According to our Constitution, our government’s sole authority to enact any official order, rule, or law, is if such orders, rules, or laws do something to protect the public health, welfare, morals, or safety. Failure to meet those criteria makes them no laws at all, they are null and void as if they were never enacted, and government has no constitutional authority to enforce them. Control the people, and through subterfuge, brainwash the children into complying with official dictum at an early age, and they will be easier to manipulate later in life. Encourage the young to ignore the moral character of their parents through the encouragement of unwed pregnancies, derision toward the family unit and loyalty, and/or abortions on demand, and the moral fiber of a nation is destroyed. Reinvent U.S. History to meet the desires of the elite liberals, glamorize athletic prowess while subordinating intellectual skills.

Governmental overreach into the daily lives of American citizens appears to have reached epidemic proportions. Think about it for a minute, what can you do anymore without first obtaining some form of license or permit from some nameless bureaucrat? Let’s assume you want to travel between points “A” and “B” in your own automobile. First, you must possess a driver’s license, and your vehicle must be registered and licensed by the State in which you reside. And, even if you have an exemplary driving record with no citations or accidents against your record, you must be insured by paying an insurance company hundreds of thousands of dollars for insurance against you ever having a traffic accident. And should you desire to obtain clear, clean water from your own water source rather than rely on the cities chlorinated water, you must first obtain permission from local authorities to drill a well on your own property.

The list of permissions and/or licenses you must obtain are all but endless, but due to our compliance with official diktat, your freedoms are in dire danger of being swept out with the trash. Ladies and gentlemen, this is precisely how the likes of Hitler come to power.

Both the upper and lower valleys have an abundance of apple orchards and various other farm commodities. For the most part, the people here are a gregarious lot who seem to enjoy their lives in this Mecca of semi urban and country life. The only real draw back though, are the morons who run around the area shooting at each other, often missing their intended target and hitting some innocent by-stander.

For the most part, that shooting each other generally involves a certain element of the community, many of whom entered this country illegally, and obviously hold our laws in contempt, going about the area shooting each other for some reason known only to themselves. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not some anti-gun fanatic screeching and screaming about the need for more so-called gun control laws. I just get a bit irritated over the fact that due to these senseless shooting, innocent by-standers are often caught in the cross-fire, or an errant bullet passing through someone’s window or wall kills or injures someone at the dinner table. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for an innocent child to become a victim of this random violence.

For those infinitely brave individuals who think it’s cool or that it makes them a “big man” to go around shooting unarmed or innocent by-standers, I must ask this question; why don’t you join up with some nation’s military? Just think about it, the military will supply you with any number of weapon’s and all of the ammunition you can use in a life time. You never know, they may even give you your own flame thrower, tank, or armored personnel carrier to wreak havoc with. And, I’m sure they can locate a small war somewhere on this planet where you will have the opportunity to expend a tremendous amount of ammunition at random targets of interest to you. However, a minor problem you might happen upon is that some of those “random targets” just might decide to shoot back at you. Oh, I see, that’s not part of the equation you prefer; you don’t want them shooting back at you, you prefer your targets to be standing with their backs to you, un-armed and therefore unable to defend themselves.

Well, personal experience tells me that just doesn’t work too well in a real shooting war. For whatever reason, in wars, the other guys always seem to be shooting back at you. As a matter of fact, while on a battle field, it seems for all intents and purposes, that everyone on the “other side” are focusing all of their attention on you, and you alone.

Well, that’s my rant for the day; so instead of keeping the firearms and ammunition manufacturers busy, get yourselves a job, settle down with a good woman, raise a God fearing family, and become a useful element within your community. Doing as you are right now, all you’re doing is keeping the local mortuary and flower shops busy with funeral arrangements for people you often didn’t even know.

Just stop and think about this for a few minutes: Can you imagine what would happen if you or I attempted to foist off on the public the nonsense we, the general public, are required to deal with?

We have the Right through Freedom of Choice, to smack our heads against a brick wall while claiming we can knock that wall down with our bare brow. We have the freedom to get into a boxing ring and go at each other tooth and nail, all while knocking any common sense out of our heads that we may have once possessed. We can use any sort of vehicle such as a car, truck, motor-cycle, bicycle, or even roller skates and come screaming down a hill, hit an elevated ramp, and attempt to leap over whatever obstacle we determine needs to be jumped over. And as mindless as it may seem to some, we also have the freedom to hook on a parachute, climb into an airplane and soar to ten or fifteen thousand feet and jump out. Of course those of such inclination each hope the parachute will slow down their fall back to mother earth, but if it fails to open, the “jumper” died an unfortunate death because the parachute failed to deploy properly.

