Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 2 P41 pptx

civic activities. She served on the board of
directors of the Brooklyn Home for Aged
Colored People and became a prominent
member of the Brooklyn branch of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (
NAACP). She frequently volunteered her
time for such groups as the Democratic
Women’s Workshop; the League of Women
Voters; and the Bedford-Stuyvesant Political
League, an organization formed to support
black candidates. Her intense participation in
local politics—marked by her forthrightness
and her willingness to confront politicians with
difficult questions about racial equality—made
her unpopular with the predominantly white
Democratic establishment in New York. But it
won her the recognition and respect of her
community which was about 70 percent African
American and Hispanic residents.
So well known was Chisholm in Brooklyn
by 1964 that she could mount a successful
campaign for a seat in the New York State
Assembly despite having no support from the
Democratic establishment. She stressed that
“the people” had asked her to run. As an
assemblywoman from 1964 to 1968, she spear-
headed legislation providing for state-funded
day care centers and for unemployment in-
surance for domestic workers. Of particular
importance to her were bills that she she p-

herded through the Education Committee. One
major accomplishment was a financial aid
program known as Search for Elevation,
Education and Knowledge (SEEK). Passed into
law in 1965, SEEK reached out to students of
color who lacked the necessary academic
requirements to enter state universities by
providing them with scholarships and remedial
training. Other legislative successes boosted
school spending limits and wiped out the
practice of stripping tenure from women
teachers who took maternity leave.
In 1968 Chisholm became the first African
American woman to run for the U.S. Congress.
In her pursuit of the Democratic nomination
for the Twelfth District she bested two other
African American candidates and was appointed
New York’s National Committee representative
at the party’s national convention. She later said
that to win the nomination she had to beat the
political machine, an entrenched
BUREAUCRACY
that had never been fond of her brash style.
With the nomination in hand, she faced her
Republican opponent, James Farber, a liberal
white male who enjoyed national prominence as
a
CIVIL RIGHTS leader. Farber was expected to win,
but on November 5, 1968, by a margin of more
than 2–1, Chisholm staged an upset victory. The

success of her antiestablishment campaign,
which ran under the slogan “Unbought and
Unbossed,” was attributed both to wides pread
support from women and to her ability to
address Puerto Rican voters in Spanish.
From the moment she took her seat in the
House of Representatives, Chisholm demon-
strated the bold iconoclasm that would mark
her career in Washington, D.C. With her, it
would not be politics as usual . Her initial
appointment to a minor subcommittee of the
Agriculture Committee struck her as a waste of
her talents and experience, and, despite warn-
ings that she was endangering her career,
she protested. The House Ways and Means
Committee relented and she was appointed
to Veterans’ Affairs. In her first speech on the
floor of the House she vowed to vote against
all defense spending. She told lawmakers,
“Our children, our jobless men, our depriv ed,
rejected and starving fellows, our dejected
citizens must come first.” In May of 1969 she
gave a speech to the Hous e of Representatives in
which she in troduced the
EQUAL RIGHTS AMEND-
MENT
and pointed out that the bill had been
introduced before every Congress for the
previous 40 years. To those who argued that
women were already protected under the law,

she pointed out that existing laws were inade-
quate and that the majority of women were
concentrated in lower-paying menial jobs. “If
women are already equal”, she asked. “Why is it
such an event whenever one ge ts elected to
Congress?”
Chisholm’s goals as a congresswoman were
twofold. First, when she took office, only nine
of the 435 House members were black, so she
made herself an advocate for African Americans
both in and out of her district. Second, she tried
to advance the goal of racial equality. She
supported programs that provided housing and
education aid to cities, voted to uphold laws
that would end discrimination in federally
funded jobs, and promoted new antidiscrimi-
nation legislation.
ABORTION rights also became a
focal point in her politics. As a state assembly-
woman she had supported bills that would
make it easier for w omen whose lives were
endangered to have abortions, although she had
opposed outright legalization of abortion. But
THE WORD
‘RADICAL,’ PROPERLY
USED
, MEANS GOING
TO THE BASIS OF A
PROBLEM
—THE

WORD COMES FROM
THE
LATIN FOR
‘ROOT’—RATHER
THAN DEALING WITH
ITS MANIFESTATIONS
.
—SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
388 CHISHOLM, SHIRLEY ANITA ST. HILL
in 1968, with a change of heart, she agreed to be
honorary president of the newly formed Na-
tional Association for the Repeal of Abortion
Laws. This would have been a dangerous
position for an established politician, let alone
a newly elected House member.
Independence of thought was Chisholm’s
hallmark, however, and the following year she
crossed party lines to support Republican
mayor John V. Lindsay in the New York
mayoral election. Her decision so outraged her
own party that some members called, unsuc-
cessfully, for her ouster from the Democratic
National Committee. But Chisholm saw the
need for revamping traditional politics, sup-
porting foes if necessary, and creating new bases
of power. In 1971, along with such feminist
leaders as author
GLORIA STEINEM, she helped
found the National Women’s Political Caucus.

Chisholm’s dramatic decision to run for
president in 1972 came in part through her
widely publicized opposition to the
VIETNAM WAR
and the policies of President RICHARD M. NIXON.
While speaking at college campuses she was
frequently asked if she would consider running.
At first doubtful that an African American
woman would stand a chance, she became
encouraged by the growing numbers of blacks
serving in elected office. Initially she received
little support, even within black political circles,
but following an enthusiastic tour of Florid a,
she announced her candidacy on January 25,
1972. During campaign stops she asked voters
to replace entrenched white male leadership
with a new voice: “I am your instrument of
change.… give your votes to me instead of one
of those warmed-over gentlemen who come to
you once every four years.” Criticized for
running a hopeless campaign, she remained
steadfast. “Some people call me a freak for
running for the presidency,” she said, “but I am
very glad to be a freak in order to break down
this domain.”
Despite her popularity with women and
young people, Chisholm’s campaign suffered
from limited finances, internal disarray, and
lukewarm support from black political leaders.
By July 1972 she had 28 delegates, almost half of

what she had hoped to bring to the Democratic
National Convention. Nevertheless, she won
the support of the convention’s black caucus,
and, in a symbolic move,
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY
released his black delegates to vote for her. As
a result, on the first ballot, she received 152
delegates and addressed the convention. But the
number was far too small to stop candidate
George S. McGovern from winning the party’s
nomination.
After the election the trouble that had beset
her campaign continued. A 1973 report by
the government’s
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
recommended that the U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
investigate possible misconduc t in handling
campaign funds but a 1974 investigation found
no evidence of any wrongdoing.
Following her reelection to the House in the
fall of 1972, Chisholm served every two-year
term until 1982. The seniority she earned over
seven terms—she was the only woman on the
House Rules Committee—made her effective in
building coalitions among liberal politicians. In
addition to supporting women’s equality, she
was instrumental in advancing welfare legisla-
tion designed to help poor and needy citizens.
However, the onset of the Reagan era drastically
changed the political landscape in Washington,

D.C., as liberals were swept aside by conserva-
tive challengers. Announcing her retirement on
February 10, 1982, Chisholm cited as her chief
reason the defeat of liberal senators and
representatives, which made it impossible for
the old alliances to work.
Chisholm accepted an invitation to join the
faculty at Mount Holyoke, the United States’
oldest women’s college, where she taught courses
in political science and women’s studies until
1987. She was also a visiting professor at Spelman
CollegeinAtlanta,Georgia.Atonecommence-
ment address she urged new graduates to be
active citizens: “Ask questions and demand
answers. Do not just tend your garden, collect
your paycheck, bolt the door, and deplore what
you see on television. Too many people are doing
that already. Instead, you must live in the
mainstream of your time and of your genera-
tion.” Although she had left Washington, D.C.,
she remained immersed in politics. In 1985, she
became the first president of the newly formed
National Political Congress of Black Women,
which in three years grew from five hundred to
8,500 members. In 1988 she campaigned for
the Reverend
JESSE JACKSON, who was seeking the
Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.
Using her retirement to give speeches and
commencement addresses on vital issues,

Chisholm continued to inspire the public
imagination. She advocated sex education for
students beginning at the age of seven in order
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
CHISHOLM, SHIRLEY ANITA ST. HILL 389
to combat the “national plague” of teenage
pregnancy. In 1991, calling the small numbers
of African American college professors a crisis
in black education, she warned, “Blacks run the
risk of becoming an intellectual boat people,
just drifting.” Opposing the Persian Gulf War in
1991, she argued that the expense of U.S.
militarism blocked the goals of peace and
equality. “The foundation is being laid for yet
another generation of minority Americans to be
denied the American dream,” she cautioned.
In 1993 Chisholm was nominated to the
position of ambassador to Jamaica but was
prevented from assuming the role because of
poor health. In 1999 she was a commencement
speaker at San Diego State University College of
Health and Human Services, where she received
her 38th honorary degree. Chisholm received
the
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS
(AARP) Andrus Award in May 2000. The award
is given biennially to nationally recognized older
Americans who have made significant contribu-
tions to society. In an interview with AARP’s
news magazine Modern Maturity, the former

congresswoman listed Eleanor Roosevelt, her
grandmother, and Harriet Tubman as her three
greatest influences and stated that race and
poverty were the two major issues that still
needed to be addressed in modern America.
Chisholm died in Florida in January of
2005. Chisholm’s primary legacy is as a political
pioneer among African American women, 23 of
whom had followed her into Congress by 2006.
FURTHER READINGS
Brownmiller, Susan. 1970. Shirley Chisholm. New York:
Doubleday.
Chisholm, Shirley. 2000. “The Straight-Talking Optimist.”
Interview by Mary Willis. Modern Maturity (May/June).
Marshall-White, Eleanor. 1991. Women: Catalysts for Change:
Interpretive Biographies of Shirley St. Hill Chisholm, Sandra
Doy O’Connor, and Nancy Landon Kassebaum. New York:
Vantoge Press.
Scheader, Catherine. 1990. Shirley Chisholm: Teacher and
Congresswoman. Springfield, N.J.: Enslow.
CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA
An early U.S. Supreme Court case holding that
Article III of the federal Constitution gives the
Court original jurisdiction over lawsuits be-
tween a state government and the citizens of
another state, even if the state being sued does
not consent. The decision generated immediate
opposition from 12 states and led to the
ratification of the Eleventh Amendment, which
gives states sovereign immunity from being

