The judiciary, NORML, ACLU do not recognize marijuana users as person and marijuana as property thereby denying equal protection of the law, the Bill of Rights

 

On this page you will find the 14th Amendment and the 4th and 5th Amendments The 4th and 5th are made applicable to the states by the 14th.

 

 

 

AMENDMENT IV

 

The first part of Amendment IV refers to the reasonableness of the law that authorizes the use of police power to search and seize your house, person, papers, and effects for violating the marijuana laws.

 

Amendment IV: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be search, and the persons or things to be seized.”

 

The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, ….."protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 2 (1968)."what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968) >[364 U.S. 206, 222] [116 U.S. 616, 641]

 

A "seizure" triggering the Fourth Amendment's protections occurs only when government actors have, by “means of physical force or show of authority, . . . in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n. 16 (1968). A full custodial arrest is …a severe intrusion on an individual's liberty, its reasonableness hinges on "the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300 (1999).

 

It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the stationhouse and prosecution for crime -- "arrests" in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 13

 

Reasonable under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of ‘the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests' against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989).

 

The Fourth Amendment’s first clause provides that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” There are two types of expectations provided by this text, one involving searches, the other seizures. “A ‘search’ occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. A ‘seizure’ of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984).

 

“The Fourth Amendment, and the personal rights which it secures, have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Silverman v United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511(1961).

 

The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, ….."protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 2 (1968)."what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968) >[364 U.S. 206, 222] [116 U.S. 616, 641]

 

“[T] he central inquiry under the Fourth Amendment … the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968).

 

392 U.S. 1, 10 “The heart of the Fourth Amendment… is a severe requirement of specific justification for any intrusion upon protected personal security, coupled with a highly developed system of judicial controls to enforce upon the agents of the State the commands of the Constitution.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 10,11 (1968)

 

[506 U.S. 56, 70] The construction and constitutionality (of criminal marijuana laws) laws should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard, rather than the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process test. …It is more "explicit textual source of constitutional protection" over the "more generalized notion of `substantive due process.'"….The Fourth Amendment's specific protection for "houses, papers, and [506 U.S. 56, 71] effects," rather than the general protection of property in the Due Process Clause. Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 70 (1992).

 

The Fourth Amendment's provides specific protection for ‘houses, papers, and effects.’ ” Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 70(1992

 

The Fourth Amendment is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth. ….. ." Soldal v. Cook County,506 U.S. 56, 61 , (1992)

 

(a) …..this Court's cases unmistakably hold that the [4th] Amendment protects property even where privacy or liberty is not implicated. ….Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 56 (1992)

This court previous cases “hold that seizures of property are subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny even though no search within the meaning of the Amendment has taken place.” Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 68 (1992).

 

"at the very core" of the Fourth Amendment "stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home." Soldal v. Cook County,506 U.S. 56, 61 , (1992).

 

(a) …..this Court's cases unmistakably hold that the [4th] Amendment protects property even where privacy or liberty is not implicated. ….Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 56 (1992)


A ‘seizure’ of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference Fourth Amendment found easy acceptance in the Supreme Court Boyd v. United States 116 U.S. 616, 627

 

Amendment V

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

"[T]he guaranties of due process, though having their roots in Magna Carta's `per legem terrae' and considered as procedural safeguards `against executive usurpation and tyranny,' have in this country `become bulwarks also against arbitrary legislation.' " Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey 505 U.S. 833, 847 (1992) >Poe v. Ullman-367 U.S. 497, 541 (1961)

“The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government.” Wolff v Mcdonnell,418 U.S. 539, 558 (1974) ,

One who assails the classification in such a law must carry the burden of showing that it does not rest upon any reasonable basis, but is essentially arbitrary. Lindsey v Natural Carbonic Gas Co. 220 U.S. 61, 78-79 (1911)

 

A property right [is]…entitled to protection against state legislation in contravention of the federal Constitution, . ….And, unless justified as a valid exercise of the police power, the act assailed must be declared unconstitutional because the enforcement thereof will deprive appellant of its property without due process of law. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 111 (1928).

 

This Court has stated that the “prohibition against the deprivation of property without due process of law reflects the high value, embedded in our constitutional and political history, that we place on a person's right to enjoy what is his, free of governmental interference.” Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 81 (1972).

 

“Rights of property which have been created by the common law cannot be taken away without due process; but the law itself, as a rule of conduct, may be changed at the will, or even at the whim, of the legislature, unless prevented by constitutional limitations.” Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 134 (1876)

 

"procedural due process rules are shaped by the risk of error inherent in the truth-finding process" >Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976) …Such rules "minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations of "life, liberty, or property by enabling persons to contest the basis upon which a State proposes to deprive them of protected interests. Carey v. Piphus,435 U.S. 247, 259-260 (1978)>Fuentes v Shevin 407 U.S. 67, 81 (1972).

 

“The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government.” Wolff v Mcdonnell,418 U.S. 539, 558 (1974) ,

 

The 'liberty' mentioned in that amendment means, ….the right of the citizen to be free from …physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. Allgeyer v. Louisiana,165 U.S. 578, 589 (1897)

 

Due process……has represented the balance ….. for the liberty of the individual …and the demands of organized society. Poe v. Ullman 367 U.S. 497, 542] (1961)

This inestimable right of [392 U.S. 1, 9] personal security belongs as much to the citizen on the streets of our cities as to the homeowner closeted in his study to dispose of his secret affairs. For as this Court has always recognized, "No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891). with an individual's possessory interests in that property.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984).

 

We specifically held in Mapp that this constitutional prohibition is enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, " by the application of the same constitutional standard prohibiting "unreasonable [374 U.S. 23, 31] searches and seizures." Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 30 (1963), >[367 U.S. 643, 655]

 

Amendment XIV

 

Made most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States

Ratified July 9, 1868

section 1
"Because all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

 

The following are quotes of the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

"The privileges and immunities' of a citizen of the United States include, among other things, the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and propertySlaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 126 (1873)

 

The most familiar of the substantive liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the Bill of Rights. We have held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights against the States. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 847 (1992).

 

This Court “has looked … to the Bill of Rights for guidance; many of the rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments ….have been held to be protected against state action by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That clause now protects.… Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures …” Duncan v. Louisiana 391 U.S.145,147- 148 (1968).

 

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. West VA. State Board of Education v,. Barnette et al 319 U.S. 624, 638

The fourteenth amendment …..furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. U S v. Cruikshank 92 U.S.542, 554 (1875)

 

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “raises no impenetrable barrier to the taking of a person's possessions, or liberty, or life. Procedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation, but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Carey v. Piphus,435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978)

 

The crucial inquiry under the 14th Amendment is whether it clearly appears to be not a fair and reasonable exertion of governmental power, but arbitrary as to constitute an abuse of power. Mountain Timber CO. v. State of Washington, 243 U.S. 219, 237 (1917)

The act is sought to be sustained specifically upon the ground that it is reasonably calculated to promote the public health; and the determination we are called upon to make is whether the act has a real and substantial relation to that end or is a clear and arbitrary invasion of appellant's property rights guaranteed by the Constitution. ….The police power may be exerted in the form of state legislation where otherwise the effect may be to invade rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment only when such legislation bears a real and substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or some other phase of the general welfare. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, [278 U.S. 105, 111-12 (1928)

 

Fourteenth Amendment, protects parties from unjustifiable discriminating application of law. Discriminating application of the law by government can constitute denial of due process. Touchstone of due process is protection of individual against arbitrary action of government. Wolff v Mcdonnell (1974) 418 US 539, L ed 2d 935, 94 S Ct 2963

 

Due process of lawwithin the meaning of Fourteenth Amendment is secured if laws operate on all alike, and do not subject individual to arbitrary exercise of powers of government. Missouri P. R. Co.v Mackey (1888) 127 US 205, 32 L.Ed 107, 8 S Ct 1161.Minneapolis & S.L.R. Co. v. Herrick (1888), 127 U.S. 210, 8 S.Ct. 1176; Leeper v. Texas (1891)139 U.S. 462, 11 S.Ct. 577; Giozza v. Tiernan (1893) 148 US 657, 13 S.Ct.721; Duncan v Missouri (1894) 152 US 377 , 14 S.Ct. 570.

 

The security of persons and property remains a fundamental value Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 175 (196

 

=========================================================

Un Reasonable Seize Marijuana-------------- Our Rights Their Betrayal
Print Print | Sitemap
Our Rights Their Betrayal