Confirming FUNDAMENTAL LAW

 

“Congress [and the equally restricted Judiciary] shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people

… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

U.S. Const, 1st Amend

 

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,

there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 p 491 (1966)

​

“Observation: The principle that one challenging the constitutionality of legislation bears the burden of proving

its unconstitutionality does not apply to statutes or ordinances restricting speech and other fundamental rights;

inasmuch as the burden of proof in such cases rests with those who have imposed the restrictions.”

16A Am Jur 2d 198 @ pg 85 ref Rosenburger v. Rector and Visitors of

University of Virginia, 515 US 819, 115 S. Ct. 2510, 132L. Ed. 2d 700.

 

“As in our intercourse with our fellow‑men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained.  These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the declaration of independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people:  'We hold these truths to be self‑ evident'‑‑that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement‑‑'that all men are endowed'‑‑not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but 'by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.'‑‑that is,

​

rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away,

​

except in punishment of crime‑‑'and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;

​

and to secure these'‑‑not grant them, but secure them‑‑'governments are instituted among men,

​

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Butchers’ Union Slaughter-House

v. Crescent City Livestock Landing,

111 U.S. 746, 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884)