« Law School Hiring Spreadsheet and Clearinghouse for Questions, 2022-2023 | Main | Thoughts on the Trump special master suit (Updated) »

Thursday, August 25, 2022

James Phillips on McCulloch and Gettysburg

Prof. James Phillips (Chapman) passed this on (below), and I'm happy to share it, with his permission:

I'm teaching constitutional law this year for the first time. I was wondering if PrawfsBlawg readers know whether anyone has ever pointed out the similarity between Chief Justice Marshall's description of our constitutional system of government in McCulloch v. Maryland and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address?

McCulloch v. Maryland: “The government of the Union, then ..., is emphatically, and truly, a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.”

Gettysburg Address: "...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

The ordering—of, by, for—is even the same. No doubt Lincoln would have been very familiar with McCulloch as a lawyer. In fact, perhaps there are bigger implications than just rhetoric. Maybe Lincoln drew heavily upon Marshall's ideas about the nature of the relationship between the government and the people as well as state sovereignty, in McCulloch and perhaps other cases or writings of Marshall.

Just curious if others have noticed this or know of any other connection between McCulloch (or more broadly Marshall) and Lincoln?

UPDATE: Akhil Amar has kindly brought to our attention that he notes this connection between Marshall’s language in McCulloch and Lincoln on pages 533-534 of his most recent book: The Words That Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840 (2021). Amar quotes the same passage noted in the post from Marshall, and then writes:

Of the people, from the people, by the people, for the people. These were words and ideas that would resonate in American history, as young Americans like Daniel Webster (one of several oral advocates who argued the bank’s case in McCulloch) and even younger Americans like Abraham Lincoln (still a boy in 1819) would later carry the Washington-Hamilton-Marshall flag deeper into the century.”

Posted by Rick Garnett on August 25, 2022 at 01:23 PM in Rick Garnett | Permalink


And because we hold these Truths to be self-evident, in regards to our inherent Right to Life, I have placed all my research in regards to other’s research on the relationship Of FURIN and HEPCIDIN and thus IRON and COVID 19, in my file marked Church and State, least it appear that this is not a Pro-Life issue.


At the end of the Day it remains a Scientific Fact, that it is never necessary or proper to destroy a human life, to save a human life, because every beloved son and daughter of a human person, from the moment of conception, possessing equal Human Dignity, is therefore equal before the Law AND:

The proper balance of FURIN and HEPCIDIN, is necessary for maintaining the proper balance of IRON, which is necessary for maintaining health and fighting disease.

Godspeed to all who travel here🙏💕🌷

Posted by: N.D. | Dec 1, 2022 8:37:24 AM

: "...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”-

Because “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UN alienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit Of Happiness...”

And because these Rights, are grounded in the inherent equal Dignity of every beloved son or daughter of a human person, from the moment of creation, at our conception, and are Endowed to us from God, we can know through both Faith and reason, that these Rights cannot be relinquished without Due Process Of Law.

The relationship of the Government to The People, is The Government has a fiduciary duty to secure and protect our inherent Right to Life, the securing and protecting upon which our inherent Right to Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness depends, and because human life is Sacred, protect us from harm.

Furthermore, in regards to Constitutional Law and our inherent Right to Life:

Mandating a “vaccine”, that does not provide immunity from disease, or stop the spread of the disease, has not been adequately tested to determine both the short term and long term effects on targeting the spike protein of COVID 19, which includes the addition of a FURIN receptor, cannot possibly be necessary or proper, and does not pass the Law Of General Applicability Test because FURIN levels and thus Hepcidin levels can differ among human persons.
“Even if selective inhibition of individual PCSKs can be achieved, systemic long‐term inhibition will most likely have detrimental effects, as PCSKs are required for the activation of hundreds of cellular substrates. Thus, local applications such as targeted treatment of tumors or topical treatment of bacterial and viral infections may be more feasible than systemic therapy. Finally, the ability of tumor cells or pathogens to evolve resistance or evasion mutations remains poorly investigated. For example, several substrates such as dengue virus prM harbour suboptimal furin target sequences and may optimise their cleavage sites upon therapy to enable sufficient cleavage in the presence of inhibitors.”
See -Therapeutic inhibition of FURIN

These vaccines were created to provide systemic long term inhibition, not short term.

How could it be Constitutional to mandate an injection that does not provide immunity from COVID 19, or stop the spread of COVID 19, and there has not been any risk/ benefit assessment done to determine the long or short term possible harm to those most susceptible, nor is there any liability protection. For these reasons, it is not possible for anyone to provide informed consent. They simply do not know what exactly they are consenting to in regards to this experimental injection.

Speech that is not grounded in Truth, can have harmful consequences.

Why then, the push to continue to mandate these injections and boosters while any scientific evidence that may provide an explanation as to why a risk/benefit analysis must be done, is being censored and Medical experts are losing their jobs, along with a multitude of persons who could not, in good conscience, submit to these injections?

Some scientific information that would be helpful to know while performing a risk/benefit analysis of COVID 19 vaccines.

Hepcidin and the spike protein :






Information on EC - Furin and Organism(s) Homo sapiens - BRENDA Enzyme Database (V.bats, which are obviously not human persons) :


Iron dyshomeostasis and ferroptosis in Alzheimer's disease: Molecular mechanisms of cell death and novel therapeutic drugs and targets for AD. - Abstract - Europe PMC:


Furin inhibits epithelial cell injury and alleviates experimental colitis by activating the Nrf2-Gpx4 signaling pathway - PubMed:


NRF2 and BACH1 inhibit and promote ferroptosis, respectively, by activating or suppressing the expression of genes in the major regulatory pathways of ferroptosis: intracellular labile iron metabolism, the GSH (glutathione) -GPX4 (glutathione peroxidase 4) pathway and the FSP1 (ferroptosis suppressor protein 1)-CoQ ( ...Feb 2, 2022
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › ...
Ferroptosis: regulation by competition between NRF2 and BACH1 and propagation of the death signal - PubMed

Frontiers | The role of B cells in COVID-19 infection and vaccination:


Furin inhibits epithelial cell injury and alleviates experimental colitis by activating the Nrf2-Gpx4 signaling pathway - PubMed: 🙏🌷💕


NRF2 plays a critical role in mitigating lipid peroxidation and ferroptosis - ScienceDirect:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213231718310267 (Newman Pic?)


Posted by: N.D. | Nov 28, 2022 1:46:36 PM

On the general topic of teaching Constitutional Law, it has become increasingly important to teach and to stress that there is no exception to the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment - which is binding on state schools - for speech which may be racist, sexist, antisemitic, misogynist, homophobic, or otherwise objectionable.

There are far too many students, and unfortunately even some professors, who do not understand this - and some even claim that violence directed against the expression of certain objectionable statements is protected as “speech.”

Posted by: LawProf John Banzhaf | Sep 2, 2022 3:56:24 PM

“Some people cite Wycliffe for the formulation but several sources have searched the supposed source (his Prologue to the Bible) and found nothing to support the claim.”

Perhaps they did not look here:



“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..”


1. based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

Posted by: N.D. | Aug 27, 2022 11:36:51 PM

Some people cite Wycliffe for the formulation but several sources have searched the supposed source (his Prologue to the Bible) and found nothing to support the claim. (Bartlett's formerly cited this source but apparently no longer cites it.)

In a 1858 sermon Rev. Theodore Parker declared, "“Democracy is direct self-government, over all the people, by all the people, for all the people.” We have reason to suspect that Lincoln was given a collection of Parker's sermons by his law partner Herndon.

Posted by: anon | Aug 27, 2022 1:59:10 PM

There's a medieval candidate "source" for the of, by, for formula, though it's perhaps doubtful that Marshall or Lincoln accessed the primary source directly.

Posted by: Anon | Aug 26, 2022 8:13:00 PM


Republicans followed Chief Justice Marshall regarding "necessary and proper" use of national power. And, Justice Washington's well known circuit opinion greatly influenced their view of privileges and immunities.

So, it would be logical that there was some overlap here. The direct influence would be something to look into. It might be that Marshall's Federalist/nationalist vision was part of an overall ethos that continued into Lincoln's Whig/Republican ideals.

Posted by: Joe | Aug 26, 2022 11:19:38 AM

Although, “-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”

If the governed decide these inherent Unalienable Rights are no longer Endowed to us from Nature’s God, with the Capital G, our inherent Unalienable Rights, are no longer, in essence, Unalienable, and anything can become permissible, including the destruction of an innocent beloved son or daughter residing in their mother’s womb, and our Constitution is, in essence, no longer Constitutional, for it does not serve for the posterity or the prosperity of this Nation or the World.

Posted by: N.D. | Aug 26, 2022 10:51:07 AM


It is likely that both John Marshall and Abraham Lincoln were were influenced by the preamble to the preamble of The Constitution Of The United States Of America, The Spirit of our Constitution, The Declaration Of Independence.


"let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited but consist with the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.
In McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819),

“Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”

“[The prosperity of the United States] is not the result of accident. It has a philosophic cause. Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained the result.”

“I am exceedingly anxious that this Union, the Constitution, and the liberties of the people shall be perpetuated in accordance with the original idea for which that struggle was made.”


“Here Marshall anticipated his argument in the McCulloch v. Maryland opinion, some thirty years later, in which he held that in both ratifying the constitutions of the states and the Constitution of the United States, the people and not the governments were sovereign, under the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”


Posted by: N.D. | Aug 26, 2022 10:25:29 AM

Akhil Amar pointed this out in something that he wrote, I think

Posted by: Gerard | Aug 26, 2022 9:19:54 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.