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.
Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, No. 05-11284 (2007)
Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Abrams v. U S , 250 U.S. 616 (1919)
Adamson v. People of State of California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947)
Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966)
Alberty v. U.S., 162 U.S. 499 (1896)
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)
Arver v. U.S. , 245 U.S. 366 (1918)
Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1 (1971)
Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27 (1884)
Bates v. Clark, 95 U.S. 204 (1877)
Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996) - No. 94-8729, Argued November 29, 1995, Decided March 4, 1996 (1996)
Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 29 L Ed 2d 746, 6 S Ct 524 (1886) - the great 4th Amendment case
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wallace) 335 (April 8, 1872) - 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!")
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Brown v. State of Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)
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)
Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978)
Calder v Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798)
Chisolm v. State of Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dallas) 419 (1793)
Citizens’ Savings & Loan Ass’n v. City of Topeka, 87 U.S. 655 (1874)
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
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.
Couselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 35 L ed 1110, 12 S Ct 195 (1892) - The great 5th Amendment anti-self-incrimination case.
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)
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75 (1807) - the great habeas corpus case
Ex Parte Burford, 7 U.S. 448 (1806)
Ex Parte Dorr, 44 U.S. 103 (1845)
Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
Ex Parte State of Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1879)
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)
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)
Frohwerk v. U S , 249 U.S. 204 (1919)
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)
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)
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)
Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. (8 Wallace) 606 (Feb 7, 1870)
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)
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)
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
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)
Legal Tender Cases (Knox v. Lee, Parker v. Davis), 79 U.S. (12 Wallace) 457 (1870)
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
Loan Ass’n v. City of Topeka, 87 U.S. 655 (1874)
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
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)
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991)
Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982)
Nortz v. United States, 294 U.S. 317 (1935)
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)
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) - 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)
Schaefer v. U S , 251 U.S. 466 (1920)
Schenck v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919) - origin of the so-called "clear and present danger" doctrine invented by Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Schick v. U.S., 195 U.S. 65 (1904)
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)
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)
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)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
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)
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)
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
ShareThis