If you are waiting for the Supreme Court to proclaim your rights, or somehow magically rally to the aid of the American people, I think you need a dose of reality: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a concurring opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Ashwander v. TVA, 297 US 288 (1936), Justice Brandeis laid out 7 "rules" one must follow to qualify a constitutional question or statutory challenge for consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. Amazingly, on appeal, one can have the right issue and solid facts, but if one asks the wrong question of the U.S. Supreme Court one's appeal will get the proverbial axe! Realize also that one cannot ask the U.S. Supreme Court a question that has not already been asked of every appellate court visited along the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ashwander v. TVA, 297 US 288 (1936) "The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:" [Ashwander, pg. 346, emphasis added]. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [RULE #1] . . "The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, nonadversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions 'is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest, and vital controversy between individuals. It was never thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act.' Chicago & Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339, 345..." [Ashwander, pg. 346]. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [RULE #2] . . "The Court will not 'anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.' Liverpool, N.Y. & Phila. Steamship Co. v. Emigration Commissioners, 113 U.S. 33, 39...; Abrams v. Van Schaick, 293 U.S. 188...; Wilshire Oil Co. v. United States, 295 U.S. 100...[.] 'It is not the habit of the court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.' Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283, 295..." [Ashwander, pg. 346, emphasis added]. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [RULE #3] . . "The Court will not 'formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.' Liverpool, N.Y. & Phila. Steamship Co. v. Emigration Commissioners, [113 U.S. 33]." [Ashwander, pg. 347, emphasis added]. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [RULE #4] . . "The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. [...] Thus, if a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter. Silver v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U.S. 175, 191...; Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523, 538...[.] Appeals from the highest court of a state challenging [the state court's] decision of a question under the Federal Constitution are frequently dismissed because the judgment can be sustained on an independent state ground. Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45, 53..." [Ashwander, pg. 347, emphasis added]. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [RULE #5] . . "The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. Tyler v. Judges, etc., 179 U.S. 405...; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 621...[.] Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty [NOT A PROPERTY RIGHT] will not be entertained. Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co., v. Miller, 283 U.S. 96, 99, 100...[.] In Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126...the Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen who sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447...the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained although made by the commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens." [Ashwander, pg. 347, emphasis added]. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [RULE #6] . . "The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits. Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581...; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412...; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469..." [Ashwander, pg. 348, emphasis added]. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [RULE #7] . . " 'When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.' Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 62..." [Ashwander, pg. 348, emphasis added]. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, don't forget this one: ONLY BELLIGERENTS HAVE RIGHTS The individual rights guaranteed by our Constitution can be compromised or ignored by our government. For example, in United States v. Johnson (76 Fed.Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that: The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person. McAlister v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth v. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813; Orum v. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. Note the verdicts confrontation al language: "FIGHTING," "COMBAT," and most surprising, "BELLIGERENT." Did you ever expect to ever read a Federal court condemn citizens for being "passive" or "ignorant"? Did you ever expect to see a verdict that encouraged the people to be "belligerent" in court? Better go back and reread that extraordinary verdict. And read it again. And commit it to memory, for it succinctly describes the essence of the American legal system. ------------------------------------------------------------------- IN OTHER WORDS: You must KNOW your rights and you must know the law. Do NOT expect the police officer, supreme court or other government personnel to "give" you your rights. They will not.