January 2006 U.S. supreme Court Ruling on the Oregon Facision Assistance Suicede Law.?
104707
So what is your point, States have some rights.
989031
The first link gives you the actual U.S. v. Hitchcock case.\n\nAnother link you may want in the future, if you want Supreme Court cases, is below the first.
448340
Your in a for a treat....\n\nhttp://www.state.il.us/court/OPINIONS/SupremeCourt/1996/June/Opinions/HTML/78726.txt
355965
Justice Potter Stewart, Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964)\n\n"I have reached the conclusion . . . that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area [obscenity] are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know if when I see it; and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
579255
check out this court case http://www.ulcseminary.org/forum/uploads/ULCvUSA.pdf
749069
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04 \n                                                                                      05
738570
How can you hold the state responsible?  Are you talking lawsuit?  You need to clarify your answer more.......\n\nUsually if a law is ambiguous, basically what happens is that no one inforces it to begin with.    If it was inforced, and you were the recipient of the inforcement, you would have to fight your judgement in court.  If the court upheld it (not in favor of you) then you could appeal and take it to a higher court, and continue this process until you got to your state's supreme court.    \n\nAlot of time and money involved in this process if you decide to go this path.......
281373
try this\nhttp://library.findlaw.com/
902301
None, it is legal in all 50 states.  For more information on abortion, see http://Abort73.com
628840
As I understand the basics of the legal arguments here, its about freedom of choice.....an interesting concept, when the federal government spends millions of dollars every year to treat self-induced cancer.\n\nI feel about this one the same way I feel about helmet laws.  If you want to smoke or not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, fine.  But sign a waiver saying you won't take a dime from taxpayers to treat the result of your foolish decisions.
810927
Are you talking about DeRolph vs. State of Ohio? Try the link below, which gives a chronology of the case. Or try searching on "DeRolph vs. State of Ohio" for other links that may give you the information you need. Good luck!
453873
That right has always been forfeited, when have we ever legally had the choice to die? Our pets do, but we do not. Its just the law. It doesnt stop anyone from doing it though, so what does it really matter. Love Heidi
458424
American Ice Company v. Hunter, Appellant.\nNo. 267, Oct. T., 1914\nSUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n60 Pa. Super. 311, *; 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 187, ** \n60 Pa. Super. 311; 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 187\n\nAre you looking for the whole case?
1174452
This separate "Memorandum" is an attachment to a R.I.C.0 Civil Action. The Memorandum provides irrefutable evidence that Titles 3, 18, 21, and 28 of the United States Code, and the Federal Magistrates Act, were not, nor ever has been enacted into law, or at least, law that applies to the sovereign people of the several States.   \n\nThe Courts and Prosecutors promote and rely on the general misconception that any statute passed by a legislature is valid and/or applicable to everyone equally. It is impossible for both the Constitution, and a law violating it to be valid; one or the other must prevail. \n\n The United States Code (USC) includes a raft of laws pertaining to production, distri­bution, purchase and use of marijuana, cocaine, and other commodities presently classified as controlled dangerous substances. If in fact, you were to read all fifty titles of the Code (USC) from cover to cover, you would find that some provision in the Code regulates nearly every aspect of life; the object obviously being to impose Federal authority over subject classes from cradle to grave. The Code clearly exceeds enumerated powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Therefore, we must conclude that at least some portions of the Code do not apply to the several States and the American people at large. Either that, or the Constitution has been pitched out the window.  \n\nNON-ENACTED STATUTES \n\n The United States Code -- Titles 3, 18, 21, 28, and others, were allegedly enacted into federal law on June 25, 1948; supposedly "positive law" enacted by Congress. However, by consulting the Congressional Record, Vol.94, Part 7 (covering June 15, 1948 to June 19, 1948, p.8229-9160), and Vol. 94, Part 8 (covering July 26, through December 31, 1948, p. 9353), it is found that Congress was not assembled in session on June 25, 1948. Thus, Congress did not enact these Code-Titles in question. \n\nRead the full Memorandum under "Articles" at the site referenced below. The RICO lawsuit against two judges is also there.
794256
try www.findlaw.com     \nzabasearch\ngood luck!
519035
try this:\n\nhttp://public.findlaw.com/library/state-laws.html
854448
Certiorari granted; 35 Wis. 2d 146, 150 N. W. 2d 507, reversed.\n\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=390&invol=519