Hooray for these courts striking down a blatantly unconstitution city government attack on free speech!
CINCINNATI – The village of Glendale, a suburb of Cincinnati, enacted an ordinance banning residents from posting "For Sale" signs on cars parked on public property. In an 8-7 split decision, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed previous federal district court and three-judge appeals panels, and found that the ordinance violates constitutionally protected commercial speech rights.
Glendale resident and lawyer Chris Pagan, sued the village of Glendale. He was threatened with a fine in 2003 if he did not remove the for sale sign from a car he owned. He sued on the basis that the ordinance violated his First Amendment rights.
The village of Glendale made the typical argument: They claim their ordinance is a traffic safety issue. Many cities excuse this unconstitutional law by claiming that people who stop to inspect a car for sale in a public roadway might be injured.
Many cities have similar ordinances which ban washing or repairing vehicles in the street.
Unfortunately a minority of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges had no problem with denying people their right to post a for sale sign, claiming "The act of selling a car in a public street invites prospective buyers into the road to examine the car, and common sense supports a ban on such acts."
The dissenting judges pointed out more than 200 similar ordinances in the four states - Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee - from which the 6th Circuit hears appeals.
![]()
Argentina: Inconstitucional, la Ley de Punto Final.(TT: Argentina: unconstitutional, the law of immunity.): An article from: Siempre!
Rubén Montedónico$5.95(USD)
This digital document is an article from Siempre!, published by Edicional Siempre on March 21, 2001. The length of the article is 862 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Citation DetailsTitle: Argentina: Inconstitucional, la Ley de Punto Final.(TT: Argentina: unconstitutional, the law of immunity.)
Author: Rubén Montedónico
Publication: Siempre! (Refereed)
Date: March 21, 2001
Publisher: Edicional Siempre
Volume: 47
Issue: 2492
Page: 44
Distributed by Thomson Gale
Presidential Defiance of "Unconstitutional" Laws: Reviving the Royal Prerogative (Contributions in Legal Studies)
Christopher N. May$119.95(USD)
Since the mid-1970s American presidents have, with growing frequency, claimed that they have the power to ignore any law they believe is unconstitutional. Beginning with a review of the English constitutional backdrop against which the U.S. Constitution was framed, this book demonstrates that the Founders did not intend to confer on the president a power equivalent to the royal prerogative of suspending the laws, which was stripped from the English Crown in 1689. The author examines each of the nearly 150 instances in which presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter have objected to the validity of a law, in order to determine whether or not the president then ignored the law in question. This examination of the historical record reveals that prior to the mid-1970s the White House only rarely failed to honor a law that it believed to be unconstitutional.
Indian Nullification of the Unconstitutional Laws of Massachusetts Relative to the Tribe of Mashpee:
William Apes$4.36(USD)
Formatted for the Kindle.
Excerpt:
BOSTON, OCTOBER 2, 1834,
To whom it may concern.
The undersigned was a native of the County of Barnstable, and was brought up near the Marshpee Indiana. He always regarded them as a people grievously oppressed by the whites, and borne down by laws which made them poor and enriched other men upon their property. In fact the Marshpee Indians, to whom our laws have denied all rights of property, have a higher title to their lands than the whites have, for our forefathers claimed the soil of this State by the consent of the Indians, whose title they thus admitted was better than their own.
For a long time the Indians had been disaffected, but no one was energetic enough among them to combine them in taking measures for their rights. Every time they had petitioned the Legislature, the laws, by the management of the interested whites, had been made more severe against them. Daniel Amos, I believe, was the first one among them, who conceived the plan of freeing his tribe from slavery. William apes, an Indian preacher, of the Pequod tribe, regularly ordained as a minister, came among these Indians, to preach. They invited him to assist them in getting their liberty. He had the talent they most stood in need of. He accordingly went forward, and the Indians declared that no man should take their wood off their plantation. Apes and a number of other Indians quietly unloaded a load of wood, which a Mr. Sampson was carting off. For this, he and some others were indicted for a riot, upon grounds extremely doubtful in law, to say the least. Every person on the jury, who said he thought the Indians ought to have their liberty, was set aside. The three Indians were convicted, and apes was imprisoned thirty days.
It was in this stage of the business, after the conviction, that I became the counsel of the Indians, and carried their claims to the Legislature, where they finally prevailed.
The persons concerned in the riot, as it was called, and imprisoned for it, I think were as justifiable in what they did, as our fathers were, who threw the tea overboard; and to the energetic movements of William apes, Daniel Amos and others, it was owing that an impression was made on the Legislature, which induced them to do partial justice toward this long oppressed race. The imprisonment of those men, in such a cause, I consider an honour to them, and no disgrace; no more than the confinement of our fathers, in the Jersey prison-ship.
Benjamin F. Hallett,
Counsel for the Marshpee Indian.
![]()
Amendment to hospital lien law held unconstitutional.(Brief Article): An article from: Hospital Law's Regan Report
A. David Tammelleo$5.95(USD)
This digital document is an article from Hospital Law's Regan Report, published by Medica Press, Inc. on March 1, 2002. The length of the article is 912 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Citation DetailsTitle: Amendment to hospital lien law held unconstitutional.(Brief Article)
Author: A. David Tammelleo
Publication: Hospital Law's Regan Report (Newsletter)
Date: March 1, 2002
Publisher: Medica Press, Inc.
Volume: 42
Issue: 10
Page: 1(2)
Article Type: Brief Article
Distributed by Thomson Gale
![]()
Presidential Defiance of "Unconstitutional" Laws: Reviving the Royal Prerogative.(Review) (book reviews): An article from: Constitutional Commentary
J. Randy Beck$5.95(USD)
This digital document is an article from Constitutional Commentary, published by Constitutional Commentary, Inc. on June 22, 1999. The length of the article is 5944 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Citation DetailsTitle: Presidential Defiance of "Unconstitutional" Laws: Reviving the Royal Prerogative.(Review) (book reviews)
Author: J. Randy Beck
Publication: Constitutional Commentary (Refereed)
Date: June 22, 1999
Publisher: Constitutional Commentary, Inc.
Volume: 16
Issue: 2
Page: 419
Article Type: Book Review
Distributed by Thomson Gale
![]()
Is the right to organize unconstitutional?: An article from: Yale Law Journal
Aron Fischer$5.95(USD)
This digital document is an article from Yale Law Journal, published by Yale University, School of Law on June 1, 2004. The length of the article is 4010 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Citation DetailsTitle: Is the right to organize unconstitutional?
Author: Aron Fischer
Publication: Yale Law Journal (Refereed)
Date: June 1, 2004
Publisher: Yale University, School of Law
Volume: 113
Issue: 8
Page: 1999(8)
Distributed by Thomson Gale