Yes my friends, all of the above we are “allowed” to do with little, if any, government interference. Yes sir, that’s really freedom. But, if we are presumed to be intelligent enough to determine our chances of surviving any of the above events, why aren’t we given credit for having enough sense to determine what sort of light bulb we want to use in our own homes? No, we aren’t allowed to continue using the tried and true incandescent light bulb invented by Thomas Edison. Nooooo, our benefactors in government are demanding we toss out Edison’s invention and use a “new” lighting fixture which if broken in the house, will either kill you or cost tens of thousands of dollars to clean up the residue from the inside of the light bulb. We can even swallow swords and knives for fun or entertaining others if we decide to.

Along with those I’ve listed above, there are undoubtedly hundreds upon thousands of other methods government has approved of that we can use to further abuse our bodies and brains. For instance, we can drink ourselves into stupors whenever we wish, we can smoke cigarettes with reckless abandon, as well as adle our brains with any number of hallucinatory drugs our illustrious leaders are bent upon legitimizing for our daily use and/or pleasure.

While our potential for self destruction appears all but endless, there is one thing we are forbidden to do, and that is to occupy a position in an automobile traveling down our highways and by-ways without benefit of being strapped into place with a seat belt.

I believe the mentality of our government overseers are missing a few nuts and bolts, and each and every one of them needs to be put in padded cells.

In Budd vs. New York, Justice Brewer declared: “The paternal theory of government is to me odious. The utmost possible liberty to the individual and the fullest possible protection to him and his property, is both the limitation and duty of government.”

And to implement this point of view, the Court (Supreme Court) next undertook to water down the accepted maxim that a State statute must be presumed to be valid until clearly shown to be otherwise.

In contrast to the presumed validity rule, under which the Court ordinarily is not obliged to go beyond the record of evidence submitted by the litigants in determining the validity of a statute, the judicial notice principle, as developed in Mugler vs. Kansas, carried the inference that unless the Court, independently of the record, is able to ascertain the existence of justifying facts accessible to it by the rules governing judicial notice, it will be obliged to invalidate a police power regulation as bearing no reasonable or adequate relation to the purposes to be sub-served the latter, namely, health, morals, safety, or welfare.

This advantage was enhanced by the disposition of the Court, in litigation embracing the latter type of legislation, to shift the burden of proof from the litigant charging unconstitutionality to the State seeking enforcement. To the State was transferred the task of demonstrating that a statute interfering with the natural Right of liberty or property was, in fact, authorized by the Constitution, and not merely that the latter did not expressly prohibit enactment of the same.

For all intents and purposes, I don’t believe it takes a high priced Philadelphia lawyer to comprehend the significance of the Court’s ruling here. It appears to me the Court clearly comprehends that American Citizen’s are not illiterate fools, and are more than capable of determining for themselves the constitutional legitimacy of any governmental edict.

First, let’s understand one thing; we do NOT have constitutional Rights. Our Rights come from those granted us by God, not the Constitution. What the Constitution does is guarantee us that those Rights are unalienable, or inalienable, whichever term you prefer.

Also, under constitutional law, there is no such thing as a mere law, act of the legislature, etc. that can delete our God given Rights which again are protected by the Constitution. The only way any of our constitutionally protected Rights may be deleted or “taken away” from us, is through the amending process of the United States Constitution. That’s it folks, read up on our Constitution and the laws formulated under it, and you will find that mere acts of the legislature CANNOT deprive you of any of your Rights, no matter how badly some in the U.S. would prefer you to believe.

As the title of this article states, we have Panic Mongers out there who will do anything in an attempt to drag you kicking and screaming into their protective fold. And in most cases, their sole purpose is to give themselves the appearance of power and/or authority by the numbers of “converts” they can bring into their camp. Of course the money and/or other assets they require you to put in their “safe keeping” adds to this self perceived power. Be they Republican’s, Democrat’s, or sta worshipers, their intent is the same; and that is to build a perceived power base from which they can rule we mere mortals through some fear factor they have dreamed up and placed in what they believe to be our mindless orbs.

Enough said about that, I’ve got to get back to reality and that means raking leaves, picking up the rocks and limbs the grand-kids have broken from the trees and deposited in the yard, then mow the lawn. That’s my level of reality and power base.

Let’s face it folks, when the members of our judiciary openly and without remorse are allowed to freely turn the courts into dens of iniquity, whorehouses for those of that line of thinking, our Republic stands little chance of retaining its historical respect for the law, and every man and woman’s Rights to individual freedom and liberty. Although I personally have lost most all of my respect for the judiciary, I have yet to have lost any respect for the Rule of Law; for without the Rule of Law, the future of this nation and her people is bleak.

Today in America, it appears that our judicial system and its inherent justice are open to the highest bidder. I say that because I’ve too many times witnessed members of the judiciary failing to comply with settled case and/or statutory laws, but using their court rules as being of greater importance than the laws and rules the citizenry relies upon for their very existence.

