U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

in

The very best way I know of to get an education as to how "the system" really works is to watch five bright minds arguing with four bright minds in a setting where both sides are using all the same quotes, Bible passages, case-law precedents, moral platitudes, and axioms of law to accomplish exact polar moral opposites. Both sides tear great holes in each other's shamanistic webs of deception, and, in so doing, let the Light shine through. Some of these U.S. Supreme Court decisions are still controlling law. Some have been overruled or modified. Some show how society is "evolving" in its opinions. Some are instructive as to certain "doctrines" of law, such as the doctrine of "state secrets." Some are instructive in constitutional concepts such as substantive due process, procedural due process, or equal protection of law.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: I put the links to these cases on my website PURELY for informational, educational and political purposes, NOT to try to engage in any direct or indirect "unauthorized practice" of law. If you don't know how the Supreme Court works, you can't really know how and why it should be changed. Although they act as if they think of themselves as "smarter, wiser, and all around higher form of life than thou" unelected policy-making philosopher kings, the Supremes are supposed to be YOUR employees, and you have an absolute right to this PUBLIC information. Knowledge is power, and an informed citizenry will be able to implement the judicial reform America needs to return to a culture where the U.S. Constitution is seen as a specific-performance contract between rulers and subjects which limits the power of rulers over their subjects, instead of functioning as some kind of stupid "touchy-feely" "living, breathing" document to be interpreted unilaterally at whim by the autonomous legal-profession culture through its hierarchy of unelected policy judges in such ways as to allow the self-anointed establishment elites to more cleverly and efficiently steal the labor (money) of the subject classes. Following is an alphabetical list of some of the most important U.S. Supreme Court cases/decisions which, if studied diligently (by clicking on the links), should give any interested person a fairly extensive education in history and civics.

You may notice the obvious, that I have inserted my personal opinions in my notes and explanations beside some of the cases. That's because, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, I am what is called an "originalist". In other words, the "living breathing Constitution" theory is anathema to me. I consider it evil and a sin because, for the most part, it merely represents the desire of cunning people to steal the labor, money and property of more naive and honest individuals.

Regarding originalism, in a 2008 WSJ article titled "How To Read The Constitution", Clarence Thomas said: "Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial."

In a Washington Times article titled "Scalia jeers fans of ‘living’ charter", Justice Antonin Scalia said, "[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things . . . [Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided] not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court . . . They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable."

In a FoxNews story titled, "Scalia Slams 'Living Constitution' Theory", Scalia said, "If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again... You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility." (NOTE: Obviously, in using the word "flexibility" Scalia was referring to political action, running for office, winning elections, and putting your views into legislation instead of trying to politicize and corrupt the judicial administration of the actual mechanics of the law.)

I completely agree with Justices Thomas and Scalia on the point of so-called "originalism". To paraphrase Scalia, the constitution is not a living organism. It's a legal document. It is a binding two-party contract between so-called "government" and the governed. To me, the contract (the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights) is self-evidently not subject to simply be deliberately misinterpreted unilaterally as a matter of systematic strategy by one of the parties ("government", especially the judicial branch) for the purpose of stealing the labor and property of less cunning individuals (the governed). Hence my personal bias in my notes explaining various decisions.

FindLaw.com - locate Supreme Court decisions

Justia.com - locate Supreme Court decisions

United States Constitution

Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, No. 05-11284 (2007)

Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 Howard) 506 (1858) - Wikipedia

Abrams v. U S , 250 U.S. 616 (1919)

Adair v. U S, 208 U.S. 161 (1908)

Adamson v. People of State of California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947)

Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966)

Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997)

Ahrens v. Clark , 335 U.S. 188 (1948)

Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002)

Alberty v. U.S., 162 U.S. 499 (1896)

Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897)

Alzua v. Johnson, 231 U.S. 106 (1913)

Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. ( 6 Wheaton) 204 (1821)

Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992)

Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997)

Arver v. U.S. , 245 U.S. 366 (1918)

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002)

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)

Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1 (1971)

Baldwin v. Reese 541 U.S. 27 (2004)

Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27 (1884)

Bates v. Clark, 95 U.S. 204 (1877)

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) - "Held: 1. The principle announced in Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, that a State denies a black defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposefully excluded, is reaffirmed."

Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944)

Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550 (1895) - "A man may repel force by force in defense of his person, habitation, or property against anyone or many who manifestly intend and endeavor to commit a known felony by violence or surprise or either. In such case he is not compelled to retreat, but may pursue his adversary until he finds himself out of danger, and if, in the conflict between them he happen to kill him, such killing is justifiable."

