Supreme Court Decisions to Support Our Freedoms
Here are some Supreme Court Decisions that you probably never heard of.
Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Rodriques v Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985) “All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process.
We, the People, created the governments and we did not give them the power to rule over us.
Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187: “Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.”
This describes our current situation
Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 749, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 1469 (1970): See also Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 6 (1966); Empsak v. U.S., 190 (1955); and, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 58 (1938): “Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.
We cannot be tricked into giving up our un-a-lien-a-ble rights. This essentially voids most of the actions of our Congress, etc.
Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95: “The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of the words and the rules of grammar.”
The group who enacts the law must know what they have enacted. Congress is responsible for reading the bills before they are enacted.
Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322: “It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official – as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official – is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.” And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.” Shuttlesworth v Birmingham (Alabama), 394 U.S. 147 (1969).
Neither the State, nor the Federal Government, can require permits, or licenses. We, the People, have the right to pursue whatever business activity we desire without any interference from any of our governments. They were not granted any powers to regulate the activities of the Citizens.
The following is what the Supreme Court had to say about the Declaration of Independence.
The original words of the Declaration of Independence are in RED.
We hold these truths to be self-evident – that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement – that all men are endowed – not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but – by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. – that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime – and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these – not grant them, but secure them – governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Among these unalienable 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 (Editor’s Note: To let is to grant a charter or contract to a person or group who has made a proposal) or hindrance, 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. – Butcher’s Union Slaughterhouse and Livestock Company v. Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughterhouse Company Argued April 9-10, 1884 Decided May 5, 1884 – U. S. Supreme Court 111 U. S. 746.
Again, we are told that no government has the power, or the authority, to demand permits, licenses, charters, or other restrictive actions concerning our ability to pursue our happiness, i.e., any lawful business activity.
The Supreme Court says that it is our birthright to be able to pursue whatever lawful business we want.