50 votes

Constitution - Know Your Arguments And You Will Win

* 18 U.S. Code § 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

* Byars v. U.S., 273 US 28

Unlawful search and seizure, your rights must be interpreted in favor of the Citizen.

* Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 2nd. 486, 489 (5th Cir. 1959) Id. at 489-490

The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.

* Smith v. U.S. 502 F 2d 512

Government may not prohibit or control the conduct of a person for reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

* Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945

For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.

* Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261

The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”.

* Norton v Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

* Murdock v Penn, 319 U.S. 105: 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, 394 U.S. 147: 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 can't punish you…they have to let you go.

* Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137: 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 doesn't exist in law.”

Carl Miller:

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Now these are the kinds of posts needed on the DP

Kudos to both you and hawkiye for keeping the r3VOLutionary spirit alive!

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

EDIT: I have provided a printable in pdf of Know Your Rights

Thanks for the bump, OldNo.7J.D. :-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

No.7's picture

Any time

Thanks for the stellar post

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

No.7's picture



The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Cyril's picture

WHO is willing to help?

WHO is willing to help?

Can we do in 2013 what others believe they can postpone to think of, till 2015?


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Good Stuff! I posted a

Good Stuff! I posted a memorandum of law on this and the country Sheriffs authority


End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

Great stuff.

Thanks, hawkiye, that is valuable information :-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Officials swear and oath to uphold and defend Constitution.

It is treason to break that oath/ It is Misprision of Treason to fail to report treason observed in a timely fashion.

Federal officials may wave the bloody shirt of 911.

We can wave back with the hangman's noose.

Free includes debt-free!

For advanced study about the common law

which is protected by the constitution check out Karl Lenz:


Episode #199 - or direct link here:

Can you bind others under the US Constitution?

How can you expect to bind others under law when the US Constitution isn't a a contract, and even if it were you weren't a party to it? How can others bind you under law to anything in it? Lysander Spooner really did put it best when he wrote 'No Treason'.


How can you win when you've already conceded that the people who presume to have authority over you in fact do?


supposing it was a contract. Would you agree to it if it meant the other party involved has the sole and exclusionary right to determine what the contract means?

The Constitution was always and will always be a scam. The only decent part of it was added mainly through the efforts of people who didn't want it in the first place.

The only ones who are bound

are those who have taken the oath.

When you "accept their oath of office" you are basically agreeing to the terms of that contract. This public servant has agreed to protect your rights.

That "Contract" Has a Pedigree :

It's not a mere contract.

PED'IGREE, n. [probably from L. pes,pedis, foot.]

1. Lineage; line of ancestors from which a person or tribe descends; genealogy.

Alterations of surnames--have obscured the truth of our pedigrees.

2. An account or register of a line of ancestors.

The Jews preserved the pedigrees of their several tribes.

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

But does it work?

THAT is what people want to know.

The more I look into this stuff, the more I realize that people like Carl Miller are right in the law, but ALSO that cops, bureaucrats, and judges are uninformed or don't care.

Also, they force certain things on people, like driver's licenses. Theoretically, a person can go without one, but since it is used as universal ID in non-government transactions, it is not possible to live a "normal" live without it.

Since they use deception to get people to do things that they then claim are giving up of one's rights, it seems like it should be possible to have "one foot in, one foot out" of the system.

For example, the driver's license is really for permission to use the public highways FOR COMMERCE. From that standpoint, it could be said that it is a privilege. But, it does NOT necessarily follow that when one gets into a car and motors down the highway that the person IS engaged in interstate commerce.

So, WE should be able to determine when we are and when we are not engaged in this privilege, and let THEM prove otherwise.

We SHOULD be able to come up with something to tell cops that does not seem confrontational, and yet can potentially get us on with our day without further hassle. Same for dealing with bureaucrats and judges.

That is the sort of thing I'm looking for.