Beklnap v. Schild, 161 U.S. 10 (1896)

Bell v. Cone, 535 U. S. 685, 702 (2002)

Bell v. Cone, 543 U.S. ___ (2005) (Docket No. 04-394)

Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946)

Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85 (1974)

Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996) - No. 94-8729, Argued November 29, 1995, Decided March 4, 1996 (1996)

Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (1921) - Regarding the sufficiency of an affidavit seeking to remove a judge from a case for bias.

Berghuis v. Thompkins - 08-1470 (2010) - Regarding the sufficiency of an affidavit seeking to remove a judge from a case for bias.

Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954)

Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) - Wikipedia: "A case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by federal agents. The victim of such a deprivation could sue for the violation of the Amendment itself, despite the lack of any federal statute authorizing such a suit. The existence of a remedy for the violation was implied from the importance of the right violated. Bivens has been subsequently interpreted to create a cause of action against the federal government similar to the one 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates against the states."

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) - 1st Amendment right of access to the courts

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) - Supremes upheld a Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy. - (NOTE: I have always thought this decision was incorrect based on grounds it violates the sacred principle of self-ownership, but that wouldn't stop a scumbag gay sophist from calling me a "hater" simply because I believe "gay marriage" is an oxymoron and an intellectually dishonest agenda-driven propaganda fraud which, because attempts to use political correctness to coerce the speech of others, amounts to a dangerous attack on the very same 1st Amendment which gives gays the right to associate with whom they please.)

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 29 L Ed 2d 746, 6 S Ct 524 (1886) - the great 4th Amendment case, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454 (1960)

Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wallace) 335 (April 8, 1872) - "A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority, but rather he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction." - The first case where the Supremes anointed themselves with absolute judicial immunity from the crimes they use the powers of their office to commit. Ask yourself, "Why doesn't FindLaw have this case?"

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) - The 1st Amendment protects advocating the the violent overthrow of the U.S. government AS A CONCEPT, so long as the speech doesn't present an imminent "clear and present" danger by provoking imminent violent lawless action (e.g. "I've got some explosives, let's round up some of the boys and go blow up Congress tonight at stroke of midnight!")

Branzburg v. Hayes - 408 U.S. 665 (1972) - "The First Amendment does not relieve a newspaper reporter of the obligation that all citizens have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation, and therefore the Amendment does not afford him a constitutional testimonial privilege for an agreement he makes to conceal facts relevant to a grand jury's investigation of a crime or to conceal the criminal conduct of his source or evidence thereof."

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) - This is the great case that overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) and integrated the public schools.

Brown v. State of Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)

Brosseau v. Haugen 543 U. S. ____ - 03-1261 (2004)

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R.Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1915)

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (per curiam)

Bush v. Gore,  531 U.S. 98 (2000) (per curiam)

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884) - "Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property."

Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978)

Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dallas) 386 (1798) - "A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a Judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it"

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310 (1940)

Chisolm v. State of Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dallas) 419 (1793) - This is a great pro-freedom case in which it was held that, pursuant to Article 3, Section 2 a state may be sued in federal court without its consent to the suit. In my opinion, the only dissenting Justice, James Iredell, a one-time employee of the British government, was a dangerous anti-freedom tyrant personality. His dissenting view prevailed in Hans v. State of Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), which I view as a revisionist-history lie. At any rate, negative political response to the Chisolm decision resulted in the 11th Amendment: "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state." Compare for yourself the night-and-day difference between Chief Justice John Jay's pro-freedom majority opinion and James Iredell's pro-tyranny dissenting opinion.

Citizens’ Savings & Loan Ass’n v. City of Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wallace) 655 (1874) - "To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms."

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310, 352 (2010)
City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (1966) - "Held: 1. The individual petitioners had no removal right under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(2), since, as the legislative history of that provision makes clear, that provision applies only in the case of federal officers and persons assisting such officers in performing their duties under a federal law providing for equal civil rights. Pp. 384 U. S. 814-824."

Civil Rights Cases (The), 109 U.S. 3 (1883)
According to Wikipedia: "The Civil Rights Cases, 109 US 3 (1883) were a group of five US Supreme Court constitutional law cases. Against the famous dissent of Justice Harlan, a majority held the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional, because Congress lacked authority to regulate private affairs under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the Thirteenth Amendment "merely abolishes slavery". The Civil Rights Act of 1875 had banned race discrimination in access to services offered to the public. The decision was effectively reversed in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court from 1937, and finally by legislation under the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) - "Held: Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. Pp. 22-26." - Supremes ruled 1st Amendment protects wearing a "Fuck the Draft" T-Shirt in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse.

Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) - Wikipedia on Coleman v. Miller - Wikipedia on "Political Question" - Coleman v. Miller "has been described as the genesis of the so-called 'political question doctrine.'"

