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 . Hague ▼▼ ▼▼ 18751875 19001900 1 925 1 925 1 825 1 825 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 3 92. a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA 391 FURTHER READINGS Lee, Thomas H. 20 02. “Making Sense of the Eleventh Amendment: International Law and State. status (granted in 20 05); the settlement in 20 02 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,