← All research pathsHistorical sources in constitutional interpretation
Read historical sources cited by Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Robert Bork, with links to their opinions and the checked passages. Notes distinguish the historical text, the writer’s use of it, and later case history.
Printed page 746–47 · PDF page 754
Story on the militia and the right to bear arms
Story describes the militia and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, then compares the English Bill of Rights. The footnotes cite Tucker, Rawle, Lloyd’s Debates, Cobbett, and Blackstone.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 608 (2008).
3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §§ 1889–91, at 746–47 (Boston, Hilliard, Gray, & Co. 1833)
Read this passage →Source verification
Citing text and underlying historical passage verified. Majority opinion by Antonin Scalia. Printed pages and the linked PDF passage were checked against the scan. Searchable OCR with errors and concatenated words; use page images to verify quotations.
Original source record ↗Printed page 73–74 · PDF page 85
Blackstone on repair assessments
Commissioners of sewers may impose repair assessments and enforce them by distress or sale. Alito uses these obligations as examples of law violations that do not necessarily threaten public peace or safety.
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522, 580 n.47 (2021) (Alito, J., concurring in the judgment).
3 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 73–74 (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1768)
Read this passage →Source verification
Citing text and underlying historical passage verified. Concurrence in the judgment opinion by Samuel A. Alito Jr.. Printed pages and the linked PDF passage were checked against the scan. Seven cited pages have image-checked search transcriptions; the remaining OCR has long-s and word-spacing errors. Handwriting is not reliably transcribed.
Original source record ↗Printed page 141–42 · PDF page 153
Blackstone on interference with service
Blackstone describes civil liability for hiring another person’s servant during the existing term and distinguishes the servant’s personal remedy from the master’s loss. Alito uses the interference example in his public-peace analysis.
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522, 580 n.48 (2021) (Alito, J., concurring in the judgment).
3 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 141–42 (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1768)
Read this passage →Source verification
Citing text and underlying historical passage verified. Concurrence in the judgment opinion by Samuel A. Alito Jr.. Printed pages and the linked PDF passage were checked against the scan. Seven cited pages have image-checked search transcriptions; the remaining OCR has long-s and word-spacing errors. Handwriting is not reliably transcribed.
Original source record ↗Printed page 164 · PDF page 176
Blackstone on professional obligations
Blackstone describes actions on the case arising from professional default and common-callings obligations, including an attorney’s failure to appear for trial. Alito cites that default as another example in the public-peace analysis.
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522, 580 n.49 (2021) (Alito, J., concurring in the judgment).
3 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 164 (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1768)
Read this passage →Source verification
Citing text and underlying historical passage verified. Concurrence in the judgment opinion by Samuel A. Alito Jr.. Printed pages and the linked PDF passage were checked against the scan. Seven cited pages have image-checked search transcriptions; the remaining OCR has long-s and word-spacing errors. Handwriting is not reliably transcribed.
Original source record ↗Printed page 373–74 · PDF page 385
Blackstone on public examination of witnesses
Blackstone contrasts public oral examination, adversarial questioning, and observation of witnesses with secret written examinations. Scalia invokes that historical contrast when construing the Confrontation Clause.
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 43, 61–62 (2004).
3 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 373–74 (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1768)
Read this passage →Source verification
Citing text and underlying historical passage verified. Majority opinion by Antonin Scalia. Printed pages and the linked PDF passage were checked against the scan. Seven cited pages have image-checked search transcriptions; the remaining OCR has long-s and word-spacing errors. Handwriting is not reliably transcribed.
Original source record ↗Printed page 350 · PDF page 397
Cooley on arms, liberty, and legislative regulation
Cooley treats keeping and bearing arms as a defense of personal liberty and relates an armed people to a militia. He expressly declines to settle the extent of legislative regulation. The footnote cites Bliss, Nunn, and Ely.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 616–17 (2008).
Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union 350 (Boston, Little, Brown, & Co. 1868)
Read this passage →Source verification
Citing text and underlying historical passage verified. Majority opinion by Antonin Scalia. Printed pages and the linked PDF passage were checked against the scan. Searchable machine OCR is available in the reader and a separately labeled PDF. Printed page 350 received a focused image check; the remaining text is not fully proofread.
Original source record ↗Printed page 718–19, 746–47 · PDF page 726
Story on bills of rights and governmental power
Scalia’s Heller majority cites § 1858 for Story’s treatment of the English Bill of Rights, quotes § 1891, and points to § 1890 n.2 and § 1891 n.3 for Story’s references to Tucker and Rawle. All grouped locators are now visually checked. Section 1858 discusses bills of rights as restrictions on governmental powers; the footnote also cites Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and Cobbett.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 608 (2008).
