View Single Post
Old October 9, 2010, 11:14 PM   #4
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,541
Aguila, I'm not familiar with Follet. But here's a few that I am familiar with:
The state cannot diminish rights of the people.” Hurtado v. California, (1884) 1 110 US 516.

“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.” Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60 (CCDNJ 1830).

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 1 384 US 436, 491.

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.

“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.

“The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment... A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania, (1943) 319 U.S. 262.

“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, (1963) 373 U.S. 262.

In Marchetti v. U.S., 390 US 39,57; See v Seattle, 387 US 541, the Court reiterated what it said in U.S. v Miller, “The exercise of a constitutional right cannot be the basis of a crime.”

“A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful.” Littleton v Burgess, 82 P 864, 866, 14 Wyo 173.

“A license is a right granted by some competent authority to do an act which, without such license, would be illegal.” Beard v City of Atlanta, 86 SE 2nd 672, 676; 91 Ga. App. 584.

“The licensor has the power to prohibit. Since the licensor is in the position to grant a right or permission it logically follows that he has the power to prohibit the act also. Likewise, having the power to prohibit something from being done, it follows as a corollary that power also exists to permit its use.” Taylor v Smith, 140 Va. 217, 235.
The main reason these have not been used in many cases is that until now, the 2A has not been recognized as a fundamental right. I suspect we will be seeing more of these used, as these cases progress into the circuit courts.
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.05183 seconds with 7 queries