Copy this for your records (I know not how long they will allow this to be posted) If they have ruled that giving money is freedom of speech. then I would uphold that not giving money is also freedom of speech. Protected under the 1st amendment for freedom of speech and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. So then If I do not pay Obamacare I am exercising a constitutional right, and you cannot be punished for exercising a constitutional right. U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Section 1, Clause 2 -- Supremacy Clause: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Section 1, Clause 3 -- Judges bound: and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Section 1, Clause 5 -- Oath of Office: 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; U.S. Constitution, Amendment 5, Clause 7 -- Due Process Clause: nor be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property, without due Process of Law; U.S. Constitution, Amendment 9: The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People. U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1, Clause 3 -- Due Process Clause: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; DUE PROCESS The essential elements of due process of law are...Notice and The Opportunity to defend. Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427. Yet, not one individual has been given notice of the loss of his/her Right, let alone before signing the license (contract). Nor was the Citizen given any opportunity to defend against the loss of his/her right to travel, by automobile, on the highways, in the ordinary course of life and business. This amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of Liberty. There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty... Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31; Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356. SURRENDER OF RIGHTS A Citizen cannot be forced to give up his/her Rights in the name of regulation. ...the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use...; [emphasis added] Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra. If one cannot be placed in a position of being forced to surrender Rights in order to exercise a privilege, how much more must this maxim of law, then, apply when one is simply exercising (putting into use) a Right? To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land. Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15. and... We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another. Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389. Since the state requires that one give up Rights in order to exercise the privilege of driving, the regulation cannot stand under the police power, due process, or regulation, but must be exposed as a statute which is oppressive and one which has been misapplied to deprive the Citizen of Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the state constitutions. TAXING POWER Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe Constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a Right, this would enable the state to destroy Rights guaranteed by the constitution through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the Right to travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legislative object of the state taxation. The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the Supreme Court. The Right of the state to impede or embarrass the Constitutional operation of the U.S. Government or the Rights which the Citizen holds under it, has been uniformly denied. McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and if the state is given the power to destroy Rights through taxation, the framers of the Constitution wrote that document in vain. ...It may be said that a tax of one dollar for passing through the state cannot sensibly affect any function of government or deprive a Citizen of any valuable Right. But if a state can tax...a passenger of one dollar, it can tax him a thousand dollars. Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46. and... If the Right of passing through a state by a Citizen of the United States is one guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be sacred from state taxation. Ibid., p.47. Therefore, the Right of travel must be kept sacred from all forms of state taxation and if this argument is used by the state as a defense of the enforcement of this statute, then this argument also must fail. CONVERSION OF A RIGHT TO A CRIME As previously demonstrated, the Citizen has the Right to travel and to transport his property upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. However, if one exercises this Right to travel (without first giving up the Right and converting that Right into a privilege) the Citizen is by statute, guilty of a crime. This amounts to converting the exercise of a Constitutional Right into a crime. Recall the Miller vs. U.S. and Snerer vs. Cullen quotes from p.5, and, The state cannot diminish Rights of the people. Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516. and... Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda, supra. Indeed, the very purpose for creating the state under the limitations of the Constitution was to protect the Rights of the people from intrusion, particularly by the forces of government. So we can see that any attempt by the legislature to make the act of using the public highways as a matter of Right into a crime, is void upon its face. Any person who claims his Right to travel upon the highways, and so exercises that Right, cannot be tried for a crime of doing so. And yet, this Freeman stands before this court today to answer charges for the crime of exercising his Right to Liberty. As we have already shown, the term drive can only apply to those who are employed in the business of transportation for hire. It has been shown that freedom includes the Citnzens Right to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business without license or regulation by the police powers of the state. CONCLUSION It is the duty of the court to recognize the substance of things and not the mere form. The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty indeed they are under a solemn duty to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purported to have been enacted to protect...the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects or is a palpable invasion of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution. Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661. and... It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616. The courts are duty bound to recognize and stop the stealthy encroachments which have been made upon the Citizens Right to travel and to use the roads to transport his property in the ordinary course of life and business. (Hadfield, supra.) Further, the court must recognize that the Right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a Citizen cannot be deprived without specific cause and without the due process of law guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment. (Kent, supra.) The history of this invasion of the Citizens Right to use the public highways shows clearly that the legislature simply found a heretofore untapped source of revenue, got greedy, and attempted to enforce a statute in an unconstitutional manner upon those Free and Natural individuals who have a Right to travel upon the highways. This was not attempted in an outright action, but in a slow, meticulous, calculated encroachment upon the Citizens Right to travel. This position must be accepted unless the prosecutor can show his authority for the position that the use of the road in the ordinary course of life and business is a privilege. To rule in any other manner, without clear authority for an adverse ruling, will infringe upon fundamental and basic concepts of Constitutional law. This position, that a Right cannot be regulated under any guise, must be accepted without concern for the monetary loss of the state. Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public. Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660. and... Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee. Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018; 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.81. and... Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them. Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526. Therefore, the Courts decision in the instant case must be made without the issue of cost to the state being taken into consideration, as that issue is irrelevant. The state cannot lose money that it never had a right to demand from the Sovereign People. Finally, we come to the issue of public policy. It could be argued that the licensing scheme of all persons is a matter of public policy. However, if this argument is used, it too must fail, as: No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.70. So even public policy cannot abrogate this Citizens Right to travel and to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. Therefore, it must be concluded that: We have repeatedly held that the legislature may regulate the use of the highways for carrying on business for private gain and that such regulation is a valid exercise of the police power. Northern Pacific R.R. Co., supra. and... The act in question is a valid regulation, and as such is binding upon all who use the highway for the purpose of private gain. Ibid. Any other construction of this statute would render it unconstitutional as applied to this Citizen or any Citizen. The Accused therefore moves this court to dismiss the charge against him, with prejudice cnn/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/moneytrail/speech/
Posted on: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 21:46:53 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015