Constitutional Rights/State Rights

"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 I have a rights? Yes
2. If I have a right and it is violated, do the laws of the country afford a rem
edy? Yes
3. If you have a remedy at law is it a mandamus issuing from the Supreme court?
Yes
The opinion of the court on all three questions was,
"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 285 "...constitutional provisions for the security of pers
on 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 th
e Supreme Court is a perfect defense against willfulness. US v. Bishop, 412 US 3
46
Officers of the Court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, f
rom liability, for they are deemed to know the law. Owens v. City of Independenc
e, 445 US 621, 100 S. Ct. 1398 Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 US 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502 Haf
er v. Melo, 502 US 21 A citizens must be free to travel throughout the United St
ates uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulation. Shapiro v. Thompson, 398 US 6
18, 89 S. Ct. 1322 "Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporati
on and takes on the character of a mere private citizen [where private corporate
commercial paper {Federal Reserve Notes} are concerned].... For purposes of sui
t, such corporations and individuals are regarded as an entity entirely separate
from government." (Emphasis added) Clearfield Trust Company v. United States, 3
18 US 363, Bank of United States v. Planters Bank, 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904, 6 L. E
d. 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 re
quiring that either the obligation or the interest thereon, or both, be consider
ed, 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 circum
stances that it would become a fraud on the other party to permit the silent par
ty 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 ap
pears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their res
pect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
 rights." (Paraphrased) U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187 "...constitution
al provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally constr
ued ...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 U
S 635.
"The right to the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right to acquire and po
ssess 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 gove
rnment for their existence." Hodges v. U.S., 203 US 1 (1942). "Statutes that vio
late 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, legisl
ative in form, that is law. Law is something more than mere will exerted as an a
ct 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 aw
ay." 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 wr
itten 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." B
utler 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 mus
t on its face amount to a waiver." Fuentes v. Shevin, 107 US 67 (1983). "Every c
onsent 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 depri
ved 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 intelli
gence of the Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his con
duct 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, a
nd 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 e
xcise upon the franchise of corporations engaging in a business which every priv
ate 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 corpo
rate existence." California Bank v. San Francisco, 142 Cal. 276, 75 Pac. 832, 10
0 A.S.R. 130, 64L.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 pro
cedures... 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 peo
ple 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 su
preme 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 wit
hstanding."
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by thi
s Supreme Law: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members
of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, bot
h of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affi
rmation, to support this Constitution...
"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 s
ecured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislat
ion 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 fro
m 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 fo
r 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 a
ct is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protect
ion, it creates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as inoperative as tho
ugh it had never been passed." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425
================================================================================
=
Question: Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?
Answer: No. If you are to follow the letter of the law, (as you are sworn to do)
, this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfav
orable legal situation. It is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive c
itizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates t
hat there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people, b
eing by lawfully amending the constitution, or by a person knowingly waiving a p
articular 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 t
o 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 pa
rticular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, t
here 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 pe
ople it serves. When those same elected officials attack and dismember and destr
oy the Constitution, not only are they destroying that which legalizes their emp
loyment, but it is clearly an act of treason against ALL Americans. And likewise
they must be dealt with accordingly- as an act of treason."