FlyoverPress.com

"There is no truth existing which I fear, or would

wish unknown to the whole world." Thomas Jefferson

The concepts expressed on this web site are protected by the basic human right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 1997 as applying to the Internet.

THE LATEST IN THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA: OUR CURRENT FEATURE ARTICLE

Contact Us

HOME


Table of Contents

FROM BEHIND ENEMY LINES:A Conservative Libertarian Inside Academia 


Liberty Links



SOUTHERN HERITAGE: Dedicated to the truth about the War of Yankee Aggression



The Founding Documents


RADICAL FEMINISM







Immigration


RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM, LAND USE CONTROL, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

Flyover School of Guerilla Warfare and Total Resistance


The Enemy


Mandatory Mental Health Screening


NEW WORLD ORDER, UNITED NATIONS, ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT AND AMERICAN SOVERIGNTY


War for the Survival of Western Civilization



Why is the government persecuting Ernst Zündel? Click here to visit the Zundelsite


Fair Use Notice


 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Some Interesting and Important Cases


National ID Card/Driver's and Other Licenses:

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago , 169 NE 221;

The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v Dulles, 357 US 116, 125;

"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

Federal court decision: “A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right.”—Murdock vx. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)

Supreme Court Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional.—Gollett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 (1944).

Our God-given natural rights cannot be subverted by government:

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v U.S. 230F 486 at 489;

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

"Where rights secured by the Constitution involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 491

Any government functionary may be held personally liable under the causes of action defined by 42 USC 1983 or Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents 403 US 388 (1971). Furthermore, if they act in a manner which is violative of clearly established constitutional rights, they are not immune from suit as an individual, Harlo vs. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800 (1982)

Gun Free School Zones:

Lopez v. United States case involved a gun brought into a school "zone." Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court:

"In the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, Congress made it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A) (1988 ed., Supp. V).

"The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. We hold that the Act exceeds the authority of Congress "[to] regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . . ." U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3"

Marbury vs. Madison

In one of only a few correct court decisions with respect to constitutional intent, Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall proclaimed: “any act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void.”—Marbury vs. Madison (1803)

Government's “Obligation” to Protect its Citizen s

In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law enforcement had no duty to protect individuals but only a general duty to enforce the laws. South vs. Maryland , 59 US (HOW) 396, 15 L. Ed. 433 (1856).

A U.S. Federal Appeals Court declared in 1982: “There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”—Bowers vs. devot, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7 th Circuit 686 F. 2d 616 (1982).

Permission is granted to forward as you wish, circulate among individuals or groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in the print media as long as the article is published in full , including the author's name and contact information and the URL http://www.flyoverpress.com/FlyoverPress.com can be contacted at mailto:editor@flyoverpress.com.

E-mail

To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word "subscribe" on the subject line.

OUR SPONSORS


Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.

Professional Firearms Training at its finest.

Private and Descrete

Liberty Knows No Compromise

Protecting Liberty Through Private Firearms Ownership


AMERICAN LAPEL PINS & EMBLEMS, INC. has a large selection of patriotic lapel and hat pens, embroderied patches, badges, and service awards.

They also do custom work and can make just about anything. Your own pin complete with your logo or motto.

Visit their site.


The Warrior's Press, Inc.

Military Manuals and Correspondence Courses

Infantry, Armor, Recon, Special Forces, Seals

Weapons; Tactics; Security; Intelligence; Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare

We also carry a selection of unusual, outrageous and even banned books

Liberty Knows No Compromise

 

© Flyover Press All Rights Reserved.