIENES, WAYNE MCCORMACK & MARTIN H. REDISH, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICY (4th ed. 1992); PAUL BREST & SANFORD LEVINSON, PROCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONMAKING (3d ed. 1992); DANIEL A. FARBER, WILLIAM N. ESKRDIGE, JR. & PHILIP P. FRICKEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: THEMES FOR THE CONSTITUTION'S THIRD CENTURY (2d ed. 1998); GERALD GUNTHER & KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (13th ed. 1997); DOUGLAS W. KMIEC & STEPHEN B. PRESSER, THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER (1998); WILLIAM B. LOCKHART, YALE KAMISAR, JESSE H. CHOPER, STEVEN H. SHIFFRIN & RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION (8th ed. 1996); WILLIAM B. LOCKHART, YALE KAMISAR, JESSE H. CHOPER, STEVEN H. SHIFFRIN & RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th ed. 1996); GEOFFREY R. STONE, LOUIS M. SEIDMAN, CASS R. SUNSTEIN & MARK L. TUSHNET, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (3d ed. 1996).
8. See JEROME A. BARRON, C. THOMAS DIENES, WAYNE MCCORMACK & MARTIN H. REDISH, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICY (4th ed. 1992); PAUL BREST & SANFORD LEVINSON, PROCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONMAKING (3d ed. 1992); DANIEL A. FARBER, WILLIAM N. ESKRDIGE, JR. & PHILIP P. FRICKEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: THEMES FOR THE CONSTITUTION'S THIRD CENTURY (2d ed. 1998); GERALD GUNTHER & KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (13th ed. 1997); DOUGLAS W. KMIEC & STEPHEN B. PRESSER, THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER (1998); WILLIAM B. LOCKHART, YALE KAMISAR, JESSE H. CHOPER, STEVEN H. SHIFFRIN & RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION (8th ed. 1996); WILLIAM B. LOCKHART, YALE KAMISAR, JESSE H. CHOPER, STEVEN H. SHIFFRIN & RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th ed. 1996); GEOFFREY R. STONE, LOUIS M. SEIDMAN, CASS R. SUNSTEIN & MARK L. TUSHNET, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (3d ed. 1996).
9. See JEROME A. BARRON, C. THOMAS DIENES, WAYNE MCCORMACK & MARTIN H. REDISH, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICY (4th ed. 1992); PAUL BREST & SANFORD LEVINSON, PROCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONMAKING (3d ed. 1992); DANIEL A. FARBER, WILLIAM N. ESKRDIGE, JR. & PHILIP P. FRICKEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: THEMES FOR THE CONSTITUTION'S THIRD CENTURY (2d ed. 1998); GERALD GUNTHER & KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (13th ed. 1997); DOUGLAS W. KMIEC & STEPHEN B. PRESSER, THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER (1998); WILLIAM B. LOCKHART, YALE KAMISAR, JESSE H. CHOPER, STEVEN H. SHIFFRIN & RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION (8th ed. 1996); WILLIAM B. LOCKHART, YALE KAMISAR, JESSE H. CHOPER, STEVEN H. SHIFFRIN & RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th ed. 1996); GEOFFREY R. STONE, LOUIS M. SEIDMAN, CASS R. SUNSTEIN & MARK L. TUSHNET, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (3d ed. 1996).
10. See JEROME A. BARRON, C. THOMAS DIENES, WAYNE MCCORMACK & MARTIN H. REDISH, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICY (4th ed. 1992); PAUL BREST & SANFORD LEVINSON, PROCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONMAKING (3d ed. 1992); DANIEL A. FARBER, WILLIAM N. ESKRDIGE, JR. & PHILIP P. FRICKEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: THEMES FOR THE CONSTITUTION'S THIRD CENTURY (2d ed. 1998); GERALD GUNTHER & KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (13th ed. 1997); DOUGLAS W. KMIEC & STEPHEN B. PRESSER, THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER (1998); WILLIAM B. LOCKHART, YALE KAMISAR, JESSE H. CHOPER, STEVEN H. SHIFFRIN & RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION (8th ed. 1996); WILLIAM B. LOCKHART, YALE KAMISAR, JESSE H. CHOPER, STEVEN H. SHIFFRIN & RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th ed. 1996); GEOFFREY R. STONE, LOUIS M. SEIDMAN, CASS R. SUNSTEIN & MARK L. TUSHNET, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (3d ed. 1996).
11. See JEROME A. BARRON, C. THOMAS DIENES, WAYNE MCCORMACK & MARTIN H. REDISH, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICY (4th ed. 1992); PAUL BREST & SANFORD LEVINSON, PROCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONMAKING (3d ed. 1992); DANIEL A. FARBER, WILLIAM N. ESKRDIGE, JR. & PHILIP P. FRICKEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: THEMES FOR THE CONSTITUTION'S THIRD CENTURY (2d ed. 1998); GERALD GUNTHER & KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (13th ed. 1997); DOUGLAS W. KMIEC & STEPHEN B. PRESSER, THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER (1998); WILLIAM B. LOCKHART, YALE KAMISAR, JESSE H. CHOPER, STEVEN H. SHIFFRIN & RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION (8th ed. 1996); WILLIAM B. LOCKHART, YALE KAMISAR, JESSE H. CHOPER, STEVEN H. SHIFFRIN & RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th ed. 1996); GEOFFREY R. STONE, LOUIS M. SEIDMAN, CASS R. SUNSTEIN & MARK L. TUSHNET, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (3d ed. 1996).
12. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
13. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
14. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
15. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
16. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
17. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
18. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
19. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
20. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
21. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
22. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
23. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
24. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
25. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
26. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants -Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
27. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who
28. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
29. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
30. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
31. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
32. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
33. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
34. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
35. We have found 24 articles in the WESTLAW and LEXIS databases that cite Cross v. Harrison. One of those articles was written by one of the present authors. See Gary Lawson, Territorial Governments and the Limits of Formalism, 78 CAL. L. REV. 853, 906 n.322 (1990). One author is very much aware of the events surrounding Cross but does not focus on their constitutional significance. See Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The Legal System Under the United States Military Government, 1846-1849, 88 LAW LIBR. J. 488 (1996). Twenty-two of the articles simply cite Cross, without any substantive discussion, for general propositions of law. See Russel Lawrence Barsh & James Youngblood Henderson, Contrary Jurisprudence: Tribal Interests in Navigable Waterways Before and After Montana v. United States, 56 WASH. L. REV. 627 (1981); David J. Bederman, Extraterritorial Domicile and the Constitution, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 451 (1988); Stephen L. Carter, The Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, 70 VA. L. REV. 101 (1984); Carol Chomsky, The United States-Dakota War Trials: A Study in Military Injustice, 43 STAN. L. REV. 13 (1990); Robert N. Clinton, Original Understanding, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of "This Constitution," 72 IOWA L. REV. 1177 (1987); David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Article IV and Federal Powers, 1836-1864, 1983 DUKE L.J. 695; David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 867 (1985); Jonathan C. Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667 (1995); L. Benjamin Ederington, Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 263 (1997); David M. Golove, Against Free-Form Formalism, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1791 (1998); Sedgwick W. Green, Applicability of American Laws to Overseas Areas Controlled by the United States, 68 HARV. L. REV. 781 (1955); Captain Timothy Guiden, Defending America's Cambodian Incursion, 11 ARIZ. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 215 (1994); Deborah D. Herrera, Unincorporated and Exploited: Differential Treatment for Trust Territory Claimants - Why Doesn't the Constitution Follow the Flag?, 2 SETON HALL CONST. L.J. 593 (1992); Karl Manheim & Edward P. Howard, A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1165 (1998); Major Scott R. Morris, The Laws of War: Rules by Warriors for Warriors, 1997 ARMY LAW. 4; Gerald L. Neuman, Whose Constitution?, 100 YALE L.J. 909 (1991); Major Michael A. Newton, Continuum Crimes: Military Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals Who Commit International Crimes, 153 MIL. L. REV. 1 (1996); Efren Rivera Ramos, The Legal Construction of American Colonialism: The Insular Cases (1901-1922), 65 REV. JUR. U.P.R. 225 (1996); Captain Annamary Sullivan, The President's Power to Promulgate Death Penalty Standards, 125 MIL. L. REV. 143 (1989); Roger M. Sullivan, The Power of Congress Under the Property Clause: A Potential Check on the Effect of the Chadha Decision on Public Land Legislation, 6 PUB. LAND L. REV. 65 (1985); David L. Roland, Case Note, 17 ST. MARY'S L.J. 1085 (1986); Paul S. Rosenzweig, Comment, Functional Equivalents of the Border, Sovereignty, and the Fourth Amendment, 52 U. CHI. L. REV. 1119 (1985).
36. As we shall see, the facts of the case formally concerned a time period that ended approximately one year before California attained statehood, but the broad issues raised by the case implicate events up to September 9, 1850, the date of California's admission to the Union.
37. See infra section III.D.4.
38. We are planning such a book. Of course, one of the present authors has been planning this Article since 1990, see Lawson, supra note 4, at 906 n.322, so don't hold your breath.
39. Our approach in this Article is explicitly originalist. That identification, of course, raises as many questions as it answers. Because, however, to date there is no source that rigorously describes the mechanics of the kind of methodology that we employ, we must leave the description of our methodology at an uninformative level of generality. For some preliminary thoughts that outline the general direction of our approach, see Steven G. Calabresi & Saikrishna B. Prakash, The President's Power to Execute the Laws, 104 YALE L.J. 541, 550-59 (1994); Gary Lawson, On Reading Recipes . . . and Constitutions, 86 GEO. L. REV. 1823 (1997).
40. Our approach in this Article is explicitly originalist. That identification, of course, raises as many questions as it answers. Because, however, to date there is no source that rigorously describes the mechanics of the kind of methodology that we employ, we must leave the description of our methodology at an uninformative level of generality. For some preliminary thoughts that outline the general direction of our approach, see Steven G. Calabresi & Saikrishna B. Prakash, The President's Power to Execute the Laws, 104 YALE L.J. 541, 550-59 (1994); Gary Lawson, On Reading Recipes . . . and Constitutions, 86 GEO. L. REV. 1823 (1997).
41. We use the term "Hobbesian" in a metaphorical rather than strictly historical sense to refer to theories that use claims of necessity and implied consent to justify sovereign authority outside of formal legal limits.
42. For an eminently readable discussion of the events leading up to and during the Mexican-American War, see PAUL H. BERGERON, THE PRESIDENCY OF JAMES K. POLK 65-113 (1987).
43. This uncontroversial principle had been repeatedly recognized by the Court prior to the decision in Cross v. Harrison. See, e.g., American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511 (1828); United States v. Rice, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 246 (1819). Indeed, if the institutions in the occupied territory were sufficiently displaced by the conquest, international law probably obliged the conqueror to provide a government for the occupied territory.
44. See Letter from W.L. Marcy, Secretary of War, to Brigadier General S.W. Kearny or officer of the U.S. Army highest in rank in California, Mexico (Jan. 11, 1847), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, at 242-46 (1850).
45. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 1 ("The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.").
46. Id. at art. I, § 9, cl. 5 (prohibiting federal duties from being laid on exports from states); id. (prohibiting States from laying duties on vessels traveling from one state to another); id. at art. I, § 10, cls. 2-3 (prohibiting the State, without congressional consent, from imposing duties except as "absolutely necessary" for executing inspection laws or in case of actual imminent invasion).
47. Id. at art. II, § 2, cl. 1.
48. Prior to Cross, the Supreme Court had expressly recognized this power, finding it applicable both when the United States occupies foreign territory, see Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 602 (1850), and when foreign nations occupy American soil, see United States v. Rice, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 246 (1819).
49. The letter instructing the military authorities to impose the duties stated that the money collected was "to be applied to the purposes of the war, and among these purposes is the support of the temporary civil government." Letter from W.L. Marcy, supra note 12, reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 245. Congress could, of course, have funded the government without recourse to such import fees, but according to Secretary Marcy, there was no reason to expect any money from Congress "much within a year from this time." Id. Thus, the military government was left to rely for its operation on import fees and any other internal sources of revenue that it could find.
50. Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement with the Republic of Mexico, Feb. 2, 1848, U.S.-Mex., 9 Stat. 922 [hereinafter Treaty].
51. Proclamation of R.B. Mason to the People of California (Aug. 7, 1848), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 566-67.
52. Letter from H.W. Halleck, Lieutenant, to Captain J.L. Folsom, Collector, San Francisco, CA (Aug. 9, 1848), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31 -18, supra note 12, at 568.
53. Act of Mar. 3, 1849, ch. 112, 9 Stat. 400.
54. Cross v. Harrison, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 164, 181 (1854). As opposed to Harrison's "irregular" appointment?
55. For a detailed account of the California constitutional convention, see Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: The California Constitution of 1849, 90 LAW LIBR. J. 447 (1998).
56. Act of Sept. 9, 1850, ch. 50, 9 Stat. 452 (1850).
57. Mason took "office" as Governor on May 31, 1847. See Proclamation of R.B. Mason (May 31, 1847), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 313-14.
58. Messages had to be carried physically from the Eastern United States to California, and that was no small feat. Consider Collier's account of his journey to his new post: I am at last at my post. The delay attendant upon my arrival has been to me a great source of anxiety, and given me much trouble . . . . I have suffered much of hardship, of privation, and toil, and encountered no little of peril. We were compelled, for several days in succession, to fight our way through hostile bands of Indians, but escaped without the loss of life on our part, and with but one man wounded, he having both bones of his arm broken. It is with great regret that I have to state, also, that in crossing the Colorado, four persons were drowned, and that one of the number was Captain Thorn, of New York, who was in command of the dragoons. At some future period I hope to give you some account of my pilgrimage, and of the miserable country we have passed over. Letter from J. Collier, Collector, to W.M. Meredith, Secretary of the Treasury (Nov. 13, 1849), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 24.
59. U.S. CONST, art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 (emphasis added).
60. Similarly, the Constitution grants to Congress the power "[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District . . . as may . . . become the Seat of the Government of the United States . . . ." U.S. CONST, art. I, § 8, cl. 17.
61. The normal constitutional rules on delegation stem from the Sweeping Clause of Article I, which requires any laws that implement federal powers to be "necessary and proper." U.S. CONST, art. I, § 8, cl. 18. See GARY LAWSON, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 108-09 (1998); Gary Lawson, Who Legislates?, 1995 PUB. INT. L. REV. 147, 150-51 [hereinafter Lawson, Who Legislates?]. The Territories Clause of Article IV, however, is a general grant of legislative authority to Congress. The same is true of the District Clause, which gives Congress power of "exclusive Legislation" over the District of Columbia and federal property within states. U.S. CONST, art. I, § 8, cl. 17. When Congress is enacting legislation for the administration of territories or other federal property, it does not need to invoke the Sweeping Clause as part of its constitutional authorization. Accordingly, any limitations contained in the Sweeping Clause, including the prohibition on delegations of legislative authority, do not apply to legislation concerning territories or federal property. See Lawson, Who Legislates?, supra, at 154-55. The Supreme Court has long recognized that delegation principles do not apply to territorial governance. See Lawson, supra note 4, at 903-05.
62. The normal constitutional rules on delegation stem from the Sweeping Clause of Article I, which requires any laws that implement federal powers to be "necessary and proper." U.S. CONST, art. I, § 8, cl. 18. See GARY LAWSON, FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 108-09 (1998); Gary Lawson, Who Legislates?, 1995 PUB. INT. L. REV. 147, 150-51 [hereinafter Lawson, Who Legislates?]. The Territories Clause of Article IV, however, is a general grant of legislative authority to Congress. The same is true of the District Clause, which gives Congress power of "exclusive Legislation" over the District of Columbia and federal property within states. U.S. CONST, art. I, § 8, cl. 17. When Congress is enacting legislation for the administration of territories or other federal property, it does not need to invoke the Sweeping Clause as part of its constitutional authorization. Accordingly, any limitations contained in the Sweeping Clause, including the prohibition on delegations of legislative authority, do not apply to legislation concerning territories or federal property. See Lawson, Who Legislates?, supra, at 154-55. The Supreme Court has long recognized that delegation principles do not apply to territorial governance. See Lawson, supra note 4, at 903-05.
63. This last alternative has long been the favorite of Congress, for obvious reasons. See Lawson, supra note 4, at 900. As an original matter, elected territorial legislatures raise serious problems under the Appointments Clause, see id. at 901, but those problems have been almost universally ignored.
64. U.S. CONST, art. II, § 2, cl. 2 (stating that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments").
65. Article II does not use the term "principal Officer." Instead, it authorizes Congress to permit the appointment of "inferior" officers through certain modes other than presidential nomination and Senate confirmation, which has the effect of requiring presidential nomination and Senate confirmation for non-"inferior" officers.
66. As a colonel in the military, of course, Mason had been properly appointed as an officer of the United States. But that office did not include, as part of its normal duties, serving as the peacetime governor of a federal territory. A new appointment was clearly needed for a post of that magnitude - just as the Secretary of Defense could not be given authority to administer federal anti-pollution laws without a separate appointment. See generally Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163, 173-76 (1994) (discussing when an officer's new duties require a separate appointment); id. at 196 (Scalia, J., concurring) (same).
67. The post of customs collector is undoubtedly an inferior office, so that if Mason was properly appointed as Governor, Congress could surely have permitted him, as one of the "Heads of Departments," to appoint customs collectors. But see Freytag v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 501 U.S. 868, 886 (1991) (stating, in a five to four decision, that the Chief Judge of the Tax Court cannot be one of the constitutional "Heads of Departments" because that term means only "executive divisions like the Cabinet-level departments"). Interestingly, however, when Congress finally authorized the appointment of a customs collector on March 3, 1849, it chose to employ presidential appointment with Senate confirmation. See 9 Slat. 400, § 2.
68. Letter from R.B. Mason, Colonel, to R. Jones, Adjutant General (Aug. 19, 1848), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31 -18, supra note 12, at 573-74 (emphasis added).
69. Letter from James Buchanan, Secretary of the United States of America, to William V. Vorhies (Oct. 7, 1848), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 7-8.
70. See 57 U.S. (16 How.) 164, 186-88 (1854).
71. See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 411-12 (1821).
72. The Tucker Act, which waives sovereign immunity for claims against the United States founded on statutes, regulations, or the Constitution, was not enacted in anything resembling its present form until 1887. Act of Mar. 3, 1887, ch. 359, 24 Stat. 505.
73. Although it was a garden-variety common law suit, the case was initially heard in a federal trial court in the Southern District of New York. The defendant no doubt invoked a statutory removal provision pertaining to suits under, or under color of, the customs laws. See Act of Mar. 3, 1817, ch. 109, § 2, 3 Stat. 396.
74. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 813-19 (1982) (setting out the framework for the modern law of official immunity). For a useful summary of the ways in which qualified immunity poses a serious bar to official liability, see Cornelia T.L. Pillard, Taking Fiction Seriously: The Strange Results of Public Officials' Individual Liability Under Bivens, 88 GEO. L.J. 65, 80-90 (1999).
75. One could, we suppose, also imagine a court saying that the unconstitutionality of the military government was so blatant that anyone could see it (as indeed did the military authorities in California). In that circumstance, application of the official immunity doctrine would not have helped Harrison.
76. 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 170 (1804).
77. Act of Feb. 9, 1799, ch. 2, § 1, 1 Stat. 613, 613-14.
78. Id. § 5, 1 Stat. 615 (emphasis added).
79. The "loophole" might make sense if the purpose of the statute was to deny the entry of provisions into France rather than to prohibit trade altogether, though even in that case one would probably want to deny France the proceeds from exports.
80. 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) at 171 (emphasis altered).
81. Id. at 178-79.
82. Act of Jan. 17, 1807, ch. 4, 6 Stat. 63.
83. The modern law of immunity may in fact be wrong in many, or even most, important respects, but that conclusion does not straightforwardly follow from Little v. Barreme's correctness in 1804.
84. For an extended argument in favor of governmental accountability, see James E. Pfander, Sovereign Immunity and the Right to Petition: Toward a First Amendment Right to Pursue Claims Against the Government, 91 NW. U. L. REV. 899 (1997). We have elsewhere criticized Professor Pfander's argument that the first amendment right to petition bears on the propriety of federal sovereign immunity, see Gary Lawson & Guy Seidman, Downsizing the Right to Petition, 93 NW. U. L. REV. 739 (1999), but see James E. Pfander, Restoring the Right to Petition, 94 NW. U. L. REV. 219 (1999) (responding), but that dispute is separate from the question whether the Constitution mandates some form of accountability for official acts.
85. For an extended argument in favor of governmental accountability, see James E. Pfander, Sovereign Immunity and the Right to Petition: Toward a First Amendment Right to Pursue Claims Against the Government, 91 NW. U. L. REV. 899 (1997). We have elsewhere criticized Professor Pfander's argument that the first amendment right to petition bears on the propriety of federal sovereign immunity, see Gary Lawson & Guy Seidman, Downsizing the Right to Petition, 93 NW. U. L. REV. 739 (1999), but see James E. Pfander, Restoring the Right to Petition, 94 NW. U. L. REV. 219 (1999) (responding), but that dispute is separate from the question whether the Constitution mandates some form of accountability for official acts.
86. For an extended argument in favor of governmental accountability, see James E. Pfander, Sovereign Immunity and the Right to Petition: Toward a First Amendment Right to Pursue Claims Against the Government, 91 NW. U. L. REV. 899 (1997). We have elsewhere criticized Professor Pfander's argument that the first amendment right to petition bears on the propriety of federal sovereign immunity, see Gary Lawson & Guy Seidman, Downsizing the Right to Petition, 93 NW. U. L. REV. 739 (1999), but see James E. Pfander, Restoring the Right to Petition, 94 NW. U. L. REV. 219 (1999) (responding), but that dispute is separate from the question whether the Constitution mandates some form of accountability for official acts.
87. Indeed, the Supreme Court did not even craft a broad judicial immunity until 1871. See Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335 (1871).
88. See Clifford L. Pannam, Unconstitutional Statutes and De Facto Officers, 2 FED. L. REV. 37, 39-40 (1966).
89. Waite v. Santa Cruz, 184 U.S. 302, 323 (1902).
90. See Kathryn A. Clokey, Note, The De Facto Officer Doctrine: The Case For Continued Application, 85 COLUM. L. REV. 1121, 1122 (1985).
91. 159 U.S. 596 (1895).
92. See id. at 601-02.
93. See Cocke v. Halsey, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 71, 84-88 (1842).
94. See Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440-42 (1886); see also McLaughry v. Deming, 186 U.S. 49, 63 (1902) (holding that the de facto officer doctrine cannot apply to an improperly constituted court martial).
95. See George S. Harris, The Validity of Acts of Officers Occupying Offices Created Under Laws Declared Unconstitutional, 3 U. NEWARK L. REV. 123, 125-31 (1938); Pannam, supra note 53, at 50-57; Note, The De Facto Officer Doctrine, 63 COLUM. L. REV. 909, 914-15 (1963) .
96. See George S. Harris, The Validity of Acts of Officers Occupying Offices Created Under Laws Declared Unconstitutional, 3 U. NEWARK L. REV. 123, 125-31 (1938); Pannam, supra note 53, at 50-57; Note, The De Facto Officer Doctrine, 63 COLUM. L. REV. 909, 914-15 (1963) .
97. 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849).
98. 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869).
99. See supra subpart II.A.
100. 48 U.S. (7 How.) at 38-39.
101. Id. at 39.
102. Id. at 40-41.
103. Id. at 41-42.
104. Id. at 42.
105. See id. at 42-45. The Guarantee Clause provides that "[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. . . ." U.S. CONST, art. IV, § 4.
106. As an aside: The Court probably should have found more troubling than it did the question whether even governmental authorization could help the defendants in Luther. The Court assumed without much analysis that the state of martial law was enough justification for the defendants' actions to close off tort liability. See Luther, 48 U.S. (7 How.) at 45-46. That issue, however, was not as easily in the defendants' favor as the Court made it appear. See id. at 58-88 (Woodbury, J., dissenting).
107. U.S. CONST, art. III, § 2, cl. 1.
108. Id. at art. III, § 2, cl. 2.
109. 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 720-31 (1869).
110. Id. at 733.
111. Id.
112. Id.
113. Id. at 733-34.
114. Cf. Steven G. Calabresi & Gary Lawson, Equity and Hierarchy: Reflections on the Harris Execution, 102 YALE L.J. 255 (1992) (suggesting that federalism is an appropriate part of remedial balancing for federal courts).
115. These same inquiries can obviously arise at the state level, and each state can (within the broad guidelines of the federal constitution) authorize its own courts to resolve these issues in any manner that seems fit.
116. We argue that this hypothetical person, rather than any actual historical person, is the appropriate point of inquiry for originalism. A full explication and defense of this claim, however, must await another day.
117. It surely includes criminal law. Does de facto authority therefore mean a free ride for all criminals? The answer may depend on how clearly one can identify a category of malum in se offenses. On the other hand, the right answer may be simply that a criminal prosecuted by the federal government has a constitutional right to be prosecuted only in accordance with strictly enforced constitutional norms.
118. See infra subsection III.D.5.b.
119. This was not a surprising litigation strategy. If the statutory argument was successful, the plaintiff had a sure winner on all tariffs up to March 3, 1849. And the plaintiff was no doubt leery - and justifiably so - of its
120. Cross v. Harrison, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 164, 189-91 (1854).
121. "Governor" Mason announced the ratifications by proclamation on August 7, 1848. He claimed to have received official notification on August 6, 1848 and there is no reason to doubt his veracity. See Letter from R.B. Mason to Brigadier General R. Jones (Aug. 23, 1848), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 577.
122. Cross, 57 U.S. (16 How.) at 190.
123. Treaty, supra note 18, at arts. III-IV, 9 Stat. at 923-26.
124. See INGRID DETTER DE LUPIS, THE LAW OF WAR 297-98 (1988).
125. For general discussions of these propositions, see WILLIAM EDWARD HALL, INTERNATIONAL LAW 482-95 (J.B. Atlay ed., Oxford 5th ed. 1904); COLEMAN PHlLLIPSON, TERMINATION OF WAR AND TREATIES OF PEACE 185-98, 214-17 (1916).
126. For general discussions of these propositions, see WILLIAM EDWARD HALL, INTERNATIONAL LAW 482-95 (J.B. Atlay ed., Oxford 5th ed. 1904); COLEMAN PHlLLIPSON, TERMINATION OF WAR AND TREATIES OF PEACE 185-98, 214-17 (1916).
127. Treaty, supra note 18, at art. III, 9 Stat. at 924.
128. Id.
129. Id.
130. Id.
131. Id. at art. IV, 9 Stat. at 924. The provision also called for the return to Mexico of all captured weapons and other property. Id.
132. Id. at art. IV, 9 Stat. at 925.
133. See Gary Lawson & Guy Seidman, When Did the Constitution Become Law? (2000) (unpublished manuscript, on file with authors).
134. Treaty, supra note 18, at art. V, 9 Stat. at 926, 927.
135. 50 U.S. (9 How.) 127 (1850).
136. Id. at 148.
137. See Treaty, supra note 18, at art. VIII, 9 Stat. at 929, 930.
138. See id. at art. XI, 9 Stat. at 930-32.
139. Letter from James Buchanan, Secretary of the United States of America, to William V. Vorhies, supra note 36, reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 9 (1850). We are not as certain as was Buchanan that Madison, Wilson, Hamilton and their contemporaries would have regarded a peacetime military government as "the best form of civil government ever established amongst men."
140. 57 U.S. (16 How.) 164, 190 (1854) ("But after the ratification of the treaty, California became a part of the United States, or a ceded, conquered territory.").
141. Id. at 190-91 (emphasis added).
142. As is often true of sayings, this one conceals some important subtleties. For an illuminating discussion of some of these subtleties, see Gerald Leonard, Rape, Murder, and Formalism: What Happens if We Define Mistake of Law? (2000) (unpublished manuscript, on file with authors).
143. See supra note 29 and accompanying text.
144. There is no constitutional reason why a military officer cannot also hold a civilian appointment.
145. Proclamation of R.B. Mason to the People of California (Aug. 7, 1848), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 566 (emphasis added).
146. Id.
147. See Saunders, supra note 23, at 456. On the role of slavery generally in debates over territorial governance, see RICHARD WHITE, "IT'S YOUR MISFORTUNE AND NONE OF MY OWN": A HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN WEST 155-60 (1991).
148. See U.S. Comm'n on Civil Rights, Language, Rights, and New Mexico Statehood (2000), available at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/nm-con.htm (last visited Oct. 20, 2000).
149. U.S. CONST, art. II, § 2, cl. 1.
150. See supra note 85.
151. Halleck, incidentally, went on to become President Lincoln's chief of staff during part of the Civil War, and he published a major treatise on international law. See Saunders, supra note 4, at 492 n.23.
152. Letter from H.W. Halleck to Captain J.L. Folsum (Aug. 9, 1848), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 632.
153. U.S. CONST, art. I, § 1, cl. 1.
154. Id. art. II, § 1, cl. 1. Some scholars deny that this "vesting clause" is a grant of power at all, but the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. See Steven G. Calabresi, The Vesting Clauses As Power Grants, 88 NW. U. L. REV. 1377 (1994).
155. U.S. CONST, art. I, § 1, cl. 1.
156. See Gary Lawson & Christopher D. Moore, The Executive Power of Constitutional Interpretation, 81 IOWA L. REV. 1267, 1282-84 (1996).
157. See generally Henry P. Monaghan, The Protective Power of the Presidency, 93 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (1993) (defending a minimalist understanding of "[t]he Executive Power"). Even if Professor Monaghan's conception of the executive power is too stingy, one would need to go very far in order to justify the kind of presidential authority necessary to make the "penumbral" argument work.
158. It would take a separate article to establish this proposition. Fortunately, we have written it. See Lawson & Seidman, supra note 96.
159. Letter from H.W. Halleck, Lieutenant, to Captain J.L. Folsum, supra note 20, reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 568.
160. See Cross v. Harrison, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 164, 192 (1854).
161. This raises serious questions about the authority of United States military personnel to enforce federal civilian law, but let us assume that Harrison could have somehow finagled that one.
162. See Act of Mar. 2, 1799, ch. 22, §§ 27-28, 1 Stat. 627, 648.
163. Letter from H.W. Halleck, Brevet Captain, to E.H. Harrison, U.S. Customs Collector (Feb. 24, 1849), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 670-71.
164. Id. at 671.
165. Letter from Persifor F. Smith, Brevet Major General, to R. Jones, Brigadier General (Apr. 5, 1849), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 694.
166. The need for imports into California was so great that the authorities permitted (upon the payment of "duties") entry of goods from foreign-owned ships, which was forbidden by the general customs laws. As the commander-in-chief of the Pacific naval forces explained to Collier upon his arrival in San Francisco: Mr. Harrison, your predecessor, will doubtless make you fully acquainted with all that has been done by the naval and military commanders on this station for the collection of duties, and for the relief of the suffering community, whose wants and necessities were of that urgent nature as to compel the ruling authorities to adopt their measures to meet the urgent wants of the in-pouring emigrants, rather than strict obedience to legislative enactment . . . . Letter from Thomas AP C. Jones, Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Naval Forces, to J. Collier, U.S. Customs Collector (Nov. 12, 1849), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 34. Collier ended the practice upon taking office: I am aware also of the necessity which seemed to justify the exercise of that discretion. It must be admitted, however, that it was in violation of the revenue laws. I should exceedingly regret that the strict enforcement of those laws should inflict injury upon any portion of my countrymen; but I am not vested with discretionary powers upon such subjects . . . . [W]hile I may lament that any portion of our countrymen who are engaged in the mining district should feel the effects in the increased price of provisions, we have, on the other hand, the satisfaction of knowing that another class, that of the American ship-builders and ship-owners, will enjoy that protection which the law intended to give them, that the great interest of our own commerce will be promoted, and that the law of the land is respected and maintained. See Letter from J. Collier, U.S. Customs Collector, to Thomas AP C. Jones, Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Naval Forces (Nov. 15, 1849), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 35.
167. Of course, the plaintiff's ships that were involved in the illegal landing of goods would have been subject to forfeiture as well. The lack of authorization cuts in both directions. If Harrison did not have the power to collect customs duties, he also did not have the power to make legal an otherwise illegal entry of goods into San Francisco. But that would be a separate case that had no proper bearing on the disposition of the plaintiff's simple assumpsit action.
168. Technically, the case concerned only the period until November 13, 1849. From that point forward, there was valid legal authority for the collection of tariffs. The Court's argument, however, clearly sustains the validity of all of the military government's actions until the moment of statehood on September 9, 1850.
169. Cross v. Harrison, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 164, 193-94 (1854).
170. Id. at 195.
171. See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 2 (describing the presentment requirement and veto power). The President can, of course, also recommend to Congress "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient," id. at art. II, § 3, and if Congress is out of session when fast action is necessary, the President can "convene both Houses, or either of them." Id. But none of this gives the President the power to construct a military government during peacetime.
172. 54 U.S. (13 How.) 115 (1852).
173. Technically, the Insular Tariff Cases was the name given by the Supreme Court to a series of decisions in 1901 that dealt with the tariff status of the new territories acquired by the United States as a result of that war. See De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, 2 (1901). For convenience, however, we use the term The Insular Cases to refer to the range of decisions, effectively ending in 1922 with Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922), that discussed the applicability of various constitutional restrictions to the extracontinental "insular" territories. For an excellent and readable discussion of The Insular Cases, see OWEN M. FISS, TROUBLED BEGINNINGS OF THE MODERN STATE, 1888-1910, at 225-56 (1993).
174. 182 U.S. 222 (1901).
175. The Court's entire discussion of this point was: "We have no doubt, however, that, from the necessities of the case, the right to administer the government of Porto Rico continued in the military commander after the ratification of the treaty, and until further action by Congress. Cross v. Harrison, above cited." Id. at 234.
176. Incidentally, the spelling of "Porto Rico" in this passage is not a misprint. That was the official spelling until it was changed by Congress to "Puerto Rico" in 1932. See Lawson, supra note 4, at 869 n.85.
177. Dooley, 182 U.S. at 234.
178. Id.
179. Id. at 236.
180. Id. at 234.
181. Id. at 235-36.
182. 214 U.S. 260 (1909).
183. Id. at 264 (internal citations omitted).
184. Id. at 265.
185. Id. at 266.
186. Id.
187. Id. at 265.
188. See Lawson, supra note 4, at 873-74.
189. See Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) (holding that there is no constitutional right to petit jury in unincorporated territories); Ocampo v. United States, 234 U.S. 91 (1914) (holding that there is no constitutional right to indictment by grand jury in unincorporated territories).
190. See, e.g., Neuman, supra note 4; Ramos, supra note 4; Gabriel A. Terrasa, The United States, Puerto Rico, and the Territorial Incorporation Doctrine: Reaching a Century of Constitutional Authoritarianism, 31 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 55 (1997).
191. See Gary Lawson, The Bill of Rights as an Exclamation Point, 33 U. RICH. L. REV. 511, 518-19 (1999) (book review) [hereinafter Lawson, Bill of Rights]; Lawson, supra note 4, at 870-76.
192. The District Clause gives Congress the power of "exclusive Legislation" over the District and federal enclaves, U.S. CONST, art. IV, § 3, cl. 2, while the Territories Clause gives Congress the power to enact "needful Rules and Regulations" concerning territories, U.S. CONST, art. I, § 8, cl. 17. If the word "needful" limits the scope of Congress's general legislative jurisdiction, then Congress might have broader power over the District and federal enclaves than it has over territories, and what counts as a "needful" regulation could vary from one territory to another depending on local circumstances.
193. See Lawson, Bill of Rights, supra note 153, at 516-18.
194. See David E. Engdahl, State and Federal Power over Federal Property 18 ARIZ. L. REV 283. (1976).
195. Can the United States acquire territory that is never intended for statehood? The question was raised at the end of the nineteenth century and is more serious than it may first appear. But that is a topic for a separate article.
196. For an analysis of the fundamental (by any understanding of that term) role of juries in the American constitutional order, see AKHIL REED AMAR, THE BILL OF RIGHTS: CREATION AND RECONSTRUCTION 81-118 (1998).
197. Letter of R.B. Mason, Colonel, to R. Jones, Adjutant General (Aug. 19, 1848), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 18, supra note 12, at 574.
198. Letter from James Buchanan, Secretary of State, to William V. Vorhies (Oct. 7, 1848), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 18, supra note 12, at 7.
199. Id.
200. Id. at 8.
201. Id.
202. CONG. GLOBE, 30th Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1848).
203. It is interesting, in this light, to contrast the statement made on January 23, 1850 by President Zachary Taylor in response to a Senate resolution asking, inter alia, whether he had appointed anyone as civil or military governor of California since March 4, 1849: On coming into office, I found the military commandant of the department of California exercising the functions of civil governor in that Territory; and left, as I was, to act under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, without the aid of any legislative provision establishing a government in that Territory, I thought it best not to disturb that arrangement, made under my predecessor, until Congress should take some action on that subject. I therefore did not interfere with the powers of the military commandant, who continued to exercise the functions of civil governor as before; but I made no such appointment, conferred no such authority, and have allowed no increased compensation to the commandant for his services. S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 1.
204. There is a large literature defending forms of social organization without government. See, e.g., DAVID FRIEDMAN, THE MACHINERY OF FREEDOM: GUIDE TO A RADICAL CAPITALISM (1973); MURRAY N. ROTHBARD, FOR A NEW LIBERTY: THE LIBERTARIAN MANIFESTO (1978); LINDA TANNEHILL, MORRIS TANNEHILL & JARRETT WOLLSTEIN, SOCIETY WITHOUT GOVERNMENT (1972).
205. There is a large literature defending forms of social organization without government. See, e.g., DAVID FRIEDMAN, THE MACHINERY OF FREEDOM: GUIDE TO A RADICAL CAPITALISM (1973); MURRAY N. ROTHBARD, FOR A NEW LIBERTY: THE LIBERTARIAN MANIFESTO (1978); LINDA TANNEHILL, MORRIS TANNEHILL & JARRETT WOLLSTEIN, SOCIETY WITHOUT GOVERNMENT (1972).
206. There is a large literature defending forms of social organization without government. See, e.g., DAVID FRIEDMAN, THE MACHINERY OF FREEDOM: GUIDE TO A RADICAL CAPITALISM (1973); MURRAY N. ROTHBARD, FOR A NEW LIBERTY: THE LIBERTARIAN MANIFESTO (1978); LINDA TANNEHILL, MORRIS TANNEHILL & JARRETT WOLLSTEIN, SOCIETY WITHOUT GOVERNMENT (1972).
207. Mason appears from this saga to have been an honest person with no pretensions of grandeur. Indeed, it is hard to study these events without feeling a great sadness, and some measure of admiration, for Colonel Mason. His comments after the conclusion of the treaty of peace demonstrate a keen awareness of the precariousness of his legal situation, and his comments during his wartime administration show a detailed and precise knowledge of the nature of military governance. See Letter of R.B. Mason, Colonel, to L.W. Boggs, Alcaide (June 2, 1847), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 305-06 (describing correctly the legal origins and limits of military rule). He took the extraordinary step of asking to be relieved from his post. See infra note 180 and accompanying text. And when that day finally came, he died shortly after returning home. See Saunders, supra note 4, at 510 n.135.
208. There is a more limited sense of anarchy, in which it simply describes the absence of any government that claims and enforces a legitimate monopoly on the use of force in a given territory. Whether anarchy in this sense necessarily leads (or even tends to lead) to an absence of social order is a basic question of political theory on which reasonable people disagree. See supra note 166 and accompanying text.
209. Myra K. Saunders, California Legal History: A Review of Spanish and Mexican Legal Institutions, 87 LAW LIBR. J. 487, 506 (1996). For a detailed description of the Mexican institutions that were in place in 1846, see id. at 495-504.
210. This was acknowledged by State Department official John Clayton in a letter of April 3, 1849 giving instructions to a presidential agent being sent to California: The laws of California and New Mexico, as they existed at the conclusion of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, regulating the relations of the inhabitants with each other, will necessarily remain in force in those Territories. Their relations with their former government have been dissolved, and new relations created between them and the government of the United States; but the existing laws regulating the relations of the people with each other will continue until others, lawfully enacted, shall supersede them. Letter from John M. Clayton, State Department Official, to Hon. Thomas Butler King, Appointed Agent of the U.S. to California (Apr. 3, 1849), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 10.
211. Obviously, there was a much larger American population in California in 1848. See infra notes 175-78 and accompanying text. The Mexican legal institutions were less formal than the Anglo-American institutions, and were therefore unfamiliar and unattractive to American settlers. See Saunders, supra note 169, at 506. But that is a far cry from Hobbesian chaos.
212. See, e.g., Larry Simon, The Authority of the Constitution and Its Meaning: A Preface to a Theory of Constitutional Interpretation, 58 S. CAL. L. REV. 603 (1985).
213. Implied consent is more a game than a theory. As one of us has written elsewhere, "[t]he problem with tacit consent is that it is almost always about one hundred parts tacit to one part consent." Gary S. Lawson, An Interpretivist Agenda, 15 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 157, 160 n.9 (1992).
214. For instance, would slaves in 1789 have preferred the Constitution to the Articles of Confederation? One can ask the question as a matter of normative political theory without implicating any questions concerning the participation of blacks, free or slave, in the actual ratification of the Constitution.
215. See Saunders, supra note 169, at 488.
216. See id.
217. Id.
218. See KENNETH C. MARTIS & GREGORY A. ELMES, THE HISTORICAL ATLAS OF STATE POWER IN CONGRESS, 1790-1990, at 58 (1993).
219. Letter from J.L. Folsom, Captain, to W.T. Sherman, Lieutenant (Aug. 14, 1848), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 589.
220. Letter from R.B. Mason, Colonel, to R. Jones, Brigadier General (Nov. 24, 1848), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 625.
221. Letter from Persifor F. Smith, Brevet Major General, to R.B. Mason, Colonel (Mar. 6, 1849), reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 31-18, supra note 12, at 691.
222. Id.
223. Id.
224. Saunders, supra note 4, at 489. For more details on the governance structure of mining colonies, see RODMAN WILSON PAUL, MINING FRONTIERS OF THE FAR WEST, 1848-1880, at 22-25 (1963); Saunders, supra note 4, at 506-09.
225. As an original matter, this would not validate courts that did not conform to the dictates of Article III of the Constitution, see Lawson, supra note 4, at 878-93, but the Supreme Court had already covered that track in 1828 by declaring (in a case that did not squarely raise the point) that Article III did not apply to territorial tribunals. See American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511 (1828).