| Please see U.S. v. Miller, 1939 on
Gun Laws Page
This one, Silveira, is very current. The text is
monumental. The SCOTUS may eventually hear it."The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one
designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other
rights have failed, where the government refuses to stand for
re-election and silences those who protest, where courts have lost the
courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees."
9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, May 6, 2003 Silveira v. Lockyer, 01-15098
"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according
to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is
abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are
allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a
Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who
for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution
is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean."
Dred Scott
v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857)
The
right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or
the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State
government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to
the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of
government. 'A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair
it, because it is above the law, and independent of the
lawmaking power."
[Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex.394, at 401-402 (1859)]
For, in principle,
there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of
concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed;
and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the
right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and
complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if
any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part
may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is
equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs.
Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251
(1822)
"All laws, rules and
practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void"
Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180
An ordinance
which... 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. 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. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM AL
"The income tax system is a self-reporting and self-assessing one. It is
based upon voluntary assessment and payment not distraint"
Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 176
"Doubt relative to statutory construction should be resolved in favor of
the individual, not the government"
Greyhound Corp. v. United States, 495 F2d 863
"The legal right of an individual to decrease or altogether avoid
his/her taxes by means which the law permits cannot be doubted"
Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465
"Congress cannot by any definition (of income in this case) it may
adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the
Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and
within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully expressed."
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189
"In construing federal revenue statute, Supreme Court gives no weight to
Treasury regulation which attempts to add to statute something which is
not there."
United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351 (1957), 1 L. Ed. 2d 1394, 77
S. Ct. 1138 (1957)
"Treasury regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress"
Blatt Co. v. United States, 59 S. Ct. 472
"The extension of tax by implication is not favored"
Reinecke v. Gardner, 277 U.S. 239
"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional
rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon"
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635
"The 16th Amendment does not justify the taxation of persons or things
previously immune. It was intended only to remove all occasions for any
apportionment of income taxes among the states. It does not authorize a
tax on a salary"
Evans V. Gore, 253 U.S. 245
A bank has no right to loan the money of
other persons. Grow v. Cockrill, Ark.1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63
Ark. 418.
"In numerous cases where the IRS has sought enforcement of its summons
pursuant to statute, courts have held that a taxpayer may refuse
production of personal books and records by assertion of his privilege
against self-incrimination."
Hill v. Philpott, 445 F2d 144, 146
"To penalize the failure to give a statement which is
self-incriminatory, is beyond the power of Congress"
United States v. Lombardo, 228 F. 980,981
"The requirement of an offence committed willfully is not met,
therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision
of this court"
United States v Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 361
"A personal right that is not transferable or assignable is also not
taxable. Damages for alienation of affections, defamation of personal
character do not constitute income"
United States v. Kaiser, 80 S.Ct. 1264
"Income means gains/profit from property severed from capitol, however
invested or employed. Income is not a wage or compensation fro any type
of labor"
Stapler v. United States, 21 F.Supp 737 at 739
"Tax on income derived from property was the equivalent of a direct tax
on the income-producing property itself and must be apportioned in
accordance with provisions of Article I of the Constitution"
Home Mutual Insurance Co v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 639 F2d
333
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them"
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491
"Because Federal courts are limited in jurisdiction, the presumption is
that it is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively
appears."
Grace v. American Central Insurance Co., 109 U.S. 278
"Courts have no power to rewrite legislative enactments to give effect
to their ideas of policy and fitness or the desirability of symmetry in
statutes."
Busse v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 479 F2d 1143
"The Fifth Amendment applies alike to criminal and civil proceedings"
McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34
"If the defendant had a subjective good faith belief, no matter ow
unreasonable, that he was not required to file a tax return, the
government cannot establish that the defendant acted willfully"
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192
"(b) A person may not be compelled to choose between the exercise of a
First Amendment right and participation in an otherwise available public
program. It is true that the Indiana law does not compel a violation of
conscience, but where the state conditions receipt of an important
benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies
such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby
putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and
to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists. While the
compulsion may be indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is
nonetheless substantial"
Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana..., 450 U.S. 107
"The door of the Free Exercise Clause stands tightly closed against any
governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such, Cantwell v.
Connecticut,
310 U.S. 296, 303. Government may neither compel affirmation of a
repugnant belief, Torcaso v. Watkins,
367 U.S. 488; nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or
groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities,
Fowler v. Rhode Island,
345 U.S. 67; nor employ the taxing power to inhibit the
dissemination of particular religious views, Murdock v. Pennsylvania,
319 U.S. 105; Follett v. McCormick,
321 U.S. 573; cf. Grosjean v. American Press Co.,
297 U.S. 233. On the other hand,
[374 U.S. 398, 403] the Court has rejected
challenges under the Free Exercise Clause to governmental regulation of
certain overt acts prompted by religious beliefs or principles, for
"even when the action is in accord with one's religious convictions,
[it] is not totally free from legislative restrictions." Braunfeld v.
Brown,
329 U.S. 14.
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398
"It is too late in the day to doubt that the liberties of religion and
expression may be infringed by the denial of or placing of conditions
upon a benefit or privilege. 6 American [374 U.S. 398, 405]
Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 390;
Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183,191-192;
Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U.S. 146, 155-156. For example, in
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 611, the Court recognized with
respect to Federal Social Security benefits that "[t]he interest of a
covered employee under the Act is of sufficient substance to fall within
the protection from arbitrary governmental action afforded by the Due
Process Clause." In
Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, we emphasized that conditions upon
public benefits cannot be sustained if they so operate, whatever their
purpose, as to inhibit or deter the exercise of First Amendment
freedoms."
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398
"Certain aspects of religious exercise cannot, in any way, be restricted
or burdened by either federal or state legislation. Compulsion by law of
the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship is
strictly forbidden. The freedom to hold religious beliefs and opinions
is absolute.
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303;
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166."
Braunfeld v Brown, 366 U.S. 599
"For religious freedom - the freedom to believe and to practice strange
and, it may be, foreign creeds - has classically been one of the highest
values of our society. See, e. g.,
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 115 (1943);
Jones v. City of Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 (1943);
Martin v.City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943);
Follett v. Town of McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 (1944);
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 510 (1946). Even the most
concentrated and fully articulated attack on this high standard has
seemingly admitted its validity in principle, while
[366 U.S. 599, 613] deploring some incidental phraseology. See
Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 89, 95-96 (1949) (concurring
opinion); but cf.
Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956). The honored place of
religious freedom in our constitutional hierarchy, suggested long ago by
the argument of counsel in Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the City of
New Orleans, 3 How. 589, 600 (1845), and foreshadowed by a prescient
footnote in
United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938),
must now be taken to be settled"
Braunfeld v Brown, 366 U.S. 599
"We conclude then that government regulation that indirectly and
incidentally calls for a choice between securing a governmental benefit
and adherence to religious beliefs is wholly different from governmental
action or legislation that criminalizes religiously inspired activity or
inescapably compels conduct that some find objectionable for religious
reasons. Although the denial of government benefits over religious
objection can raise serious Free Exercise problems, these two very
different forms of government action are not governed by the same
constitutional standard. A governmental burden on religious liberty is
not insulated from review simply because it is indirect,
Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S.
707, 717-718 (1981) (citing
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, at 404);
[476 U.S. 693, 707] but the nature of the burden is relevant to the
standard the government must meet to justify the burden."
Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693
"Where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct
proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit
because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting
substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to
violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists."
Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707,
717-718 (1981)
"The federal government has nothing approaching a police power"
United States v. Lopez
"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the
intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that 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
"Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of
jurisdiction from the states over places where the federal government
shall establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these
places, or in territories of the United States, where it can exercise a
general jurisdiction"
[New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662 (1836)]
"All legislation is prima facie territorial"
[American Banana Co. v. U.S. Fruit, 213, U.S. 347 at 357-358]
"There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress
that, unless a contrary intent appears [legislation] is meant to apply
only within territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
[U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222]
"the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction,
or right of soil in Alabama or any of the new states which were formed
... The United States has no Constitutional capacity to exercise
municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty or eminent domain, within the limits
of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly
granted ..."
[Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S.C. 212, 221, 223]
"... the states are separate sovereigns with respect to the federal
government"
[Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82]
"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction"
[Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct.768]
"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be ‘assumed’, it must be proved to
exist."
[Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751.211 P2s 389]
"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
[Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250]
"... Federal jurisdiction cannot be assumed, but must be clearly shown."
[Brooks v. Yawkey, 200 F. 2d 633]
"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the
administrative agency and all administrative proceedings"
[Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528]
"If any tribunal finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over person and
subject matter, the case must be dismissed."
[Louisville R.R. v. Motley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S. Ct. 42]
Other cases also such as McNutt v. G.M., 56 S. Ct. 789,80 L. Ed. 1135,
Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272, Basso v. U.P.L., 495 F
2d. 906, Thomson v. Gaskiel, 62 S. Ct. 673, 83 L. Ed. 111, and
Albrecht v U.S., 273 U.S. 1, also all confirm, that, when
challenged, jurisdiction must be documented, shown, and proven, to
lawfully exist before a cause may lawfully proceed in the courts.
"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials
shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the
citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be
imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously".
[...Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or
for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example...]
Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds
contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it
invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal
law, the end justifies the means -- to declare that the Government may
commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal --
would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this
Court should resolutely set its face.
[Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)]
|