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955) - This decision was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren of the infamous Warren Commission which many, if not most, Americans believe played a central role in the coverup of the assassination of JFK with the ridiculous "Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin" and "a magic bullet circled JFK's car three times and then passed through every person in the car twice" theories. Some people are so determined and desperate to worship "government" that they actually swallow this propaganda! And, since Americas judges, taken as a whole, have been PROVABLY lying about the U.S. Constitution and the intent of the Founders since at least 1870, what makes any sane person think Earl Warren has any "ipse dixit" ("because I said so") credibility? Besides, compare Warren's fascistic, neo-feudalistic judicial blather with the fine books (e.g. "A Nation of Sheep") which have been written by another judge, Andrew Napolitano.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923) - Also called "Frothingham v. Mellon and Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)" - Writing for the Court, Justice Alexander George Sutherland said: "We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. That question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act. Then the power exercised is that of ascertaining and declaring the law applicable to the controversy. It amounts to little more than the negative power to disregard an unconstitutional enactment, which otherwise would stand in the way of the enforcement of a legal right. The party who invokes the power must be able to show, not only that the statute is invalid, but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally. If a case for preventive relief be presented, the court enjoins, in effect, not the execution of the statute, but the acts of the official, the statute notwithstanding."

Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)

Couselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 35 L ed 1110, 12 S Ct 195 (1892) - The great 5th Amendment anti-self-incrimination case.

Davis v. United States, 512 U. S. 452 (1994) - A suspect’s Miranda right to counsel must be invoked “unambiguously.”

Debs v. U S , 249 U.S. 211 (1919)

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)

District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290 - Argued March 18, 2008--Decided June 26, 2008 - "HELD: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." - God bless Antonin Scalia!

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 Howard) 393 (1856) - Arguably the most infamous case in U.S. judicial history. The Supremes upheld slavery by usurping the power to define the common usage word "person" to say Americans of African descent were not "persons" for the purposes of the U.S. Constitution. The Supremes never officially overturned the case or repudiated their usurped power. The Civil War and the Civil War Amendments simply rendered the Dred Scott decision moot by legislative amending of the Constitution.

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)

Dynes v. Hoover, 61 U. S. (20 Howard) 65 (1857)

Eaton v. City of Tulsa, 415 U.S. 697 (1974) - "Held: 1. The single isolated usage of street vernacular, not directed at the judge or any officer of the court, cannot constitutionally support the contempt conviction, since, under the circumstances, it did not "constitute an imminent . . . threat to the administration of justice." Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367, 331 U. S. 376."

Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) - The United States Supreme Court rules that a state may not prohibit distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons without violating the "right to privacy."

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

Elliott v. Peirsol, 26 U.S. (1 Peters) 328, 340 (1828) - "Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded as binding in every other court. But if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal, in opposition to them. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers. This distinction runs through all the cases on the subject, and it proves that the jurisdiction of any court exercising authority over a subject may be inquired into in every court when the proceedings of the former are relied on and brought before the latter by the party claiming the benefit of such proceedings."

Elonis v. United States, No. 13–983. Argued December 1, 2014—Decided June 1, 2015

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) - The United States Supreme Court rules that public school teachers are prohibited from opening class with non-sectarian prayers.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) - The United States Supreme Court rules that a state cannot prohibit teaching of evolution in public schools without violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) - The United States Supreme Court rules that the First Amendment requires neutrality towards religion and erects a "high and impregnable ... wall of separation between church and state.

Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75 (1807) - the great habeas corpus case

Ex Parte v. Burford, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 448 (1806) - "By the 6th article of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, it is declared, 'that on warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.' The Judges of this court were unanimously of opinion that the warrant of commitment was illegal for want of stating some good cause certain, supported by oath. "

Ex Parte Dorr, 44 U.S. (3 Howard) 103 (1845)

