27 Glen Road, West Lebanon, New Hampshire 03784
United States Constitution Rangers
Supreme Court Decisions to Support Our Freedoms
The following court decisions are just a sampling of the many foundational principles upheld by the courts. They are randomly excerpted below to provide a reference point for further study.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, 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 notwithstanding.” Article VI, Clause 2., Constitution for the United States of America.
“Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.” Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it ;;; No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16 Am Jur 2nd Section 177
“All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489
“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”
“A State [or the United States] may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal Constitution.” Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 at 113 (1943)
“There can be no limitation on the power of the people of the United States; …” Hauenstein v Lynharm, 100 US 483 (1879)
“There is no such thing as power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it; All else is withheld.” Julliard v Greenman, 110 U.S. 421
“A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men and women of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.” Connally v General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385
“In common usage, the term `person’ does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.” United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941); accord, United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 1947). “Particularly is this true where the statute imposes a burden or limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit or advantage. United States v. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 315 (1840).” Wilson v Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979)
“All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process …” Rodriques v Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)
“If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . .” United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136.
“Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.” US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187
“Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading…We cannot condone this shocking conduct…If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately.” US v Tweel, 550 F2d 297, 299-300
“Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 749, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 1469 (1970): See also Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 6 (1966); Empsak v. U.S., 190 (1955); and, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 58 (1938).
“The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of the words and the rules of grammar.” United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95;
“It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official - as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official - is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.” Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322 . And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.” Shuttlesworth v Birmingham (Alabama), 394 U.S. 147 (1969)