Important Supreme Court Cases
[B]Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803):[/B]
“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”
If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison.
[B]Murdock v. Penn. 319 US 105: (1943)[/B]
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exist independently of the states authority , the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”
[B]Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al. 373 US 262: (1962)[/B]
“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”
[B]United States v. Bishop 412 US 346:[/B]
Sets the standard for criminal violation of Willful Intent
1. It must be proven that you are the party.
2. It must be proven that you had the method or opportunity to do the thing.
3. It must be proven that you did this with a Willful Intent.
Willfulness - “An evil motive or intent to avoid a know duty or task under a law, with a moral certainty.”
“Now since the prosecutor does not have a cause of action for which relief can be granted, your Honor, may it please the court, Counsel is specifically precluded performing his major task, therefore, your Honor, may it please the court, at this time, I would Motion most graciously for a dismissal [with] of Prejudice, for failure to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted by this Honorable Court
and I would like to collect my cost and fees for having to defend this frivolous complaint, Sir, may it please the court.”
[B]Owen v. Independence 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 1398: (1982)
Main v. Thiboutot 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 2502: (1982)[/B]
“The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of law, of a right secured by the constitution and the laws of the United States and comes claims which are based solely on statutory violations of Federal Law and applied to the claim that claimants had been deprived of their rights, in some capacity, to which they were entitled.”
“Officers of the court have no immunity when violating constitutional right, from liability”
(When any public servant violates your rights they do so at their own peril.) Title 18 US Code Sec. 241 & Sec. 242:
“If upon conviction, you are subject to a $10,000.00 fine, ten years in jail, or both, and if theft results, life in prison.”
[B]Bryars v. United States 273USR 28:[/B]
“Constitutional provisions, where the security of a person and property are to be liberally construed, and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the Citizen and against any stealth encroachment therein. When a Federal Officer participates officially with a state official in a search, so that in substance and effect, it is their joint operation, the legality of the search and the use in evidence of the things seized is to be tested in Federal prosecutions as it would be if the undertaking were conclusively the Federal agent.”
[B]Boyd v. United States 116 USR 616:[/B]
“The Court is to protect against encroachment of constitutionality or secured liberty. It is equivalent to a compulsory production of papers, to make the non - production of them a confession of the allegations which is pretended they will prove. The seizure of compensatory production of a man’s private papers to be used in evidence against him is equivalent to compelling him to be a witness against himself, violation of the fifth amendment, and in a prosecution for a crime, penalty or forfeiture is equally within the prohibition of the fifth amendment.”
[B]Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436:[/B]
Where the Miranda warning the police gives at arrest, comes from. Refuse to say anything without a lawyer present. Do not ever sign a statement that you have been told of your rights. Keep your mouth shut!
“In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the fifth amendment privileges must be observed. The person in custody must prior to interrogation be clearly informed that he has a right to remain silent and that anything he says will be used against him in a court of law. He must be clearly informed that he has a right to consult with a lawyer, to have a lawyer with him during interrogation and that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. If the individual indicates prior to and during questioning that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. If he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present. Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional consul right. Where the individual answers some questions during interrogation or cuts the interrogation, he has not waived his privilege and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter. The warnings require that the waver needed our, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent perquisites to the admission or admissibility of any statement, inculpability or exculpability made by the defendant. The limitations on the interrogation presses required for the protection of the individual’s constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference the proper system of law enforcement as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded to other jurisdictions. In each of these cases the statements were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self incrimination.”
“Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule or law making or legislation which would abrogate or abolish them.”
[B]Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425:[/B]
“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed.”
“The court follows the decision of the highest court of the state, in construing the constitution and the laws of the state unless they conflict with or impair the efficacy of some principle of the Federal Constitution or of the Federal Statutes or rule of the commercial or general law. The decision of the state court’s in questions relating to the existence of its subordinate tribunals and eligibility in elections or appointment of their officers and the passage of its laws are conclusive upon Federal Courts. While acts of de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law. An existing or often held to be binding from reasons of public policy. The acts of the person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office, which does not exist, can have no validity whatever in law.”
[B]U.S. (vs) Dougherty 473 F2d 1113 at 1139[/B]
States: "The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge..."
[B]U.S. (vs) Moylan 417 F2d 1002 at 1006[/B]
States: "We recognize, as appellents urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge."
Cohen v. Virginia 6 Wheat 2: (1821)[/B]
States "The Federalist Papers" is the exact intent of the framers of the constitution.