First important case: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesnt exist in law. Now the first amendment basically talks about the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But isnt the right to work part of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Youve got a right to work, right? Now, other cases involved are your rights to due process...Like under your 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. The right of people to be secure in their houses, person, papers, and affects against unreasonable search and seizure shall not be violated. No warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. Now its important to jump to the 9th amendment. Enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This means congress has no authority to add on to the constitution in such a way that would take away rights previously guaranteed. From Am Jur vol. 16, constitutional law section, sec. 97...That a constitution should receive a liberal interpretation in favor of the citizen is especially true with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the citizen in regard to both person and property. (see note 31, Bryers v United States 273 U.S. 28. In other words its supposed to be liberally enforced in favor of the citizen for the protections of their rights and property. Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. Now lets take that to the next step Can a state arbitrarily and erroneously convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it? Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) (Supreme Court trumps everything else) Murdock is basically a religious test case. A religious group wanted to go out and preach among the public as that is their right to evangelize. Now we took that case as a pioneering case, and we argue that case for all of your constitutional rights. All you need to do is keep in mind that 1. 2. You are an American and that you have constitutional rights. You have to keep in mind What right? Can you pull the right out of the constitution?

If you can pull the right out of the constitution...and I will give you and example: How about the right to travel freely and unencumbered, pursuant to Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)? How about the right to keep and bear arms? Does the state have the right to require a license and fee for the exercise of the right? And if they do can you ignore the license and fee?

The premise of this case is clearly established; NO STATE MAY CONVERT A SECURED LIBERTY INTO A PRIVILEGE ISSUE A LICENSE AND FEE FOR IT, AND REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE THAT: OTHERWISE YOU COMMITTED A CRIME. Lets jump to the next case: Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963)...This is another unique religious case. In this case six ministers were accused of inciting to riot and otherwise create a disturbance...Disturb the peace. They had a sit-down (this case came down in 1962). The city said they needed to have a license to have a public gathering. It went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said No, you dont have to have a license for the exercise of a first amendment right to freely assemble. Now I want you to see the significance of this case in view of the case we just had. Murdock v Penn clearly established that no state could convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. Shuttlesworth v Birm. Said that if the state does convert your right into a privilege and charge a license and a fee for it you can ignore the license and fee, and engage in the right with impunity. That means they cant punish you...they have to let you go. Now, the next case is very important, and its important that you see the argument. U. S. v Bishop, 412 U. S. 346 (1973)...Basically what Bishop does is it sets a standard for what constitutes a criminal violation in terms of willful intent. Willfullness is one of the elements which is required to be proven. In any criminal element you have to prove that 1. You are the party, 2. That you had a method or opportunity to do a thing, and 3. That you did so with a willful intent.