Saturday, July 29, 2006

Well now, what have we here.....

"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."
- Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616
**********
"It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions."
- Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60
**********
"Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public."
- Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660
**********
"As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language."
- Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882
**********
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
- Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2nd 486, 489.
**********
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

- Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491
**********
"There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty..."
- Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31; Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356
**********
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."
- Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946
**********
"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority."
- Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; - O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887
**********
"Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."
- Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526
**********
"The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution."
- Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60; Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613
**********
"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another."
- Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389
**********
"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people."
- Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516
**********
"No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution."
- 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 70

**********
"The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty -- indeed they are under a solemn duty -- to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purported to have been enacted to protect ... the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects or is a palpable invasion of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution."
- Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home