by Marvin J. Ramírez
Marvin Ramirez
(This is the second of a three-part series)
This series started with a letter to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors requesting them to consider providing a driving permit – not a license – to those undocumented immigrants living and taking sanctuary in San Francisco – under the sanctuary law.
Our previous editorial on the subject that driving is a right, not a privilege, as suggested and presumed by the law of California, told us about a number of federal court decisions, that show that in fact, states cannot infringe on those right via state driver’s license.
By Jack McLamb
The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions — such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few — on a citizen’s constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue.
In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: “The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”
And in 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 local practice.”
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are in volved, 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, at 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: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and al executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affi rmation, to support this Constitution…” IT WILL CONTINUE NEXT WEEK.