sued in federal court by citizens of other states
without the consent of the state being sued.
In 1777, Robert Farquhar, a Charleston,
South Carolina, merchant, sold goods to the
Georgia army for use in the Revolutionary
War. The next year Farquhar died, and in
1791, his executor, Alexander Chisholm,
broughtsuittocollectthedebtintheU.S.
CIRCUIT COURT for the District of Georgia.
Plaintiffs sought 100,000 pounds in sterling
silver for p ayment of the debt plus interest.
Notably, Associate J ustice
JAMES IREDELL,who
later filed the famous dissenting opinion in the
U.S. Supreme Court’s d ecision in Chisholm v.
Georgia, heard the arguments at the district
court level while discharging his duties as a
traveling circuit judge (in the early days of the
U.S. Supreme Court, justices performed the
double duty of deciding cases for the nation’s
highest court and riding circuit to hear cases in
the particular jurisdictions they were assigned).
In his opinion for the ci rcuit court, Iredell
dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. If any
court had jurisdiction over the dispute, Iredell
said, it was the U.S. Supreme Court because
Article III of the federal Constitution gave only
the Supreme Court
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION over all
cases in which a state is named as a party. “It

may fairly be presumed,” Iredell wrote for the
circuit court, “that the several States thought it
important to stipulate that so awful and
important a Trial [to which a State is party]
should not be
COGNIZABLE by any Court but
the Supreme.” Iredell’s conclusion was not
challenged when the Supreme Court heard
Chisholm under its original jurisdiction.
One reason Iredell’s lower court decision
was not challenged in the Supreme Court is that
Georgia would likely have been the only party
objecting to it, and Georgia refused to appear
before the natio n’s high court after Chisholm
refiled his lawsuit there. Georgia feared that by
making an appearance at trial, the Supreme
Court would deem that appearance consent to
the Court’s jurisdiction over the dispute,
something Georgia denied the Court had power
to exercise. Nonetheless, in public pronounce-
ments the Georgia governor made clear that he
believed the Court had no jurisd iction because
the state had not consented to the suit in its
capacity as an independent and sovereign
government. Without such consent , the Georgia
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
390 CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA
legislature contended, the states are immune
from being sued in federal court, and Article III
did nothing to abrogate this

IMMUNITY.
At oral argument, the Supreme Court thus
heard only from Chisholm’s attorney,
EDMUND
RANDOLPH
. According to Caleb Nelson in his
article on
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, a courtroom
observer later reported that Georgia “was right
in not appearing to this action,” since Chief
Justice
JOHN JAY “said from the Bench that had
the State pleaded it would have been an
acknowledgement of the jurisdiction of the
Court.” Having heard from only one party to
the dispute, the Supreme Court had no choice
but to enter a
DEFAULT JUDGMENT in Chisholm’s
favor. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 2 Dall.
419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (U.S. 1793).
In a 4–1 decision, the Court issued five
separate opinions. Justices Jay,
JAMES WILSON,
WILLIAM CUSHING, and John Blair Jr. wrote
opinions concurring in judgment, while Justice
Iredell wrote the only disse nt. The four
concurring justices agreed that final
SOVEREIGN-
TY
resided in the people of the United States,

and at least for the purposes of this lawsuit
Georgia was not a sovereign state. Wilson’ s
opinion drew most attention among the
concurring justices because Wilson had been
the delegate who had introduced the Original
Jurisdiction Clause at the Constitutional Con-
vention in Philadelphia. Not surprisingly,
Wilson said it was difficult for him to imagine
words that would “describe, with more precise
accuracy, the cause now [pending] be fore the
tribunal.”
In his dissenting opinion Iredell observed
that through the
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 Congress
had authorized federal courts to issue all writs
“necessary for the exercise of their respective
jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles
and usages of law.” Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20,
§14, 1 Stat. 73, 81-82. Iredell interpreted
“principles and usages of law ” to mean the
COMMON LAW of the several states, which Iredell
said embodied the common law as it existed in
England when Amer ica was first settled. Under
the English common law, the British Crown was
sovereign and could not be sued without its
consent. Iredell then concluded that the states
enjoyed the same sovereign immunity as the
English King at the time of the American
settlement. Article III did not alter the states’
immunity from being sued without their