Let's say I get stopped by a cop for speeding. Let's assume I have a driver's license, plates, insurance, etc. When the cops as for license & registration (& insurance), I *SHOULD* be able to say something that asserts my rights, but is not confrontational, and MIGHT allow the stop to end with me being on my way.

If I could tell the cop:
- I realize he is doing his job
- His job is defined by the police department, the state laws, the state constitution, and the US Constitution, that he is sworn to uphold
- Whether he was ever told this at the police academy or by his supervisors or not, that all Americans have the right to travel, and the courts have defended that time and time again
- That drivers licenses are required for using the roads for commerce, but that I am not engaged in commerce
- That the statute that he suspects I may have violated does not apply when one is not engaged in commerce on the public roads
- That he, as a cop, only has authority to detain me if he has reason to believe I have committed a crime, and since he now knows that I have not, and that I am not engaged in commerce, I should be free to go

At this point, it becomes either an education process, or a battle, in which case maybe the supervisor can be called, maybe a camera could be used ... I dunno.

In a court case, I *SHOULD* be able to file papers with the court that shows how the judge works for the state, build a chain of logical statements that shows the judge must uphold the Constitution, and the court cases that show that he has no jurisdiction, and the file a Motion to Dismiss.

That is how it SHOULD work. These UCC arguments seem to muddy the waters more than necessary.

It SHOULD simply be citing constitutional limitations on government powers, individual rights recognized by courts superior to the person I am dealing with, and then a quiet end to the situation (traffic stop, legal case, etc.)

This all assumes that we're not talking about a crime or violation of another's rights, but merely "laws" that only exist because politicians say so.

Anybody have nuts-and-bolts methods that have worked in the real world?

Stick with reason.

You're doing a great job.

Cyril's picture

Constitution, Article 1, Section 10: what is "CREDIT" exactly?

Constitution - Article 1, Section 10:

Have we forgotten what "CREDIT" means exactly?

Helper: do not miss to check out what Frederic Bastiat's "That Which is Seen and That Which is NOT Seen" had to say about it and the collectivists' rationale fallacy:


Yes, Bastiat DID WRITE more, beyond "The Law", to help us defend and support liberty AND justice.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

From Noah :

CREDIT, n. [L., See Creed.]


1. Belief; faith; a reliance or resting of the mind on the truth of something said or done. We give credit to a mans declaration, when the mind rests on the truth of it, without doubt or suspicion, which is attended with wavering. We give credit to testimony or to a report, when we rely on its truth and certainty.

2. Reputation derived from the confidence of others. Esteem; estimation; good opinion founded on a belief of a mans veracity, integrity, abilities and virtue; as a physician in high credit with his brethren. Hence,

3. Honor; reputation; estimation; applied to men or things. A man gains no credit by profaneness; and a poem may lose no credit by criticism. The credit of a man depends on his virtues; the credit of his writings, on their worth.

4. That which procures or is entitled to belief; testimony; authority derived from ones character, or from the confidence of others. We believe a story on the credit of the narrator. We believe a story on the credit of the narrator. We believe in miracles on the credit of inspired men. We trust to the credit of assertion, made by a man of known veracity.

5. Influence derived from the reputation of veracity or integrity, or from the good opinion or confidence of others; interest; power derived from weight of character, from friendship, fidelity or other cause. A minister may have great credit with a prince. He may employ his credit to good or evil purposes. A man uses his credit with a friend; a servant, with his master.

6. In commerce, trust; transfer of goods in confidence of future payment. When the merchant gives a credit, he sells his wares on an expressed or implied promise that the purchaser will pay for them at a future time. The seller believes in the solvability and probity of the purchaser, and delivers his goods on that belief or trust; or he delivers them on the credit or reputation of the purchaser. The purchaser takes what is sold, on credit. In like manner, money is loaned on the credit of the borrower.

7. The capacity of being trusted; or the reputation of solvency and probity which entitles a man to be trusted. A customer has good credit or no credit with a merchant.

