• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Supreme Court Rules Gitmo Detainees Have Rights | Main | Blackwater Hopes to Revive Malpractice Suit Against Wiley Rein »

June 12, 2008


Rudolph DiGiacinto

I only wish to add to the knowledge base of the idea's expressed by the Court including the dissent by referring to an early Virginia case that dealt with the rights of the people of Fairfax County who had been expatriated by the cession of part of the county to form the District of Columbia. These residents sued to have their rights enforced in Virginia. The Virginia Supreme court stated:

"There is no such exception to be found in the constitution of this commonwealth. That instrument, and the declaration of rights on which it is based, has no eye towards the subjects of foreign powers. It only purports to declare the rights, and settle the duties of those who are parties to the compact. There is not only no such exception in that instrument, but, on the contrary, the converse is explicitly declared and expressed. The declaration of rights is stated to have been made by the representatives "of the good people of Virginia;" and it is declared, "that these rights do pertain to them, and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government." " Custis v. Lane, 17 Va. 3 Munf. 579, (1813).

The court above noted the long supported common idea that allegiance and protection are reciprocal duties.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad