By Malcolm Lee Kitchen III | Margin Of The Law

Whenever we examine law, and whatever the law is we are examining, it must be compared to the Constitution of these united States of America. Any statute, ordinance, regulation, order, commandment, directive, or guideline throughout the entire land of this country whether local, State, Federal, or even those the U.N. would demand we enforce, must be in agreement with the entire Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, State Constitutions, and Supreme Court rulings in line with those, and if it is not it is wholly null and void as if it did not exist.

All law is law, notwithstanding the Supreme Law of The Land. The Supreme Law Of The Land, is the common law, and the Constitution is an instrument of common law procedure.  As 64% of the Constitution is reasoned directly from Deuteronomy and commentary upon Deuteronomy, the common law is the divine connection between the Constitution and the bible.  All behavior is legal regardless of whatever statute would claim the contrary as long as a behavior does not cause actual damage or injury, or violation of a legal right.

The legacy of this country is based upon not what most are taught to believe, but upon the premise of men being willing to die to live under god’s law and to forever resist the rule of other men. Our founders cleverly never defined god, as such all faiths are welcome. Not many know that all religions were present at the Constitutional convention and that is a travesty of history.

The common law, originated circa 8th century in the Christian churches in England, and is the application of cannon and biblical law, the only law our founders ever spoke of.

 A License offered by government confers no right upon an American, but only confers a privilege. The absence of a privilege does not cause an absence of any inherent right. As such no license can be required of any American to engage in a rightful behavior, and again any behavior may be engage in by any American provided there is no damage or injury or violation of a right. Consent is the determining factor in most cases.

If a man punches a man in the back of the head without provocation assault has been committed and that establishes the violation of the legal right to not be assaulted as well as damage and injury. However if two men decide to consent to engage in a hand to hand altercation their mutual consent implies they accept responsibility for the injuries they may sustain. The consent to engage in hand to hand combat is an American right, and no law may render this right criminal, nor convert the right into a privilege, nor impose sanction or penalty upon either party of any kind, unless there is further damage to other private or public property or person not a party to the consented conflict.

Americans have many inherent rights which have been converted into licensed and monitored privileges, and non criminal behaviors have since been criminalized. Americans may; Own and Carry a displayed firearm, Hunt, Fish, Marry, Drive, Own a Pet, Open a private business, Drive a boat, obtain medicine, drink alcohol, make additions or changes to their property, tear down and rebuild on their property, work, and engage in any other behavior as long as it does not actually cause damage or injury to another, or violation of another’s inherent rights. Without any requirement or encumbrance of licensure, or other government encumbrances.

Americans have rights not privileges, and any law that runs contrary to these rights is in fact not law, but again, wholly null and void retroactively to the date it was passed as if it never existed.

Our constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is the common law, that law which is written plainly for everyone to understand. This principle is what has ensured and protected the god given right of every American to be on equal footing under the law. The courts have been corrupted to a degree where the common man no longer has access to the courts, but against conventional wisdom everyone has a right to use the courts regarding their own affairs without a lawyer if they choose.

The constitution is the supreme law in every court regardless of whether or not the judge acknowledges this fact. Any court that does not recognize the Constitution is not an American court and no party is required to obey any order from a court which does not recognize the constitution.

 Many grand claims have been made here that go against conventional wisdom but these are by no means my opinion. This is all 100% fact based upon solid supreme court rulings which never having been overturned, represent the law of the land as they are in agreement with the constitution. Americans are not even legally required to obey any statute or color of law which defies the spirit of liberty in the expressed and unenumerated rights contained within the constitution.

Our rights supersede ALL LAW, and any laws which infringe upon them are wholly null and void as if they never existed.

Corpus Delicti must exist for any case to have standing in American court. The 3 elements necessary to be proven to establish corpus delicti are ;

1. alleged damage or injury,

2. alleged violation of a legal right, and

3. redress ability of the court.

Corpus Delicti must be proven not merely asserted, and any case in which corpus delicti cannot be proven there is no standing, and without standing the court does not have jurisdiction to hear any case. Clifford v Superior Court 45 Cal Rptr 2nd 333, 335 Without standing there is no actual or justicable controversy and courts will not entertain such cases.

 “;All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. “; Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

 Finding that the statute conflicted with the Federal Constitution, Marshall considered it “the essence of judicial duty” (p. 178) to follow the Constitution. He concluded that “the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument” (p. 180).13

 It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act…. Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it… . If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

 “;Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”;Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

 “;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.”; Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442

 “;The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, in 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 from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”;16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177, late 2nd, Section 256

 Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”; Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

 “;The claim and exercise …of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into… a crime.”; Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.

 “;There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.”; Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.

SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL

 “;The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”; [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.

 “;The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”; [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

 “;…For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.”; State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; and other cases too numerous to mention.

 “;Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain.”; Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.

 What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so “;radically and obviously”; from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very “;radical and obvious”; difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:

“;The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.”;

 “;This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.”; State vs. City of Spokane, supra.

 “;the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.”; Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781.

 The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.”; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

 “;Personal liberty — or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty — is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution… It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property…and is regarded as inalienable.”; 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.

Margin of the Law publishes constitutional analysis, civic research, and legal education for people who want to understand the system they actually live in. Read the Full Constitutional Analysis Library at marginofthelaw.com.

© 2026 – MK3 Law Group
For republication or citation, please credit this article with link attribution to marginofthelaw.com.