8. In book-keeping, the side of an account in which payment is entered; opposed to debit. This article is carried to ones credit, and that to his debit. We speak of the credit side of an account.

9. Public credit, the confidence which men entertain in the ability and disposition of a nation, to make good its engagements with its creditors; or the estimation in which individuals hold the public promises of payment, whether such promises are expressed or implied. The term is also applied to the general credit of individuals in a nation; when merchants and others are wealthy, and punctual in fulfilling engagements; or when they transact business with honor fidelity; or when transfers of property are made with ease for ready payment. So we speak of the credit of a bank, when general confidence is placed in its ability to redeem its notes; and the credit of a mercantile house rests on its supposed ability and probity, which induce men to trust to its engagements.

Cherish public credit.

When the public credit is questionable, it raises the premium on loans.

10. The notes or bills which are issued by the public or by corporations or individuals, which circulate on the confidence of men in the ability and disposition in those who issue them, to redeem them. They are sometimes called bills of credit.

11. The time given for payment for lands or goods sold on trust; as a long credit, or a short credit.

12. A sum of money due to any person; any thing valuable standing on the creditor side of an account. A has a credit on the books of B. The credits are more than balanced by the debits.

[In this sense, the word has the plural number.]

CREDIT, v.t. [from the Noun.]

1. To believe; to confide in the truth of; as, to credit a report, or the man who tells it.

2. To trust; to sell or loan in confidence of future payment; as, to credit goods or money.

3. To procure credit or honor; to do credit; to give reputation or honor.

May here her monument stand so, to credit this rude age.

4. To enter upon the credit side of an account; as, to credit the amount paid.

5. To set to the credit of; as, to credit to a man the interest paid on a bond.

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

Cyril's picture

Yes. Sound refresher.

Yes. Sound refresher.

Thank you.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

U.C.C. ! :

Carl's the best. Known him for decades.

Suggest people not use the numbers, just the language. Remember this advice is from the mid 1990's and a lot of combined experience has accrued since then. You invoke Commercial Code by citing it. Very few can walk and talk this successfully.

"Without Prejudice" is sufficient, however you get to court and the judge will say "I can't see this". You got to know where to go from there. Every "Silver Bullet" is still useless without the powder to push it.

My own full reservation - "Of Necessity, Under Duress, Without Prejudice or Acceptance".

( I wonder if self inked stamps are made smaller than 6 point type these days )

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

Cyril's picture



"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

More, more, more, please

This is the kind of info. we need.

No.7's picture

double bump

This is one of the best posts here. Wish I could +2 it

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson


for posting.

Thank you!

I've been meaning to transcribe these essential parts of Carl Miller's, 'Know Your Constitution' video. My driver's license expires this year & I'm psyched to sign my new one, U.D. (under duress)1-207 without prejudice, so I'll no longer be part of maritime admiralty jurisdiction & give up my Constitutional rights. Carl Miller is an angel!

None of the U.C.C...

Crap applies. For it to apply you must first be engaged in the activity of commerce which will put you in a Jurisdiction where you have no common law rights.

Be very careful when dealling with U.C.C.

It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.

staying in the system

Under duress from what? As if a cop is going to be standing over you at the DMV and forcing you into the driving contract. More likely, you will voluntarily walk in there and sign the contract.

You are staying in the system while thinking a few magic words will keep you out of the system. Either stay in the system or get out. Trying to do both is going to lead to trouble.

Under duress does not have to

Under duress does not have to mean immediate threat. Under duress means that you retain all your rights when signing the corporate document, merely signing the document to protect yourself against future encroachment.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts.
-Patrick Henry

I think it was re-numbered

to 1-308 - you should probably double-check.

No.7's picture

This should be common knowledge


The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Yes, this absolutely SHOULD be common knowledge.

Thanks for the bump, OldNo.7J.D. :-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul