To: Rick
Stanley
From: Rick Costello
Date: 19 December 2001
Subject: 2nd Amendment & ContributionI received an emailed copy of a
speech you gave on 15 December regarding the 2nd
Amendment after which, according to the email, you were
arrested for a gun violation. I subsequently reviewed
your web site and, for a change, I agree with everything
a politician is espousing.
As such, while I cannot
vote for you in November, I enclose a check in support of
your candidacy.
Since, according to the
email, you intend to push the 2nd Amendment issue in the
courts, you may wish to utilize the following cites
which, to my knowledge, have never been overturned and
are quite germane to the case.
Marbury vs Madison [5
US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)] wherein the
Supreme Court stated that "All laws which
are repugnant to the Constitution are null and
void."
The court clarified
their position in Miranda vs Arizona [384 US 436 p.
491] wherein they stated: "Where rights
secured by the Constitution are involved, there can
be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate
them."
And in Norton vs
Shelby County [118 US 425 p. 442] the justices
stated: "An unconstitutional act is not law;
it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no
protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never
been passed."
Note may be made of the
legal reference 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section
177 late 2nd, Section 256 stating: "No
one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no
courts are bound to enforce it."
[emphasis added]
"The general
rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though
having the form and the name of law, is in reality no
law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any
purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the
time of its enactment, and not merely frrom the date
of the decision so branding it."
Finally,
when they say the State has the 'authority' and power to
'regulate,' you might mention Schick vs United States
[(1904) 195 US 65, 49 L.Ed. 99, 24 S. Ct. 826] which
clearly says otherwise:
"If there is
any conflict between the provisions of the
Constitution [enumerated powers to make law]
and the provisions of the Amendments [Bill of
Rights], the Amendments must
control."
Best of luck -- let me
know how you make out.
/ss/ Rick Costello,
Goshen, New Hampshire
Top of Page
|
