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