Ex Parte Fisk, 113 US 713 (1885) - A citizen is under no obligation to obey a jurisdictionless legal-nullity court order. In Colorado, see also Thrap v People, 192 Colo. 341, 558 P2d 576 (Colo, January 10, 1977): "One cannot be convicted of contempt for respectfully declining to comply with an order which is beyond the court's authority." See Annotation, "Right to Punish for Contempt for Failure to Obey Court Order or Decree Either Beyond Power or Jurisdiction of Court or Merely Erroneous", 12 A.L.R.2d 1059, 1067 (1950), and Later Case Service (1997). See also People v. Ellis, 189 Colo. 378, 540 P.2d 1082 (1975), Losavio v. District Court, 182 Colo. 180, 184, 512 P.2d 266, 267 (1973), Pomeranz v. District Court, 74 Colo. 58, 218 P. 742 (1923) (defendant's refusal to obey order to deliver property to receiver not contempt where court had no authority to so order), Arkansas Valley Sugar Beet & Irrigated Land Co. v. Lubers, 72 Colo. 513, 212 P. 848 (1923) (refusal to obey void decree); Newman v. Bullock, 23 Colo. 217, 222, 47 P. 379, 381 (1896) (void decree disobeyed); Smith v. People, 2 Colo. App. 99, 29 P. 924 (1892) (refusal to obey void injunction). See also People v Roberts (Colo Court of Appeals, May 22, 1986). HOWEVER, it is absolutely crucial to understand the difference between "jurisdictionless" (void/without power in the law) and "erroneous" (mistaken/wrong in the law). There is a night-and-day difference between "jurisdictionless/void ab initio" and "erroneous/incorrect". Merely "erroneous" (mistaken/wrong) court decisions/orders must be taken through the normal appellate process (aka "direct appeal" or "writs of error"). Jurisdictionless legal-nullity court orders may be attacked collaterally (aka "collateral appeal") via the great writs (e.g. writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, etc.) Lawyers will not generally explain this stuff to you, and almost no judges will "sua sponte" (of their own volition) explain your rights to you in court. That would defeat the autonomous legal profession culture's blatantly UNconstitutional money-motivated commercial monopoly on access to justice, don't ya know?!

Ex Parte Kearney, 20 U.S. (7 Wheaton) 38 38 (1822)

Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wallace) 163 163 (1873) - "A judgment may be erroneous and not void, and it may be erroneous because it is void. The distinctions between void and merely voidable judgments are very nice [fine - Ed], and they may fall under the one class or the other as they are regarded for different purposes."

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wallace) 2 (1866)

Ex Parte Parks, 93 U.S. 18 (1876) - "The court will look into the proceedings so far as to determine this question. If it finds that the court below has transcended its powers, it will grant the writ and discharge the prisoner, even after judgment. Ex Parte Kearney, 20 U.S. (7 Wheaton) 38 38 (1822); Ex Parte Wells, 59 U.S. (18 Howard) 307 (1855); Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wallace) 163 163 (1873). But if the court had jurisdiction and power to convict and sentence, the writ cannot issue to correct a mere error."

Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879)

Ex Parte Rowland, 104 U.S. 604 (1881) - "If the command of the peremptory writ of mandamus was in all respects such as the circuit court had jurisdiction to make, the proceedings for the contempt are not reviewable here. But if the command was in whole or in part beyond the power of the court, the writ, or so much as was in excess of jurisdiction, was void, and the court had no right in law to punish for any contempt of its unauthorized requirements. Such is the settled rule of decision in this court. Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wallace) 163 (1873); Ex Parte Parks, 93 U.S. 18 (1876); Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879); Ex Parte State of Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1879)."

Ex Parte State of Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1879)

Ex Parte Watkins, 28 U.S. (3 Peters) 193 193 (1830)

Ex Parte Wells, 59 U.S. (8 Howard) 307 (1855)

Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)

Faretta v California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975

FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) - An interesting discussion about now-deceased satiric humorist George Carlin's famous satiric monologue, entitled "Filthy Words" (aka "Seven Words"), which listed and repeated a variety of colloquial uses of "words you couldn't say on the public airwaves." Personally, I am not offended by Carlin's humorous, intellectually honest, analytical discussion of human idiosyncrasies and hypocrisy in the use of language — as long as it is performed in front of ADULT audiences. Carlin was obviously a bright outside-the-box thinker. It is endlessly fascinating to me how various self-righteous hypocritical political leaders in deception-based "gubmint", who could no more come up with a satiric dialogue like "Filthy Words" to save their souls than they could jump over the moon, have no problem whatsoever passing judgment on somebody else's speech! CLICK HERE for another example of Carlin's intelligent humor! (There are, of course, a few self-righteous, 1st-Amendment-hating morons who think Carlin should have been put in jail for his speech.)

Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)

Frohwerk v. U S , 249 U.S. 204 (1919)

Frothingham v. Mellon and Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923) - Also called "Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)" - Writing for the Court, Justice Alexander George Sutherland said: "We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. That question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act. Then the power exercised is that of ascertaining and declaring the law applicable to the controversy. It amounts to little more than the negative power to disregard an unconstitutional enactment, which otherwise would stand in the way of the enforcement of a legal right. The party who invokes the power must be able to show, not only that the statute is invalid, but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally. If a case for preventive relief be presented, the court enjoins, in effect, not the execution of the statute, but the acts of the official, the statute notwithstanding."

Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dallas) 1 (1794) - You might want to ask yourself, "Why doesn't FindLaw carry this case?" Maybe they don't want you to know what America's first Chief Justice, John Jay, had to say about so-called "jury nullification", which is the great power of juries against the multitudinous injustices of tyrannical government: "It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury; on questions of law it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion of the court: for, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts, it is, on the other hand, presumable that the court is the best judge of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision."

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)

Gold Clause Cases (1935) - Common collective name for three companion cases of the New Deal era: Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 294 U.S. 240; Nortz v. United States, 294 U.S. 317; and Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330. All three argued 8–11 Jan. 1935, decided 18 Feb. 1935 by votes of 5 to 4; Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes for the Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds in dissent in each case. As part of the New Deal program to conserve gold reserves during the economic emergency of the Great Depression, Congress in 1933 abrogated the clauses in private and public contracts stipulating payment in gold. Consequently, such obligations could be paid in devalued currency. In these three cases, bondholders challenged this action as a breach of the obligation of contract and a deprivation of property without due process.

Goldman v. U S , 245 U.S. 474 (1918)

Gonzales v. Raich, No. 03-1454 (2005) - Argued November 29, 2004--Decided June 6, 2005

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972)

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) - The United States Supreme Court rules that a state statute prohibiting discrimination of contraceptives to married couples is an unconstitutional infringement upon the "right of privacy" which emanates from the penumbras of various amendments in the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) - Argued April 1, 2003--Decided June 23, 2003

Hans v. State of Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) - I view this case as a tyranny-friendly, revisionist-history lie which unfairly made ad hominem attacks on the justices in the Chisolm majority. This bears witness to the vindictiveness of the monarchist pro-Iredell forces. Witness Justice Harlan's concurring objection to the majority's ad hominem attacks: "I concur with the court in holding that a suit directly against a state by one of its own citizens is not one to which the judicial power of the United States extends, unless the state itself consents to be sued. Upon this ground alone I assent to the judgment. But I cannot give my assent to many things said in the opinion. The comments made upon the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia do not meet my approval. They are not necessary to the determination of the present case. Besides, I am of opinion that the decision in that case was based upon a sound interpretation of the constitution as that instrument then was."

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)

Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. (8 Wallace) 606 (Feb 7, 1870)

Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973)

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)

Holt v. U.S., 218 U.S. 245 (1910)

Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Horowitz v. U S, 267 U.S. 458 (1925)

Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181 (1922)

Hubbard v. United States, 514 U.S. 695 (1995) - U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of George Hansen's politically railroaded conviction - after imprisonment and torture by U.S. Marshals Service, see "Remembering Congressman George Hansen"

Hurtado v. People of State of California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)

In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888) - "As this court has often said: 'Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause; and, whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded as binding in every other court: but, if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void.' Elliott v. Peirsol, 26 U.S. (1 Peters) 328, 340 (1828); Wilcox v. Jackson, 38 U.S. (13 Peters) 498 498 (1839); Hickey v. Stewart, 44 U.S. (3 Howard) 750, 762; Thompson v. Whitman, 85 U.S. (18 Wallace) 457 457 (1873)."

Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964) - The United States Supreme Court overturns the conviction of a theatre owner who violated a state obscenity law by showing an obscene movie. The Court rules that his First Amendment rights have been violated, because in the Court's view the dominant theme did not appeal to prurient interest in violation of "contemporary community standards."

Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. ___ (2005) (Docket No. 04-108) - Argued February 22, 2005--Decided June 23, 2005

Kolender v. Lawson - 461 U.S. 352 (1983)

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) - See also the YouTube video "Korematsu v United States Government" and the Wikipedia article, "Korematsu v. United States". Justice Robert Jackson dissenting explained what happens to an individual right which is unconstitutionally usurped by government: "A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military emergency. Even during that period, a succeeding commander may revoke it all. But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes."

Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corporation, 337 U.S. 682 (1949)

Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133 (1894)

Lee et al. v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) - The United States Supreme Court rules that non-sectarian prayers delivered by ministers or rabbis at public high school graduations violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Legal Tender Cases (Knox v. Lee, Parker v. Davis), 79 U.S. (12 Wallace) 457 (1870)

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)

