Journal Title

Tulane Law Review





First Page


Document Type


Publication Information



Section 26 of the Nebraska Constitution, much like everything affirmative that humans do, is immediately flawed. The flaw sits literally right below this heartfelt declaration of the people’s sovereignty, in an annotation provided for section 26 in the Revised Statutes of Nebraska. This annotation cites State v. Moores, but recites also that the case was overruled, which is wrong for a number of reasons. First, not only does this conflict with other annotations to the same Bill of Rights citing the very same case, but it also ignores the inadequacy of the supposed “overruling” and the existence of an explicit rehabilitation of that which was never adequately overruled initially. The annotation, by being structured to include the faulty overruling, sets subtext against its primary text, against other text, and against other subtext. Therefore, to set right this incoherence and discordance, the slandered case of State v. Moores and the story behind this paradoxical annotation must be explained.

Recommended Citation

Emily Fowler Hartigan, Derridoz Law Written in Our Heart/Land: “The Powers Retained by the People,” 67 Tul. L. Rev. 1133 (1993).

Included in

Law Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.