Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of
common right and common reason are null and void”. Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point --that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward: “The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of practice.”
Davis v. Wechsler , 263 US 22, 24. “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489. “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.”
Sherer v. Cullen , 481 F 946. We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, the Constitution itself answers our question � Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no 'rule making' or legislation which would abrogate them."
Norton v. Shelby County , 118 U.S. 425 p. 442
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; 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."
Sherar v. Cullen , 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of
Simmons v. United States , 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
"The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a
crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law".
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the
United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation
of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or
judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking
to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S.
200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia,
19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).
“War crimes” include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict and in conflicts "not of an international character" listed in the Rome Statute, when they are committed as part of a plan or policy or on a large scale. These prohibited acts include:
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
taking of hostages;
intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population;
intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historical monuments or hospitals;
rape, sexual slavery, forced pregnancy or any other form of sexual violence;
conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities.