I have at times previously posted these same cases, but due to the dangerous political climate in the United States, those who believe in the Constitution's Bill of Rights as Rights that cannot or must not be taken or given away must be able to verbally counter and correct the Obama zealots at every turn with a legal denial of their claim of authority to subvert the Constitution and play GOD in the lives of others under color of authority. I have shared these cases in whole or in part where I thought they would be both receptive and effectively shared. I post them here, and will also send a copy of them to my Congressman to cite. Those who are U.S. Citizens, please copy and share, and proclaim. Thank you kindly. -- Brianroy
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)@ 180
"... in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned,
and not the laws of the United States generally,
but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution,
have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle,
supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions,
that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts,
as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ 491
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them."
Ex Parte Milligan , 71 U. S. 2 (1866) @121
“…the President…is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, the laws;
and there is "no unwritten criminal code to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction."
Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1925) @177 (dissent)
“…MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, dissenting.
"… The duty of the President to see that the laws be executed is a duty that does not go beyond the laws or require him to achieve more than Congress sees fit to leave within his power.”
Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879) @376 -377
“An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law.
An offence created by it is not a crime.
A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void,
and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.”
Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U.S. 97 (1887) @101-102
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it binds no one, and protects no one.”
Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 213 (1827) @ 322
"The single question for consideration is whether the act ...is consistent with or repugnant to the Constitution of the United States?"
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) @ 159 - 160
The act to be enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional, and, if it be so...it is simply an illegal act upon the part of a State official in attempting, by the use of the name of the State, to enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If the act which the state [official] ...seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer, in proceeding under such enactment, comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is, in that case, stripped of his official or representative character, and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. See In re Ayers, supra, p. 123 U. S. 507.
Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810) @ 87
“The question whether a law is void for its repugnancy to the Constitution is at all times a question of much delicacy... The Court, when impelled by duty to render such a judgment, would be unworthy of its station could it be unmindful of the solemn obligations which that station imposes. … The opposition between the Constitution and the law should be such that the judge feels a clear and strong conviction of their incompatibility with each other.”
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) @ 495, 528-29
@ 495 “Extraordinary conditions, such as an economic crisis, may call for extraordinary remedies, but they cannot create or enlarge constitutional power.”
@528 “Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. But the argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power. [Case Footnote: See Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 71 U. S. 120, 71 U. S. 121; Home Building &; Loan Assn v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 290 U. S. 426. ]
The Constitution established a national government with powers deemed to be adequate, as they have proved to be both in war and peace, but these powers of the national government are limited by the constitutional grants. Those who act under these grants are not at liberty to transcend the
Page 295 U. S. 529
imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary. Such assertions of extraconstitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment --
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." “
…Second. The question of the delegation of legislative power. We recently had occasion to review the pertinent decisions and the general principles which govern the determination of this question. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U. S. 388. The Constitution provides that
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Art I, § 1. And the Congress is authorized "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" its general powers. Art. I, 8, par. 18. The Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested. “
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) @442
“…an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) @29
“But the Constitution is filled with provisions that grant Congress or the States specific power to legislate in certain areas; these granted powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution.”
Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1885) @ 290
"...the maxim that the King can do no wrong has no place in our system of government, yet it is also true, in respect to the state itself, that whatever wrong is attempted in its name is imputable to its government, and not to the state, for, as it can speak and act only by law, whatever it does say and do must be lawful. That which therefore is unlawful because made so by the supreme law, the Constitution of the United States, is not the word or deed of the state, but is the mere wrong and trespass of those individual persons who falsely speak and act in its name. "
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272
"It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) @ 877
"But "no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution," Almeida-Sanchez, supra at 413 U. S. 272, "
[[[ This also extends to any "end-run" attempt made by Congress in ratifying any Treaty, such as a United Nations Small Arms Treaty with a requirement of localized gun confiscation enforcement that requires gun confiscation of its Citizens that Peace Officers and Sheriffs might someday be told they HAVE to enforce. Regarding Treaties signed and ratified, these too MUST NOT VIOLATE the Constitution of the United States and especially the Bill of Rights Amendments. To that effect, I also continue with these cases to cite in resistance. -- Brian ]]]
Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 Howard) 635 (1853) @ 657
"By the Constitution of the United States, the President has the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. ... And the Constitution declares that all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. The treaty is therefore a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions unless they violate the Constitution of the United States."
The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wallace) 616 (1870) @ 620
"The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States declares that
"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."
It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument."
Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890) @ 267
"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the states.
It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the states, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent." [Case citations omitted]
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) @ 701
". as will appear by tracing the history of the statutes, treaties and decisions upon that subject -- always bearing in mind that statutes enacted by Congress, as well as treaties made by the President and Senate, must yield to the paramount and supreme law of the Constitution."
State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) @432-433
@ 432 "It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power, and that one such limit is that what an act of Congress could not do unaided, in derogation of the powers reserved to the States, a treaty cannot do.”
@ 433 “Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution...."
Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (1924) @ 341
"A treaty 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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Constitution, Art. VI, § 2.
The treaty-making power of the United States is not limited by any express provision of the Constitution, and, though it does not extend "so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids..." [Case citations omitted]
United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181 (1926) @ 208
"The decisions of this Court generally have regarded treaties as on much the same plane as acts of Congress, and as usually subject to the general limitations in the Constitution.."
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1956)@ 17
"This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."