3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §§ 1858, 1890 n.2, 1891 n.3, at 718–19, 746–47 (Boston, Hilliard, Gray, & Co. 1833)
Read this passage →Source verification
Official Heller page 608 and all listed Story passages were visually checked. Printed-page locators are verified; OCR remains a discovery aid.
Original source record ↗Printed page 464–65 · PDF page 590
Vattel on diplomatic inviolability
Finzer uses Vattel’s account of diplomatic inviolability and the host sovereign’s protective duties in its historical analysis. Section 82 also addresses ignorance of diplomatic status and self-defense against an aggressor. Finzer was affirmed in part and reversed in part by Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318, 329–34 (1988). The display prohibition was invalidated; the narrowed congregation clause survived.
Finzer v. Barry, 798 F.2d 1450, 1455–56 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations bk. IV, ch. VII, §§ 81–82, at 464–65 (Joseph Chitty ed., Phila., T. & J. W. Johnson & Co. 1863)
Read this passage →Source verification
The cited reference was checked in an accessible opinion transcription, and the historical passage was checked against the scan. A reporter facsimile was not obtained. Searchable OCR with recognition errors. Verify quotations against page images.
Original source record ↗Printed page 463–64 · PDF page 589
Vattel on insults to ambassadors
Finzer invokes the respect due to ambassadors and punishment for insults. The paragraph continues with the case of a minister who is the aggressor; the serious/severe wording variance remains unresolved against the printed reporter. Finzer was affirmed in part and reversed in part by Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318, 329–34 (1988). The display prohibition was invalidated; the narrowed congregation clause survived.
Finzer v. Barry, 798 F.2d 1450, 1456 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations bk. IV, ch. VII, § 80, at 463–64 (Joseph Chitty ed., Phila., T. & J. W. Johnson & Co. 1863)
Read this passage →Source verification
The cited reference was checked in an accessible opinion transcription, and the historical passage was checked against the scan. A reporter facsimile was not obtained. Searchable OCR with recognition errors. Verify quotations against page images.
Original source record ↗Printed page 627 · PDF page 641
Moore on the Spanish minister’s flag and Madison’s correspondence
Finzer cites Moore’s report that the 1802 tearing down of the Spanish minister’s flag in Philadelphia, accompanied by insults, was held cognizable in Pennsylvania state courts. Moore cites Madison’s May 11, 1802 letter to Governor McKean, 14 MS. Dom. Let. 18. Finzer was affirmed in part and reversed in part by Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318, 329–34 (1988). The display prohibition was invalidated; the narrowed congregation clause survived.
Finzer v. Barry, 798 F.2d 1450, 1456 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
4 John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law § 658, at 627 (1906)
Read this passage →Source verification
The cited reference was checked in an accessible opinion transcription, and the historical passage was checked against the scan. A reporter facsimile was not obtained. Searchable OCR with recognition errors. Verify quotations against page images.
Original source record ↗Printed page 290–91 · PDF page 298
Jacob on production of writings in Chancery
Alito cites page 290 to trace the development of subpoenas duces tecum before the Fourth Amendment. Jacob describes a defendant’s admitted possession of writings sought by a bill. The following discussion limits contempt where possession is not admitted or title is asserted. This particular passage describes party production in Chancery and does not by itself establish every feature of third-party production or modern search law.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296, 363–64 (2018) (Alito, J., dissenting)
1 Giles Jacob, The Compleat Chancery-Practiser 290–91 (In the Savoy, E. Nutt, R. Nutt, & R. Gosling 1730)
Read this passage →Source verification
Citing text and underlying historical passage verified. Dissent, joined by Justice Thomas opinion by Samuel A. Alito Jr.. Printed pages and the linked PDF passage were checked against the scan. Existing searchable OCR is present, with recognition errors, marginal noise, and occasional text-order errors. Page images control quotation and citation.
Original source record ↗Printed page 79 · PDF page 101
Powell’s fee schedule and the subpoena duces tecum
Alito cites Powell’s listed subpoena duces tecum fee as evidence that the writ was familiar by 1623. The underlying page lists the writ under Chancery decree fees at seven shillings and two pence. The claim about familiarity is Alito’s inference in dissent, not a holding of the Court.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296, 363 (2018) (Alito, J., dissenting).
Thomas Powell, The Attourneys Academy 79 (London, Beniamin Fisher 1623)
Read this passage →Source verification
Citing text and underlying historical passage verified. Dissent, joined by Justice Thomas opinion by Samuel A. Alito Jr.. Printed pages and the linked PDF passage were checked against the scan. Searchable repository OCR with substantial errors in early type, spacing, and spelling. Page images control; no new OCR or blanket spelling correction was applied.
Original source record ↗ 