You are on page 1of 7

Constitutional rights vs.

state rights
edited version at the bottom

"The Constitution for these united States is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any law that
is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law and effect from its inception."
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137

1. Do you have a right?


2. If you have a right and it is violated, do the laws of the country afford a remedy?
3. If you have a remedy at law is it a mandamus issuing from this court?
The opinion of the court on all three questions was yes, yes, yes.

"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by Federal
constitution."
at 113, (1943).

"If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right
with impunity."
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule
making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436

"Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it


affords no protection, it creates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as
inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425

Unlawful search and seizure. Rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
Byars v. US, 273 US 28

5th Amendment rights. "...constitutional provisions for the security of person


and property should be liberally construed... It is the duty of the courts to be
watchful for the constitutional rights of citizens, and against any stealthy
encroachment thereon."
Boyd v. US, 116 US 616

Relying on prior decisions of the Supreme Court is a perfect defense against


willfulness.
US v. Bishop, 412 US 346
Officers of the Court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from
liability, for they are deemed to know the law.
Owens v. City of Independence, 445 US 621, 100 S. Ct. 1398
Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 US 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502
Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21

A citizens must be free to travel throughout the United States uninhibited by


statutes, rules or regulation.
Shapiro v. Thompson, 398 US 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322

"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and takes on


the character of a mere private citizen [where private corporate commercial
paper {Federal Reserve Notes} are concerned].... For purposes of suit, such
corporations and individuals are regarded as an entity entirely separate from
government."(Emphasis added)
Clearfield Trust Company v. United States,318 US 363
Bank of United States v. Planters Bank, 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904, 6 L. Ed. 24

Addresses the untaxability of obligations of the United States by or under State


authority, (31 USC 3124, formerly 742) and provides that if any taxing requiring
that either the obligation or the interest thereon, or both, be considered, directly
or indirectly, in the computation of the tax it cannot be taxed by or under State
authority.
Memphis Bank & Trust v. Garner, 459 US 392, 103 S. Ct. 692

"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to
speak or where an inquiry left unanswered is intentionally misleading".
U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297 (1977)

"Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the


existence of facts in question, and the estoppel by misrepresentation. When
silence is of such a character and under such circumstances that it would
become a fraud on the other party to permit the silent party to deny what his
silence has induced the other party to believe and act upon, it will operate as an
estoppel.
Carmine v. Bower, 64 A. 932

"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many


citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are
cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187

"...constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be


liberally construed ... It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the
constitutional rights of citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon."
Boyd v U.S., 116 US 635.
"The right to the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right to acquire and
possess property are fundamental rights of the citizens of the several states and
are not dependent upon the Constitution of the United States or the federal
government for their existence."
Hodges v. U.S., 203 US 1 (1942).

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and
common reason are null and void."
Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldwin. 60 (1830).

"It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than
mere will exerted as an act of power...Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the
injury of the person and property of its subjects is not law."
Hurtado v. Calif., 110 US 515 (1984)

"Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or taken
away."
Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 US 746 (1883).

"Every citizen and freeman is endowed with certain rights and privileges to enjoy
which no written law or statute is required. These are the fundamental or natural
rights, recognized among all free people."
U.S. v. Morris. 125 F 322, 325.

"Consent in law is more than mere formal act of the mind. It is an act unclouded
by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake."
Butler v. Collins, 12 Calif., 157. 463.

"A waiver of constitutional rights in any context must, at the very least, be clear;
contractual language relied upon must on its face amount to a waiver."
Fuentes v. Shevin, 107 US 67 (1983).

"Every consent involves a submission, but it by no means follows that a mere


submission involves consent."
Regina v. Day, 9 Car. & P. 722.

"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived
without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125.

"Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of the
Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his conduct to others,
leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself."
Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.
State police power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health,
and welfare.
Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31, 74 NE 1035;
Cal v. Farley, 98 Cal. 09, 20 CA 3d 1032;
Mich. v. Duke, 266 US 576, 69, 449.)

"A state may impose an excise upon the franchise of corporations engaging in a
business which every private Citizen has a right to engage in freely. The privilege
taxed is the right to engage in such business with the special advantages which
are incident to corporate existence."
California Bank v. San Francisco, 142 Cal. 276, 75 Pac. 832, 100 A.S.R. 130, 64
L.R.A. 918.

"No agreement with a foreign nation and no treaty is free from the restraints of
the Constitution."
Reid v Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

"A failure substantially to comply with the statutory requirements as to the mode
and manner or making the levy invalidates the tax: and there must be strict
compliance with mandatory procedures... No tax can be sustained as valid
unless it is levied in accordance to the letter of the statute."
84 C.J. S. º355, Mass. - Hough v. North Adams 82 N.E. 46, 196 Mass. 290

...........................................................................................................................................

Question: Can the government put restrictions on the rights of the American people at
anytime, for any reason?

Answer: Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:


"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution
or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."

"But wait! There's more!"

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this
Supreme Law:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both
of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution...”

"Ladies and gentlemen! That's STILL not all! There's more!"


"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
Hertado v. California, 110 US 516

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and
common reason are null and void."
Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldwin 60

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be
defeated under the name of local practice."
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no


rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a


crime."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise
of constitutional rights."
Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

"The Constitution for these united States is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any
law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law and effect from its
inception."
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137

"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach
a fee to it."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by Federal
constitution."
at 113, (1943).

"If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right
with impunity."
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262

"Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it


affords no protection, it creates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as
inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425
Unlawful search and seizure. Rights must be interpreted in favor of the
citizen.
Byars v. US, 273 US 28

"...constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be


liberally construed... It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the
constitutional rights of citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon."
Boyd v. US, 116 US 616

Relying on prior decisions of the Supreme Court is a perfect defense against


willfulness.
US v. Bishop, 412 US 346

Officers of the Court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from
liability, for they are deemed to know the law.
Owens v. City of Independence, 445 US 621, 100 S. Ct. 1398
Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 US 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502
Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21

"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many


citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are
cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187

"...constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be


liberally construed ... It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the
constitutional rights of citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon."
Boyd v U.S., 116 US 635.

"The right to the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right to acquire and
possess property are fundamental rights of the citizens of the several states and
are not dependent upon the Constitution of the United States or the federal
government for their existence."
Hodges v. U.S., 203 US 1 (1942).

"It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than
mere will exerted as an act of power...Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the
injury of the person and property of its subjects is not law."
Hurtado v. Calif., 110 US 515 (1984)

"Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or taken
away."
Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 US 746 (1883).

"Every citizen and freeman is endowed with certain rights and privileges to enjoy
which no written law or statute is required. These are the fundamental or natural
rights, recognized among all free people."
U.S. v. Morris. 125 F 322, 325.

"Every consent involves a submission, but it by no means follows that a mere


submission involves consent."
Regina v. Day, 9 Car. & P. 722.

"Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of the
Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his conduct to others,
leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself."
Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.

State police power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health,
and welfare.
Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31, 74 NE 1035;
Cal v. Farley, 98 Cal. 09, 20 CA 3d 1032;
Mich. v. Duke, 266 US 576, 69, 449.)

"No agreement with a foreign nation and no treaty is free from the restraints of
the Constitution."
Reid v Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

===================================================================

Question: Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?

Answer: No. If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places
officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation.
It is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally
protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally
remove a right belonging to the people, being by lawfully amending the constitution, or
by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most
important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is
not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws
– the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the
supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the
U.S. Constitution.

"America can only be considered a sovereign nation if those elected to preserve the
Constitution actually do so with respect to both the Constitution and the people it
serves. When those same elected officials attack and dismember and destroy the
Constitution, not only are they destroying that which legalizes their employment, but it is
clearly an act of treason against ALL Americans. And likewise they must be dealt with
accordingly- as an act of treason." – C. Kem