"Before there were intelligent beings, they were possible; they had therefore possible relations, and consequently possible laws. Before laws were made, there were relations of possible justice. To say that there is nothing just or unjust, but what is commanded or forbidden by positive laws, is the same as saying that, before the describing of a circle, all the radii were not equal."
-Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, in "The Spirit of the Laws"
The Spirit of the Laws
Thomas Jefferson Notes on Virginia
Latin Religio meaning:
"reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, piety"
Latin Opinari meaning:
"to have an opinion or "to think."
Election Latin Root
late 13c., from Anglo-French eleccioun, Old French elecion "choice, election, selection" (12c.), from Latin electionem (nominative electio), noun of action from past participle stem of eligere
Select Latin Root
Latin sēlēctus (past participle of sēligere to gather apart), equivalent to sē- se- + leg(ere) to gather, choose + -tus past participle suffix
Pro se legal representation (/ˌproʊ ˈsiː/ or /ˌproʊ ˈseɪ/) comes from Latin, literally meaning "on behalf of themselves", which basically means advocating on one's own behalf before a court, rather than being represented by a lawyer.
The Latin “prosequi” meant “to follow after, accompany, chase, pursue, attack, assail, or abuse.” It is composed of the prefix “pro” meaning “forward” and “sequi,” meaning “follow,” in the same sense as “sequel.” In its most literal sense, prosequi means, “follow forward.” In Latin, prosequi was usually used in two ways: literally to mean “follow a path” or figuratively to mean “follow a course of action.” The past participle of prosequi is “prosecutus.” Prosequi became a Latin agent noun “prosecutor” in medieval times. Prosecutus became “prosecute” in the early 15th century, usually meaning “to go into detail.” The first recorded use of the word to mean “bring to a court of law” is in the 1570s. At this time, the person who brought a case in a court of law was a “promoter.” Prosecutor, in turn, acquired its modern meaning in the 1620s.
"Forced worship stinks in God's nostrils"
-Roger Williams, President of the Colony of Rhode Island
To Alexander Hamilton from William C. Bentley, 4 October 1799
From William C. Bentley
"Richmond [Virginia] October 4, 1799. “A few days before my arival at this place, some of the Troops of the Regimt. of Artillerists & Engineers, of Capt. Eddins’s1 Company, stationed at this place, were guilty of a most violent and flagrant breach of Civil Authority; the Circumstances were these; One of their new recruits was discovered to be a fugitive from justice, he had been committed to a County Court jail for Horse-stealing, which he broke and fled from. The Shff of that County discouvering him among the Soldiers in Town, had him apprehended under a Warrant from a Magistrate of this City, and which in possession of the Sheriff, he was rescued by Six or Seven of Eddins’s Soldiers, and Suffered to make his escape.2 This has afforded another opportunity for the Jacobines Printers to sport with the Standing Army, as they call it; The paper of this place, called the Examiner3 of which, that Scotch Fugitive Callender,4 has the direction, has detailed the circumstances to the public, rather highly coloured, and has called on all his Yoke Mates, (using his own Words) to notice it in their papers.…” "
The Volstead Act (1920)
Officially titled the National Prohibition Act
"Nothing in this title shall be held to apply to the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation, possession, or distribution of wine for sacramental purposes, or like religious rites"
ULTRA VIRES;
Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895); Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969); United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995); United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. _ (2012)
Hemp Industries Association v. DEA, Nos. 03-71366, 03-71693 (2004)
"We have previously held that the definition of “THC” in Schedule I refers only to synthetic THC, and that any THC occurring naturally within Cannabis is banned only if it falls within the Schedule I definition of “marijuana.”...We reiterate that ruling here: in accordance with Schedule I, the DEA's relevant rules and regulations may be enforced only insofar as they ban the presence of marijuana or synthetic THC."
Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 (1942)
Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 223-24 (1967)
Miranda Juarez v. DOJ/DEA, 07-5064 (DC Cir 2008)
Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987)
Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600 (7th Cir. 1979)
Hampton v. Hanrahan, 522 F. Supp. 140 (N.D. Ill. 1981)
United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953)
Craker v. Drug Enforcement Admin., No. 09-1220 (1st Cir. 2013)
Nevada v. Hicks,533 U.S. 353 (2001)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)
Linder v. United States 268 U.S. 5 (1925)
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
Gonzales v. O Centro, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)
Washington v. Sessions, et al 1:17-cv-05625
Gallagher v. DEA et al 3:2017cv00734
In re: RYAN GALLAGHER 18-10407
Gallagher v. Rosenberg et al 1:16-cv-01117
Olsen V DEA 878 F.2d 1458, 279 D.C. 1, 58 USLW 2023
United States v. Forbes, 806 F. Supp. 232 (D. Colo. 1992)
Normaco v. DEA, 375 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah,508 U.S. 520 (1993)
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (1920)
Randall v. Wyrick, 441 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Mo. 1977)
MM Steel, LP v. Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. et al, No. 4:2012cv01227 - Document 504 (S.D. Tex. 2014)
Tunica Web Advertising v. TUNICA CASINO OPERATORS, 496 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2007)
Spectators’ Comm. Network, Inc. v. Colonial Country Club, et al., 253 F.3d 215 (5 th Cir. 2001)
NW Wholesale Stationers v. Pac. Stationery 472 U.S. 284 (1985)
Norman Bridge Drug Company, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Michael Banner, John R. Bartels, Jr., Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, et al., Defendants-appellants, 529 F.2d 822 (5th Cir. 1976)
Mellouli v. Lynch 575 U.S. _ (2015)
Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 714 (1981)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
Ponce v. Roman Catholic Church, 210 U.S. 296 (1908)
COLE DRUG COMPANY OF MASSACHUSETTS vs. CITY OF BOSTON 326 Mass. 199 (1950)
United States v. Johnson,221 U.S. 488 (1911)
United States v. Morgan,222 U.S. 274 (1911)
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)
United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola, 241 U.S. 265 (1916)
Dow Chemical Co. v. United States,476 U.S. 227 (1986)
Dalehite v. United States,346 U.S. 15 (1953)
indell v. Abbott Laboratories L.A. No. 31063. Supreme Court of California. March 20, 1980
Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470 (1904)
United States v. Mottolo, 695 F. Supp. 615 (D.N.H. 1988)
Jelen and Son, Inc. v. Bandimere 801 P.2d 1182 (1990)
People v. Noland 739 P.2d 906 (1987)
United States v. Ishmael, 843 F. Supp. 205 (E.D. Tex. 1994)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___ (2013)
People v. Phillips (1813)
New York v. Phillips (N.Y.Ct.Gen.Sess.1813)
People v. Smith (N.Y. 1817)
New York v. Smith, 2 City Hall Recorder 77 (1817)
Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 51 (1980)
Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 727, 20 L. Ed. 666 (1871)
New Jersey v. Szemple, 622A.2d248,249 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1993)
Howard v. Covenant Apostolic Church, Inc., 124 Ohio App.3d 24, 28-29 (1st Dist.1997)
Totten v. UnitedStates, 92 U.S.105,107 (1875)
In re: Ver-plank,329 F.Supp 433,435 (C.D.Cal1971)
United States v. Keeney, 111 F.Supp 233,234 (D.D.C.1953)
Louisiana v. Mayer, 589 So.2d 1145,1148 (La.Ct.App.1991)
Bonds v. Arkansas, 837 S.W.2d 881, 884 (Ark.1992)
Easley v. Texas, 837 S.W.2d 854, 856 (Tex.Ct.App.1992)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)
Respublica v. De Longchamps, 1 U.S. 111 (1784)
Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696 (1976)
Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969)
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005)
Africa v. Commonwealth, 662 F.2d 1025 (3d Cir. 1981)
MAYFIELD v. TDCJ No. 06-50490 (2008)
United States of America v. Jeff Fort, Appellant, 409 F.2d 441 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
United States of America v. Jeff Fort, Appellant, 443 F.2d 670 (D.C. Cir. 1971)
United States v. Fort, 921 F. Supp. 523 (N.D. Ill. 1996)
NATIONAL MOBILIZATION COM. TO END WAR IN VIET NAM v. Foran, 297 F. Supp. 1 (N.D. Ill. 1968)
Hoffman v. United States, 256 A.2d 567 (1969)
Abbie Hoffman, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee, 445 F.2d 226 (D.C. Cir. 1971)
Americans United v. PRISON FELLOWSHIP, 555 F. Supp. 2d 988 (S.D. Iowa 2008)
Davis v. Austin, 492 F. Supp. 273 (N.D. Ga. 1980)
State v. Olson 449 N.W.2d 251 (1989)
Stovall v. Bennett, 471 F. Supp. 1286 (M.D. Ala. 1979)
Lipp v. Procunier, 395 F. Supp. 871 (N.D. Cal. 1975)
The Antelope, 24 U.S. 413 (1826)
United States v. The Amistad, 40 U.S. 518 (1841)
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States,143 U.S. 457 (1892)
Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)
Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972)
Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen,244 U.S. 205 (1917)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
Largent v. Texas 318 U.S. 418 (1943)
Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853)
The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871)
Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898)
Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924)
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)
Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972)
Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997)
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)
American Library Association v. Pataki. 969 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)
Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995)
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997)
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006)
Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017)
Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866)
Elfbrandt v. Russell 97 Ariz. 140 (1964)
Russo v. Byrne, 409 U.S. 1219 (1972)
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co.,118 U.S. 394 (1886)
Griswild v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947)
Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935)
People v. Newton (1970)
Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973)
Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992)
United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000).