Lessee of Hickey v. Stewart, 44 U. S. 750 (1845) - "In the case of Rose v. Himeley, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 241 241 (1808), Chief Justice Marshall said, 'A sentence professing on its face to be the sentence of a judicial tribunal, if rendered by a self-constituted body or by a body not empowered by its government to take cognizance of the subject it had decided, could have no legal effect whatever. The power of the court then is, of necessity, examinable to a certain extent by that tribunal, which is compelled to decide whether its sentence has changed the right of property. The power under which it acts must be looked into, and its authority to decide questions which it professes to decide, must be considered. . . . Upon principle, it would seem that the operation of every judgment must depend on the power of the court to render that judgment, or in other words, on its jurisdiction over the subject matter which it has determined.' In the case of Elliott v. Peirsol, 26 U.S. (1 Peters) 328, 340 (1828), it was held by this Court that 'Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decisions be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded as binding in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal, in opposition to them. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered, in law, trespassers. This distinction runs through all the cases on the subject, and it proves that the jurisdiction of any court exercising authority over a subject, may be inquired into in every other court when the proceedings of the former are relied on and brought before the latter by the party claiming the benefit of such proceedings.' The same doctrine was maintained by this Court in the case of Wilcox v. Jackson, 38 U.S. 13 Pet. 498 498 (1839), and the case of Elliott v. Peirsol, 26 U.S. (1 Peters) 328, 340 (1828), referred to, and the decision approved. These cases being decisive of the question of jurisdiction, we deem it unnecessary to refer to any other authority on that point."

Loan Ass’n v. City of Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wallace) 655 (1874) - "To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms."

Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)

Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 Howard) 1 (1849) - Wikipedia on Luther v. Borden - Wikipedia on "Political Question"

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) - the great mandamus case

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) - (Docket No. 02-1674) Argued September 8, 2003--Decided December 10, 2003

M'Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheaton) 316 (1819) - also cited as "McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheaton) 316 (1819)" - Here, in justifying the creation of a central national bank, the Supremes eviscerated the 10th Amendment and took the first giant step toward allowing the federal government to intrude into every last detail of our lives, by creating the doctrine of "implied powers", in effect nullifying what James Madison, the Father of our Constitution said in the Federalist Papers #45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." No smaller luminary than Thomas Jefferson himself said about the M'Culloch decision: "" In a May 25, 1810 letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson wrote about Chief Justice John Marshall: "The state has suffered long enough . . . from the want of any counterpoise to the rancorous hatred which Marshal bears to the government of his country, and from the cunning and sophistry within which he is able to enshroud himself." Jefferson also said that if the 10th Amendment meant what the M'Culloch majority said it meant, the states would never have ratified the U.S. Constitution.

Meyer v Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988)

Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) - reinforced by Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991)

Moran v. Burbine, 475 U. S. 412 (1986) - A waiver must be “the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception” and “made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.”

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012). This is the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous "Obamacare" decision. In you humble webmaster's opinion, this is one of the worst decisions in American history, ranking right up there with Dred Scott, Kelo, Korematsu, Plessy and Wickard in the evil of its design and perpetration. Keep in mind, the "Obamacare" bill [aka Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)] was thousands of pages long, wasn't read by the President or anybody in Congress, and was passed in the middle of the night with much evil manipulation. ScotusBlog.com, the U.S Supreme Court's blog has two stories, one titled "National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius", and the other titled, "Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services". For other discussions on the "OKenyancare" decision, see "Mark Levin analyzes SCOTUS ruling upholding Obamacare", "Mark Levin Eviscerates the Obamacare Ruling", "Mark Levin on John Roberts: Regrets of a Roberts Supporter", "Super: Chief Justice Roberts mocks conservative critics, jokes that he's leaving U.S. for "island fortress". The view in this corner is that the five justices ruling in favor of "OKenyancare" are traitors to the U.S. Constitution, but what can one say? Congress are the criminal scum who won't impeach them. Ain't "politics" (aka manipulation/deception) grand?!

Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934)

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) - The so-called "Pentagon Papers" case

Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982)

North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U. S. 369 (1979) - Such a [Miranda] waiver may be “implied” through a “defendant’s silence, coupled with an understanding of his rights and a course of conduct indicating waiver.”

Nortz v. United States, 294 U.S. 317 (1935)

Obsidian Fin. Grp., LLC v. Cox , 740 F.3d 1284, 1291 (9th Cir. 2014)

Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)

Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1907)

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978)

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)

Pierce v. U S , 252 U.S. 239 (1920)

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)

Planned Parenthood v Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) - In a plurality opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirms the central holding in Roe, while abandoning the trimester framework and modifying the ability of states to regulate abortion. The plurality holds that respect for the rule of law and the dignity of the Court demands that Roe not be overruled.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

Poe v Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961)

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)

Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878) - State first usurped prior-restraint power over Church under the phony "what if they engage in human sacrifices" argument. What if the State engages in human sacrifices? What then? Hmmmm? Sheer control-freak arrogance on the part of the Supremes!

Rooker-Feldman doctrine - Wikipedia: "The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a rule of civil procedure enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in two cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts other than the Supreme Court have no subject matter jurisdiction to sit in direct review of state court decisions unless Congress has enacted legislation that specifically authorized such relief." Basically the doctrine is a manipulative revisionist-history fraud primarily used against pro se litigants who would try to fight the injustices perpetrated by a de facto unconstitutional and inequitable monetary and taxation "system".

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) - Building on Griswold and Eisenstadt , the United States Supreme Court rules that the "right to privacy" means that a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy. (Over 53 million babies have been aborted in the United States since this decision, more than the entire population of the state of California). Read this case for yourself so you'll know first hand what it says, instead of what various "spinners" say it means! See, e.g. "The Constitution does not define 'person' in so many words." Some pro-life dead enders — (I, too, am a "pro-lifer" who believes abortion is murder, but because I also understand that One Ring "government" is inherently evil and inevitably corrupting, I realize it therefore cannot be part of a REAL solution to what is in reality a moral and cultural problem) — lie about this part of Roe: "For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health." The FACT is that Roe only legalized abortion unconditionally DURING THE FIRST TRIMESTER. But being creatures of inherently evil and inevitably corrupting human law, the Supremes "slippery sloped" the "legal right" to abortion right up to birth and the so-called procedure of "partial birth" abortion in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) . The primary reason Roe should be overturned is not to increase the powers of Big Brother government, but because its fatally flawed inception was tantamount to a deliberate de facto fraud upon the court engineered by militant gender feminists. My own positition on abortion is somewhat unusual for a pro-lifer, and I believe 95% of Americans could agree with me.

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) - The United States Supreme Court rules that Colorado's Amendment 2, which precludes special legal protections based upon sexual orientation, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because it is "born of animosity" and based upon a "bare desire to harm a politically unpopular class, homosexuals."

Rose v. Himeley, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 241 241 (1808) - "A sentence professing on its face to be the sentence of a judicial tribunal, if rendered by a self-constituted body or by a body not empowered by its government to take cognizance of the subject it had decided could have no legal effect whatever. The power of the court, then, is of necessity examinable to a certain extent by that tribunal which is compelled to decide whether its sentence has changed the right of property. The power under which it acts must be looked into, and its authority to decide questions which it professes to decide must be considered. But although the general power by which a court takes jurisdiction of causes must be inspected in order to determine whether it may rightfully do what it professes to do, it is still a question of serious difficulty whether the situation of the particular thing on which the sentence has passed may be inquired into for the purpose of deciding whether that thing was in a state which subjected it to the jurisdiction of the court passing the sentence."

Schaefer v. U S , 251 U.S. 466 (1920)

Schenck v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919) - origin of the tyranny-friendly so-called "clear and present danger" doctrine invented by Oliver Wendell Holmes. You might be amazed to see the 1st-Amendment-protected pamphlet titled "Assert Your Rights!" which poor Charles Schenck was sentenced to 10 years in prison for distributing. I sure was!

Schick v. U.S., 195 U.S. 65 (1904) - This is the tyranny-friendly lie that limits the 6th amendment jury trials to cases where the accused faces more than 1 year in prison.

Screws v. U.S., 325 U.S. 91 (1945)

Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918)

Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24 (1965)

Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)

Smith v. Texas 543 U. S. ____ - 04-5323 (2004)

Snyder v Phelps, et al, No. 09–751. Argued October 6, 2010—Decided March 2, 2011 - U.S Supreme Court's 8-1 decision upholding freedom of speech. This decision is in regards to the Westboro protesters at a gay soldiers funeral.
Sparf v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51 (1895)

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) - "Held: Nebraska's statute criminalizing the performance of "partial birth abortion[s]" violates the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Casey and Roe." - The American public overwhelmingly disagrees with the view of, as some pundits put it, "sticking a scissors into the back of a baby's head." - In my own view, this decision is indicative of the depravity humans are capable of. Numerous doctors have said there are no circumstances where partial birth abortions are medically necessary.

Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303 (1879) - "he statute of West Virginia which, in effect, singles out and denies to colored citizens the right and privilege of participating in the administration of the law as jurors because of their color, though qualified in all other respects, is, practically, a brand upon them, and a discrimination against them which is forbidden by the [14th] amendment."

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002)

Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 (1974)

Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951)

Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)


Thomas v. Mississippi, 380 U.S. 524 (1965) (per curiam)

Thompson v. Whitman, 85 U.S. 18 Wall. 457 457 (1873) - "Thus, in Elliott v. Peirsol, 26 U.S. (1 Peters) 328, 340 (1828), it was held that the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky might question the jurisdiction of a county court of that state to order a certificate of acknowledgment to be corrected, and for want of such jurisdiction to regard the order as void. Justice Trimble, delivering the opinion of this Court in that case, said: 'Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded as binding in every other court. But if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void.' The same views were repeated in United States v. Arredondo, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 691 691 (1832), Vorhees v. Bank of the United States [Voorhees v. Jackson, 35 U.S. (10 Peters) 449 449 (1836)], Wilcox v. Jackson, 38 U.S. 13 Pet. 498 498 (1839), Shriver's Lessee v. Lynn, 43 U.S. 2 How. 43 43 (1844), Hickey' Lessee v. Stewart, 44 U.S. 3 How. 750 750 (1845), and Williamson v. Berry, 49 U.S. 8 How. 495 495 (1850). In the last case, the authorities are reviewed, and the Court said: 'The jurisdiction of any court exercising authority over a subject may be inquired into in every other court when the proceedings in the former are relied upon and brought before the latter by a party claiming the benefit of such proceedings,' and 'the rule prevails whether the decree or judgment has been given in a court of admiralty, chancery, ecclesiastical court, or court of common law, or whether the point ruled has arisen under the laws of nations, the practice in chancery, or the municipal laws of states.'"

Troxel et vir. v. Granviller, No. 99-138. (2000)

Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250 (1891) - "No right is held more sacred or is more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. As well said by Judge Cooley: "The right to one's person may be said to be a right of complete immunity; to be let alone." Cooley on Torts 29." - Mr. Justice Gray delivering the opinion of the Court.

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938)

United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32 (1812)

United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 117 S. Ct. 1219 (1997)

United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982)

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953)

United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) - Pete Seeger is one of the most important figures in American folk music.

U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) -
"Under our system the people, who are there called subjects, are the sovereign. Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of the monarch. The citizen here knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself, to whom he need yield the rights which the law secures to him when it is well administered. When he, in one of the courts of competent jurisdiction, has established his right to property, [106 U.S. 196, 209] there is no reason why deference to any person, natural or artificial, not even the United States, should prevent him from using the means which the law gives him for the protection and enforcement of that right."
". The defense stands here solely upon the absolute immunity from judicial inquiry of every one who asserts authority from the executive branch of the government, however clear it may be made that the executive possessed no such power. Not only that no such power is given, but that it is absolutely prohibited, both to the executive and the legislative, to deprive any one of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or to take private property without just compensation."
"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives."
"Courts of justice are established, not only to decide upon the controverted rights of the citizens as against each other, but also upon rights in controversy between them and the government"
(NOTE: One of the biggest and most unforgettable lessons of my life was when I used this case as precedent authority to argue that government officials who violate the law were not entitled to be represented by the U.S. Attorney's office. The judge told me: "That's a neat argument, Mr. Wilkenson, but we don't do things that way." And that was from the most U.S.-Constitution-friendly judge on the Denver federal bench who let me win my case! I shall never forget that as long as I live. Aspiring pro se litigants and and other citizens of the American Police State may extrapolate from my experience the following maxim: "Rule of law and the U.S. Constitution are neat arguments, but we (the government) don't have to, and aren't going to, do things that way." Sadly, I am dead serious on that point. Perhaps that's why violent revolutions seem to happen every 200-500 years in human political cycles.)

Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967) - "Held: Petitioners could not bypass orderly judicial review of the temporary injunction before disobeying it. Howat v. Kansas, 258 U. S. 181. Pp. 388 U. S. 314-320."

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) - The United States Supreme Court rules that it is unconstitutional for a state to pass a law allowing voluntary silence or prayer at the beginning of public school classes.

Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U. S. 740 (1984) - "Held: The warrantless, nighttime entry of petitioner's home to arrest him for a civil, nonjailable traffic offense, was prohibited by the special protection afforded the individual in his home by the Fourth Amendment."
Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001)

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) - the case overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) - In my opinion, this decision constituted such arrogant and blatant treason against the U.S.Constitution, that those responsible, including FDR, should have been tried for treason and executed. The idea that the federal government can tell a farmer how much food to grow for his own consumption is anathema to the sacred principles of self-ownership, self-determination, and self-sufficiency. Following is a quote from the Wikipedia article on the Wickard case:

"Wickard ... was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it."

"The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government."

Wilcox v. Jackson, 38 U.S. (13 Peters) 498 498 (1839) - "This proposition is true in relation to every tribunal acting judicially, whilst acting within the sphere of their jurisdiction, where no appellate tribunal is created, and even when there is such an appellate power, the judgment is conclusive when it only comes collaterally into question, so long as it is unreversed. But directly the reverse of this is true in relation to the judgment of any court acting beyond the pale of its authority. The principle upon this subject is concisely and accurately stated by this Court in the case of Elliott v. Peirsol, 26 U.S. (1 Peters) 328, 340 (1828), in these words: 'Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed is regarded as binding in every other court. But if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void.'"

Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957)

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

ShareThis