consent, Iredell continued, and “even if the
Constitution would admit of the exercise of
such a power, a new law is necessary for the
purpose, since no part of the existing law
applies, this alone is sufficient to justify my
determination in the present case.”
The states’ reaction to the majority’s deci-
sion in Chisholm was fast and furious. Each state
understood the implications of being forced to
pay Revolutionary War debt at a time when the
state treasuries were struggling to avoid
INSOL-
VENCY
. The Massachusetts legislature led the
way. In a resolution that was circulated to the
other states, it condemned “a power … of
compelling a State to be made
DEFENDANT in any
Court of the United States, at the suit of an
individual.” The resolution instructed the state’s
lawmakers “to obtain such amendments in the
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES as will remove
any clause or article of the said Constitution
which can be construed to imply or justify a
decision that a State is compellable to answer in
any suit by an individual or individuals in any
Court of the United States.” Other states quickly
followed suit.
Congress responded to this groundswell of
stateactivitybydraftingthe

ELEVENTH AMEND-
MENT
.Itprovidesthat“[t]he Judicial power of
the United States shall not be construed to
extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced
or prosecuted against one of the United States
by Citizens of another State …” In short, the
Eleventh Amendment sought to guarantee
states sovereign immunity from being sued in
federal court without their consent, the very
right denied to them in Chisholm. By 1798 the
requisite 12 states had ratified the amendment.
New Jersey and Pennsylvania refused to ratify,
while Tennessee and South Carolina took no
action.
Chisholm v. Georgia is considered the first
great case decided by the U.S. Supre me Court.
The case forced the Court to grapple with
contentious debates over
FEDERALISM or the
proper balance of power between the state and
federal governments. It was heard by justices
who not only partic ipated in the Constitutional
Convention, but by the one justice who had
actually drafted the very constitutional provi-
sion being scrutinized. Finally, Chisholm v.
Georgia is the first Supreme Court case that
was superseded by a
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION

CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA 391
FURTHER READINGS
Lee, Thomas H. 2002. “Making Sense of the Eleventh
Amendment: International Law and State Sovereig-
nity.” Northwestern Univ. Law Review 96 (spring).
Meyler, Joan. 2001. “A Matter of Misinterpretation, State
Sovereign Immunity, and Eleventh Amendment Jur-
ispurdence: The Supreme Court’s Reformation of the
Constitution in Seminole Tribe and Its Progeny.”
Howard Law Journal 45 (fall).
Nelson, Caleb. 2002. “Sovereign Immunity as a Doctrine of
Personal Jurisdiction.” Harvard Law Review 115 (April).
Pfander, James E. 1998. “History and State Suability: An
‘Explanatory’ Account of the Eleventh Amendment.”
Cornell Law Review 83 (July).
Strasser, Mark. 2001. “Chisholm, the Eleventh Amendment,
and Sovereign Immunity: On Alden’s Return to
Confederation Principles.” Florida State Univ. Law
Review 28 (spring).
CROSS REFERENCES
Eleventh Amendment; Federalism; Sovereign Immunity.
CHOATE
Perfected, complete, or certain.
A choate right is an undefeatable right that is
totally valid and cannot be subsequently
lessened or altered by later claims. If someone
purchases a plot of land totally free from
encumbrances, that person has a choate prop-
erty interest in the land.
A choate

LIEN is one to which nothing further
must be done to make it enforceable. Elements
such as the identity of the lienor and the property
that is subject to the lien are established; thus, the
lien is certain and definite.
INCHOATE, the opposite of choate, is the more
commonly used phrase. It means unfinished or
incomplete and is used to describe a number of
things such as liens, rights, crimes, or interests.
For example the term inchoate
BATTERY can be
used to describe an ASSAULT.
v
CHOATE, JOSEPH HODGES
Joseph Hodges Choate was a popular lawyer in
New York in the late 1800s. Choate distin-
guished hims elf by his exceptional career before
the bar, his accomplishments as ambassador to
the Court of St. James’s (an ambassador to
England), his dedication to public service , and
his sharp wit and clever after-dinner speeches.
Choate was born January 24, 1832, in
Salem, Massachusetts, the fifth of six children
and the youngest of four boys in a family with
an established heritage. His father, Dr. George
Choate, was a graduate of Harvard University
and Harvard Medical School and was one of
Salem’s most distinguished physicians. Choate
was also the cousin of Congressman
RUFUS

CHOATE
, who was just beginning his second term
when Choate was born.
Continuing the family tradition, Choate
attended Harvard with his three brothers. He
went on to Harvard Law School, graduating in
1855. Choate then left New England to pursue a
career in New York. With the help of a letter
from Rufus Choate to
WILLIAM M. EVARTS (who
would become
SECRETARY OF STATE for President
RUTHERFORD B. HAYES from 1877 to 1881), Choate
joined the law office of Butler, Evarts, and
Southmayd.
Choate’s skills as an orator made him a
formidable litigator. He appeared in hundreds
of cases covering a wide range of controversies.
One of the most notorious of these cases was
the prosecution of William Marcy (“Boss”)
Tweed. Tweed, elected to the New York State
Joseph Hodges Choate 1832–1917
❖
❖
◆
1832 Born,
Salem, Mass.
◆
1855 Graduated from
Harvard Law School

1890 Served on
Commission on
revision of
judicial system in
New York state
1869 Helped found the
American Museum of
Natural History in
New York City
1917 Died,
New York City
1861–65
U.S. Civil War
◆
◆
◆
1895 Won a constitutional challenge
to the Income Tax Act of 1894 in
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
1873 William "Boss"
Tweed convicted
1914–18
World War I
◆
◆
◆
◆
1903 Panama Canal
Treaty signed
1907 Headed U.S. delegation to

the International Peace
Conference in The Hague
▼▼
▼▼
18751875
19001900
19251925
18251825
18501850
1871 Called for the Committee of Seventy
to investigate Tammany Hall abuses
1899 Appointed ambassador to England
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
392 CHOATE
Senate in 1868, headed TAMMANY HALL, a corrupt
political organization in New York City that was
controlled by the
DEMOCRATIC PARTY. In 1871
Choate was appointed to the committee that
eventually charged Tweed with embezzling
funds from the city treasury.
Many of Choate’s cases involved matters of
national importance and were appealed to the
U.S. Supreme Court. Choate unsuccessfully
fought Kansas’s liquor
PROHIBITION in Mugler v.
Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 8 S. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205
(1887), and anti-Chinese legislation in Fong v.
United States, 149 U.S. 698, 13 S. Ct. 1016, 37
L. Ed. 905 (1893). He successfully appealed

claims of certain Native Americans that the
government had reneged on a treaty and
deprived them of their land in New York Indians
v. United States, 170 U.S. 1, 18 S. Ct. 531, 42
L. Ed. 927 (1898). In the l andmark case Pollock
v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15
S. Ct. 673, 39 L. Ed. 759 (1895), reh’g granted,
158 U.S. 601, 15 S. Ct. 912, 39 L. Ed. 1108
(1895), overruled by South Carolina v. Baker, 485
U.S. 505, 108 S. Ct. 1355, 99 L. Ed. 2d 592
(1988), Choate won a constitutional challenge
to an
INCOME TAX act of 1894. In his winning
argument, Choate said, “The a ct … is commu-
nistic in its purposes and tendencies, and is
defended here upon principles as communis-
tic, socialistic—what should I call them—
populistic as ever have been addressed to any
political assembly in the world.”
Choate’s prominence as an attorney
attracted the attention of the White House
and in January 1899, President WILLIAM MCKINLEY
appointed Choate ambassador to the Court
of St. James’s, in England. As ambassador
Choate negotiated the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty,
which allowed the U.S. government to build
and operate the Panama Canal. Choate was
also instrumental in gaining an “open door” to
China, and he resolved a controversy over
Samoa with Germany and the United Kingdom.

In 1907 Choate headed the delegation from the
United States at the International Peace Confer-
ence at The Hague.
Choate supported many charitable causes.
He was president of the New York State
Charities Aid Association and of the Association
of the Blind . Choate was a member of the
Provisional Committee of 1869 which was
appointed to establish the Metropolitan Muse-
um of Art. He continued his relationship with
the museum as one of its incorporators and as a
member of the executive committee of the
board of trustees. He was also an incorporator
and officer of the Museum of Natural History.
Choate’s successes were due in part to his
talents as a public speaker. His keen intellect
and engaging speaking style combined with his
sense of humor to captivate audiences. No
lawyer of the New York bar was in as much
demand at public functions. He had speaking
engagements before the New England Society,
the Union League Club, and the Century
Association before and during his presidency
of these societies, at dinners and receptions of
the
BAR ASSOCIATION, and at innumerable philan-
thropic events. Shortly after Choate had passed
his eighty-fifth birthday he was appointed
chairman of a committee of citizens to receive
French and British commissioners on a visit to

the United States. He was in poor health but he
survived long enough to fulfill his dut ies.
Choate died May 14, 1917, in New York City.
Choate once described the path of his career
as follows:
To be a priest … in the temple of justice, to
serve at her altar and aid in her administra-
tion, to maintain and defend those
INALIEN-
ABLE
rights of life, liberty, and property upon
which the safety of society depends, to succor
the oppressed and to defend the innocent, to
Joseph H. Choate.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.
LAW IS THE
EXPRESSION AND THE
PERFECTION OF
COMMON SENSE
.
—JOSEPH CHOATE
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
CHOATE, JOSEPH HODGES 393
maintain constitutional rights against all
violations, … to rescue the scapegoat and
restore him to his proper place in the
world—all this seemed to me to furnish a
field worthy of any man’s ambition.
FURTHER READINGS
Choate, Joseph Hodges. 1998. Arguments and Addresses of

Joseph Hodges Choate. Boston: Gaunt.
Lasson, Kenneth. “Lawyering Askew: Excesses in the Pursuit
of Fees and Justice.” Boston Univ. Law Review 74.
Martin, Edward S. 1921. The Life of Joseph Hodges Choate—
As Gathered Chiefly from His Letters. Vols. 1 and 2.
Provo, UT: Brigham Young.
Simmons, Daniel L. 1987. “The Tax Reform Act of 1986: An
Overview.” Brigham Young Univ. Law Review 1987.
Strong, Theron G. 2008. Joseph Choate: New Englander, New
Yorker, Lawyer, Ambassador. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris
Corp.
v
CHOATE, RUFUS
Rufus Choate was born October 1, 1799, in
Ipswich, Massachusetts. He graduated from
Dartmouth College in 1819 and was admitted
to the bar in 1823.
In 1827 Choate served as a member of the
Massachusetts Senate and from 1831 to 1834 he
acted as a representative from Mas sachusetts to
the U.S. House of Representatives. He was
involved in the organization of the
WHIG PARTY in
Massachusetts. He served as U.S. senator from
Massachusetts from 1841 to 1845.
Choate continued his participation in politics
by nominating
DANIEL WEBSTER for the presidency
in 1852 and by attending the Massachusetts
Constitutional Convention in 1853. He is the

author of the Discourse Commemorative of Daniel
Webster. Choate died July 13, 1859, in Halifax,
Nova Scotia.
CHOSE
[French, Thing.] Chattel; item of personal property.
CHOSE IN ACTION
The right to bring a lawsuit to recover chattels,
money, or a debt.
A chose in action is a comprehensive term
used to describe a
PROPERTY RIGHT or the right to
possession of something that can only be
obtained or enforced through legal action. It is
used in contradistinction to chose in possession,
which refers to cases where title to money or
property is in one person but possession is held
by another.
Examples of a chose in action are the right
of an heir to interest in the estate of his or her
DECEDENT; the right to sue for damages for an
injury; and the right of an employee to unpaid
wages.
CHRISTIAN COALITION
The Christian Coalition is a NONPROFIT ORGANI-
ZATION
that serves as a powerful lobby for
politically conservative causes. Under federal tax
law, the organization is permitted to lobby for
political issues but cannot endorse political
candidates. The Christian Coalition has primar-

ily sought the support of born-again evangelical
Christians, but since 1996 it has attempted to
build alliances with Roman Catholics, members
of the Greek Orthodox Church, and Jews.
The Christian Coalition was founded in
1989 by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.
Robertson, who unsuccessfully sought the 1988
REPUBLICAN PARTY presidential nomination, de-
cided to create an organization of evangelical
Christians that would exert influence over the
Rufus Choate 1799–1859
❖
❖
◆
1799 Born, Ipswich, Mass.
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
1808 His father, David Choate, died
1826 Elected to Mass. Senate
1819 Graduated from
Dartmouth College
1823 Admitted to Mass. bar
1831–34
Served in
U.S. House
1855 Injured his leg in accident;

never fully recovered
1859 Already ill, left for Europe;
died, Halifax, Nova Scotia
1861–65
U.S. Civil War
▼▼
▼▼
17751775
18251825
18501850
18751875
18001800
1775–83
American Revolution
1825 Elected to lower house of Mass. General Court
1841–45
Served in
U.S. Senate
1851 Turned down nomination
to U.S. Supreme Court
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
394 CHOATE, RUFUS
party. The coalition’s central goals have been to
gain working control of the Republican Party
through grassroots organizing and to elect
Christian candidates to office. The coalition
soon became a potent political force. By 1997, it
claimed control of several Republican state
central committees and had elected to public
office numerous Christian Coalition members

and other candidates it endorsed. Prior to the
congressional elections of 2002, the Christian
Coalition distributed 70 million voter guides
throughout the 50 states, an effort that has been
credited with helping the Republican Party gain
control of Congress.
The Christian Coalition has focused on
family and moral issues. It strongly opposes
legalized
ABORTION, and in 1998 it began an effort
to require all endorsed Republican candidates to
oppose partial-birth abortions. The coalition has
also campaigned against gay rights, and through
its legal arm, the American Center for Law and
Justice, it has filed many church-state lawsuits.
Robertson, who served as president until
1997 (and hand-picked his replacement,
Roberta Combs), appears on the 700 Club,a
television program that, as of 2008, was watched
by a few million viewers each week. Robertson
has characterized politics as a struggle pitting
militant leftists, secular humanists, and atheists
against conservative, evangelical Christians. The
success of the coalition’s grassroots organizing,
however, can be attributed to Ralph Reed, who
served as executive director until 1997. Reed
encouraged coalition membe rs to run for school
boards, city councils, and legislatures without
revealing their affiliation. This strategy also
proved effective within the Republican Party.

The Christian Coalition has over 1,500
chapters in the United States with over one
million members. The coalition’s staff is head-
quartered in Chesapeake, Virginia; it also main-
tains a legislative office in Washington, D.C.
With a budget in the tens of millions, the
coalition has the resources to mount nationwide
campaigns on
PUBLIC POLICY issues. The organi-
zation also actively lobbies Congress on numer-
ous issues, sponsors grassroots training schools
across the United States, and organizes activists
around the country who are involved in federal
and local politics. Regarding prospective candi-
dates for public offices, the Christian Coalition
of Alabama sued the Alabama Judicial Inquiry
Commission in 2003, after it advised prospec-
tive judicial candidates against responding to a
questionnaire from the coalition regarding their
political positions on various public issues. In
2004 the Eleventh
CIRCUIT COURT of Appeals
dismissed the case as moot, Christian Coalition
of Alabama v. Cole (355 F.3d 1288), following
the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Republi-
can Party of Minnesota v. White (536 U.S. 765),
finding a
FIRST AMENDMENT protection at stake.
Other notable
LITIGATION involving the

coalition includes a decades-old battle with the
IRS for tax-exemp t status (granted in 2005); the
settlement in 2002 of a racial discrimination
lawsuit by ten black employees in the Washing-
ton office; and the Virginia lawsuit of Comb’s
ex-son-in-law, Tracy Ammons, seeking unpaid
compensation (at the rate of $6,000 a month)
for his
LOBBYING work as a coalition official.
Combs had hired both her daughter, Michelle,
and her husband, Tracy Ammons, in high-
paying positions, evoking much criticism for the
nepotism. The nepotism issue came to a head
(with coalition members) after Ammons
DIVORCE papers filed in court revealed that
Combs had filed an
AFFIDAVIT on coalition
letterhead on behalf of Michelle’s claim for
ALIMONY and CHILD SUPPORT.
Other lawsuits for unpaid bills included one
from the coalition’s longtime law firm for
nearly $70,000; one for $87,000 from Global
Direct, a fundraising firm in Oklahoma; and a
2002 bill from a Washington, D.C., moving
Christian Coalition
founder Pat
Robertson (right) and
the group’s former
executive director
Ralph Reed built the

organization into a
powerful political
force whose grassroots
organizing is credited
with helping the
Republicans gain
control of Congress
in 1994.
AP IMAGES
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3
RD E DITION
CHRISTIAN COALITION 395
company. As the coalition’s legal problems and
unpaid bills mounted, both Iowa and Ohio
chapters severed their associations in 2006 and
reorganized independently under new names,
e.g., the Iowa Christian Alliance and Ohio
Christian Alliance.
FURTHER READINGS
American Center for Law and Justice. Available online at
www.aclj.org (accessed June 17, 2003).
Cooperman, Alan and Thomas B. Edsall. 2006. “Christian
Coalition Shrinks as Debt Grows.” Washington Post,
May 1, 2006.
Christian Coalition. Available online at www.cc.org (accessed
June 17, 2003).
Vaughan, Joel D. 2009. The Rise and Fall of the Christian
Coalition: The Inside Story. Eugene, OR: Resource
Publications.
CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY

The Christian Legal Society (CLS), founded in
1961, is a
NONPROFIT organization of lawyers,
judges, law professors, and law students. The
group’s missions are to promote high ethical
standards within the legal profession, to support
its members’ commitment to Christian profes-
sional lives, and to advance religious freedom
for all U.S. citizens regardless of affiliation. CLS
provides resources for research into law and
theology; maintains a data bank of commentar-
ies on legal issues; and provides a speakers’
bureau, a lawyer-referral service, and mediation
and arbitration service s. It also publishes
Christian Legal Society—Briefly, a quarterly
newsletter for its members. Christian Legal
Society—Quarterly, a magazine that covered
issues in line with the society’s goals is no
longer published. CLS’s legal-advocacy arm, the
Center for Law and Religious Freedom, pro-
motes freedom of religion and challenges
government interference w ith the free exercise
of religion.
In 1993 CLS backed passage of the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C.A.
§§ 2000bb, et seq., a response to the 1990 U.S.
Supreme Court decision in Employment Divi-
sion, Department of Human Resources v. Smith,
494 U.S. 872, 110 S. Ct. 1595, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876.
The court in Smith upheld a denial of

unemployment benefits to Native Americans
who had been fired from their jobs for using
peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, as part of a
religious ceremony. CLS and numerous other
groups representing a wide range of religious
and political persuasions lobbied for RFRA,
which requires the government to show a
“compelling state interest,” such as public
health or safety, before interfering with religious
practices.
CLS members successfully argued two
important religious-freedom cases before the
U.S. Supreme Court in 1993. In Zobrest v.
Catalina Foothills School District, 509 U.S. 1, 113
S. Ct. 2462, 125 L. Ed. 2d 1, the court held that
the Establishment Clause did not prohibit a
public school district from paying for a sign
language interpreter for a deaf student who
attended a Catholic high school. In Lamb’s
Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School
District, 508 U.S. 384, 113 S. Ct. 2141, 124 L. Ed.
2d 352, the court held that a school district’s
denial of a religious organization’s application
to use school facilities to show a film on
Christian values in family relationships violated
the church’s
FIRST AMENDMENT right to FREEDOM
OF SPEECH
.
In Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the

University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 115 S. Ct.
2510, 132 L. Ed. 2d 700 (1995), CLS supported
the
PLAINTIFF, who sued the University of
Virginia for denying his request for financial
support for publication of a Christian magazine.
Although the university subsidized a wide range
of publications from its Student Activities Fund
(SAF), it denied Ronald W. Rosenberger’s
request on the grounds that his magazine
violated SAF guidelines. Rosenberger argued
that the guidelines, which prohibited the
university from subsidizing a publication that
“primarily promotes or manifests a particular
belie[f] in or about a deity or an ultimate
reality,” violated his free speech rights. A brief
filed by CLS maintained that the guidelines
discriminated on the basis of religious belief and
that a decision against the plaintiff would be a
step toward “a relentlessly secular society” that
is intolerant of religious persons and their views.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of the
plaintiff but rested its holding on free speech
grounds, stating that the SAF guidelines dis-
criminated on the basis of viewpoint and
violated the plaintiff’s First Amendment right s.
The position taken by CLS in its amicus brief
filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Boy
Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S.
Ct. 2446, 147 L. Ed. 2d 554 (2000) also raised

arguments considered by the high court in its
final ruling. The court held that New Jersey’s
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
396 CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY
public-accommodations law violated the Boy
Scouts’ First Amendment right of association
when the law required the Boy Scouts of
America to admit James Dale, an avowed
homosexual and gay-rights activist, as a member
of its organization. The Boy Scouts, a private,
not-for-profit organization, had asserted that
homosexual conduct was inconsistent with the
values it sought to instill in its members.
In the early part of the 2000s, CLS filed
amicus briefs in numerous cases involving
religious, ethical, or moral issues, including
Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir.
2002)(opposing a challenge to the “under God”
phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance) and Gonzales
v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 126 S.Ct. 904, 163
L.Ed.2d 748 (2006) (holding that federal law did
not authorize the Attorney General to prohibit
doctors from prescribing drugs for use in
physician-assisted suicide). In 2002 CLS also
published a scholarly position paper opposing
human cloning for any purpose. It argued that
the scientific distinction between human repro-
ductive cloning and therapeutic (stem cell)
cloning was specious and not supported by
scientific data, in that both forms of cloning

required killing a living human embryo.
Individual chapters of CLS have been
involved in
LITIGATION during the early 2000s.
In Christian Legal Society v. Walker, 453 F.3d
853 (7th Cir. 2006), the CLS chapter at
Southern Illinois University School of Law
challenged a decision by the school’s adminis-
tration to derecognize the CLS chapter when
CLS refused to admit gay and lesbian members.
After a federal district court denied a motion for
a
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, the Seventh Circuit
reviewed the case and reversed. According to
the court, the school had interfered with the
CLS’ free speech rights.
CLS members are committed to the biblical
INJUNCTION to “not leave justice and the love of
God undone” (Luke 11:42, Matt. 23:23). They
are dedicated to ending injustice, limiting or
eliminating legal
ABORTION, outlawing PORNOGRA-
PHY
, and bringing religious thought and pre-
cepts into public education. They also are
committed to the evangelization of the legal
profession and plan to increase the society’s
membership by 10-12 percent each year.
FURTHER READINGS
Christian Legal Society Website. Available online at http://

www.clsnet.org/ (accessed May 16, 2009).
CHURNING
The practice whereby a broker dealing in securities
abuses the confidence of a client for personal gain
by unnecessarily trading stocks to earn more
commissions.
CIA
See CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.
CIPOLLONE V. LIGGETT GROUP, INC.
See TOBACCO “Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.”
(Sidebar).
CIRCUIT
A territorial or geographical division of a country
or state.
A circuit is the judicial territory over which
a court has the jurisdiction to hear cases.
CIRCUIT COURT
A specific tribunal that possesses the legal authority
tohearcaseswithinitsowngeographical
territory.
A circuit court is ordinarily an inferior trial-
level court; appeals are heard by superior courts
possessing the requisite jurisdiction. The juris-
diction of a circuit court generally extends over
a number of counties or districts wherein the
court sits.
The name circuit court can be traced
historically to the period when a single judge
rode the circuit to hold trials in each county
within the designated territory. In geographical

locations with small populations, this method of
dispensing justice eliminates the expense
of providing every small village with its own
judiciary.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Information and testimony presented by a party in
a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions
that indirectly establish the existence or nonexis-
tence of a fact or event that the party seeks to
prove.
Circumstantial evidence is also known as
INDIRECT EVIDENCE. It is dist inguished from DIRECT
EVIDENCE
, which, if believed, proves the existence
of a particular fact without any inference or
presumption required. Circumstantial eviden ce
relates to a series of facts other than the
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 397