Uttecht v. Brown 551 U.S. 1 (2007)
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961)
Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (1965)
Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (1966)
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968)
Gonzales v. Beto, 405 U.S. 1052 (1972)
Skilling v. U.S., 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010)
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d510 (1965)
Montgomery v. Bevans, 17 F.Cas. 628 (9th C.C.D. Cal.)
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 447 (1999)
Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 7 (1999)
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 741 (1999)
Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 818 (1999)
Your Home Visiting Nurse Services, Inc. v. Shalala, 525 U.S. 449, 453 (1999)
AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 397 (1999)
United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380, 392 (1999)
INS v. Aguirre 526 U.S. 415, 424 (1999)
California Dental Assn. v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756, 766 (1999)
Amoco Production Co. v. Southern Ute Tribe, 526 U.S. 865, 873 (1999)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 21 (1999)
Kolstad v. American Dental Assn., 527 U.S. 526, 539 (1999)
Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 234 (1999)
National Aeronautics and Space Admin. v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 527 U.S. 229, 235 (1999)
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473, 487 (1999)
Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 714 (1981)
United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944)
New Hampshire v. Maine,532 U.S. 742 (2001)
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002)
Busey v. District of Columbia, 319 U.S. 579 (1943)
Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (1953)
Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
United States v. Alkhabaz, 104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir. 1997)
Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931)
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 US 449 (1958)
Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963)
United States v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966)
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)
Erno Nussenzweig v. Philip-Lorca diCorcia (2007)
Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234 (1964)
Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States, 487 F.2d 1345 (Ct. Cl. 1973)
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952)
Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965)
Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011)
Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938)
Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971)
Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943)
Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment 444 U.S. 620 (1980)
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957)
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Taylor v. Mississippi, 319 U.S. 583 (1943)
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971)
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)
Ketchum v. Cruz, 775 F. Supp. 1399 (D. Colo. 1991)
Yadon v. Southward, 64 P. 3d 909 (2002)
Villa v. Colorado DOC, No. 16-1308 (10th Cir. 2016)
Draper v. Washington, 372 US 487 (1963)
Hardin v. Straub, 490 US536 (1989)
Sause v. Bauer, 585 US _ (2018)
Collins v. Kansas, 174 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. Kan, 2001)
Coppedge v. US, 369 US 438 (1962)
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
US v. Dewitt, 76 US 41 (1869)
Civil Rights Cases, 109 US 3 (1883)
Employer Liablity Cases, 207 US 463 (1908)
El Paso v. Gutierrez, 215 US 87 (1909)
Muskrat v. US, 219 US 346 (1911)
Turner v. US, 396 US 398 (1970)
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 US 251 (1918)
Carter v. Carter Coal, 298 US 238 (1936)
US v. Darby, 312 US 100 (1941)
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)
Child Labor Tax Case, 259 US 20 (1922)
US v. Constantine, 296 US 287 (1935)
US v. Butler, 297 US 1 (1936)
Rickert Rice v. Fontenot, 297 US 110 (1936)
Rubin v. Coors, 514 US 476 (1995)
Boos v. Barry, 485 US 312 (1988)
US v. Cardiff, 344 US 174 (1952)
Tot v. US, 319 US 463 (1943)
Capitol Police v. Jeanette Brigade, 409 US 972 (1972)
Toth v. Quarels, 350 US 11 (1955)
Blount v. Rizzi, 400 US 410 (1971)
US v. Robel, 389 US 258 (1967)
Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 US 500 (1964)
Albertson v. SACB, 382 US 70 (1965)
Haynes v. US, 390 US 85 (1968)
Schacht v. US, 398 US 58 (1970)
US v. Romano, 382 US 136 (1965)
Regan v. Time, 468 US 641 (1984)
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 US 112 (1970)
Feltner v. Columbia, 523 US 340 (1998)
Johnson v. US, 576 US _(2015)
US v. Eichman, 496 US 310 (1990)
Hosanna Tabor v. Equal Employment, 565 US _ (2012)
US v. United Foods, 533 US 405 (2001)
US v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995)
Printz v. US, 521 US 898 (1997)
US v. Morrison, 529 US 598 (2000)
Agency for Int'l Dev v. All for Open Soc'y Int'l, 570 US _ (2013)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948).
Article 18
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976.
Article 18
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, G.A. res. 36/55, 36 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 171, U.N. Doc. A/36/684 (1981).
Article 1, Article 2, Article 4, Article 6 (definitely pay attention to sections C & H), Article 7
Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (1986)
Mandate
Human Rights Committee, General Comment 22, Article 18 (Forty-eighth session, 1993). Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 35 (1994).
2, 3, 4