Under 5 U.S.C., Section 702, it is clearly mandated that “a person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief… and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the grounds that it is against the United States, or that the United States is an indispensable party….”

42 U.S.C. Chapter 21, Subchapter I, Section 1985 (2),(3) – Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights. Subsection (2) deals with “Obstructing Justice, intimidating party, witness, or juror. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstruction, or defeating in any manner, the due course of justice (also known as due process of law) in any State or Territory, with intent to deprive any citizen of the equal protection of the laws, or injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce the Right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protections of the laws.”

Subsection (3) tells us: “Depriving persons of Rights or Privileges. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws;… in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any Right or Privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.”

What you have just read is a citation from 42 U.S.C. Chapter 21, Subchapter I, Section 1985 (2) and (3); did anyone notice an exemption from prosecution for any public employee such as the police, governor, mayor, or a judge? You’re right, there is no such thing as any inherent Right to freedom from prosecution solely due to one’s position as a public employee, a well financed donor to political and/or judicial election/appointment campaigns, or be they part of any administration or holding any office of judicial authority. Unfortunately though, that, in too many instances appears to be the way things work in the administration of justice in the U.S.A.. No, justice seldom appears to be the Court’s priorities these days; not unless you have the where-with-all to cross the right corrupt palms with significant amounts of “coin of the realm.”

I could reel off the names of numerous federal and/or state/county judges in the state of Washington who, in my opinion, don’t deserve to occupy “the bench,” and serve up a brand of justice our Founding Fathers would find repugnant to their labors in founding this nation. I know I’ve mentioned the name of the following miscreant before, but U.S. District Court judge Whaley is without doubt one of the most corrupt I’ve had the distinct displeasure of running into. He is by far the most corrupt federal judge I’ve see despoiling the honor and sanctity of any federal bench. If you don’t believe me, what do you think of any judge who is a defendant in a lawsuit acting as a defendant, juror, and judge in a lawsuit?

Earlier this morning, I watched an equestrian and her mount proceeding up the road and past my home. About 200 yards further down the road and in front of my neighbor’s home, I noticed the horse leaving several deposits alongside the road and I couldn’t help myself, but those “deposits” reminded me of judge Whaley.

Take this current scandal with politician Weiner. The vast majority of our current stable of politicians are remaining ominously silent about his recent “photo op.” Is that because they too have much to hide from their constituents, or is it because they see nothing wrong with his poor choices of where, when, and to whom he mails apparently “x” rated pictures of himself. Or, is it because they too have been holding dalliances with women of the street rather than their own wives. Frankly, I’ve got more respect for the women of the street than I do for both federal and/or state politicians riding herd over our legislatures. At least those women don’t attempt to conceal what their true occupation is, while our politicians and some judges act more like $20.00 street prostitutes than the pro’s do. From what I’ve seen, it appears to me that many of our less than illustrious legislators and judges hold off making decisions on important matters until such time as one party or the other in the debate has “made their final offer.”

One of my favorite targets among the corrupt judiciary is one U.S. District Court Judge James L. Robart; that being due to his total lack of judicial or personal ethics; I factor personal ethics into the equation because it appears to me that when a judge loses his/her judicial ethics, their personal ethics had to have been the first victim of the swamp they’ve been wading through. And, once they’ve lost their all important ethical standards, what good are they on the bench; how can they be trusted to ever again make an unbiased or bought and paid for decision in any case brought before their bench.

In Robart’s case, his was where I filed my first claim of Restraint of Trade and violations of denturists civil and/or constitutional Rights against the American Dental Association, et al. The defendants did not bother to respond to the lawsuit during the 21 day “grace period” they have to respond to any lawsuit, so I filed for a “Default Judgment,” but received no response from Robart. This went on for quite a while with me filing motions for Default Judgments due to the defendants failure/refusal to respond, all while Robart sat on the case sans any response from him also. Finally, attorneys for the defense filed an item stating “there was no need for the defendants to file anything because ‘the allegations were taken as admitted.’” To me, that was a clear admission of guilt on the part of the defendants. Because of this, I filed another Motion for Default Judgment; but, to my chagrin, Robart continued to sit on his back side until a few months later when I received a notice from his court that my lawsuit was “denied with prejudice.”

Can you imagine that? Here you have a seated federal judge with what amounts to an admission of guilt in his grubby little paws, and he dismisses the case with prejudice in order that it couldn’t be re-filed.

I don’t know how my readers look at the facts I’ve just laid before them, but to me, it appears that Robart might have held an auction with the defendants to see how high he could “bid up” his decision on the case. Frankly, nothing else makes any sense to me as to why he would declare the defendants innocent when their counsel had already stated they were guilty as alleged.

As some literate wag once said, It Ain’t Over Til The Fat Lady Sings!

I do not believe that all of our judges need to be tossed into the same rubbish heap; I do believe there are yet a select few who still believe in the Rule of Law, and justice for one and all. To that handful of judges who still believe in the principles of our Constitution and the Amendments thereto, I offer my heartfelt respect and thanks.

As a student of history, I must opine that having judges with no respect for their fellow man or the concept of law and order makes me nervous. It makes me nervous because they are precisely the sort of judges throughout Nazi Germany who turned their collective backs on the plight of European Jews as Hitler set his plot in motion to wipe the Jewish race from the face of the earth. Ladies and gentlemen, that is all it takes for another Hitler to take power in America or any other nation. When the law no longer means anything to those who are charged with its enforcement and the protection of the people, there will always be another Hitler ready to slither from whatever personal hellhole he lives in, for the sole purpose of eliminating those he holds in contempt as being inferior to himself.

Accept what I write or not, but I have lived in post war Germany, and I have seen American judges here in the United States who reject the Rules of Law and the constitutional Rights of American citizens when it becomes beneficial to their own well being. That personal well being may be something along the lines of “financial considerations,” or it can emerge from an unsolicited offer for a higher position within the judicial system. And all it takes to obtain the proffered money or higher position is for a judge to turn his/her back on the intent of the law.

As a practicing denturist, I have seen this loss of judicial ethics too many times when it comes to judges caving in to pressures from the dental community to aid them in their efforts to deny denturists of their Right to practice their chosen occupation. I’ve seen this despite United States Supreme Court decisions where the court held: “Nothing is more clearly settled that it is beyond the power of a State, under the guise of protecting the public, to arbitrarily interfere with private business or prohibit lawful occupations or impose unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions upon them.” Or, how about the court decision stating: “The Right to hold specific private employment and to follow a chosen profession free from unreasonable governmental interference comes within the ‘liberty’ and ‘property concepts of the Fifth Amendment.” That first court decision came about in 1932, while the second was aired in 1959.

Even with such recent Supreme Court decisions, I have observed judges throwing those and other higher court decisions to the wind, all while allowing government prosecutors who are purported to know the law, to deny denturists of their Right to practice their chosen occupation of denturitry; an occupation which has been empirically proven to represent no known potential for harm to anyone.

Well, I’ve had my say for the day, but I advance this cautionary statement to the public, maintain a close watch on your judiciary; it’s bad enough to have our legislatures crawling with vermin with no ethics, but when that lack of ethics slithers from beneath the rocks and stones of every-day life, and rears its ugly head from under the protective cover of the judiciary, beware, you may become its next victim.

A few years ago, I filed a federal lawsuit against the American Dental Association (ADA) and its constituent associations and/or societies for Restraint of Trade and Civil Rights violations. The case was based on the premise that due to the fact that the ADA and its constituent associations and/or societies throughout the nation had placed a regulatory ban on denturist supplying the public with full and/or partial dentures, they had violated mine and all other denturists Common Law Right to Labor at Our Chosen Occupation of denturitry; thus violating our Civil Rights as well as committing Restraint of Trade.

The way they banned denturists from serving the public involves the wording contained within their so-called Dental Practice Acts. What dentistry did, was go to their individual State legislators and tell them they wanted their Dental Practice Acts enacted into law. One of the provisions of those Acts was to state that “only licensed dentists could provide full and/or partial dentures directly to the public.” I don’t know if these illustrious members of the dental community carried with them a sack full of money as a means of showing their legislators their righteous intent in having this Act placed into law, but I suspect it had something to do with it since there was an obvious issue of Restraint of Trade involved; all of this despite their knowing full well that the practice of denturitry represents no known potential for harm to anyone. Many years later, four empirical reports, one from the Federal Trade Commission, one from the Michigan State Department of Health, one from the Kentucky State Legislature, and one from the Washington State Health Coordinating Council verified the fact that there was no known potential for harm from denturists nor their practice of denturitry. Despite these findings of fact, none of the various State Legislatures have done anything to change their State Laws to eliminate this obvious restraint of trade.

Anyway, getting back to the lawsuit I filed in Judge Robart’s U.S. District Court in Seattle, my case sat around there well beyond the 21 day time frame the defendants had to respond to my allegations before I finally made another motion for a Default Judgment against the defendants for their failure to respond. But, after that had sat around the judge’s chambers for a few weeks, there was no response from him on that motion, or my motion on the original filing of the case. Judge Robart sat on his thumbs through a couple of more motions for a Default Judgment as I strenuously complained about his failure to follow the law and issue a judgment against the ADA. Finally, I did receive a filing from the defense counsel stating “there was no need for the defendants to respond, because ‘the allegations were taken as admitted.’”

Now I don’t know about you folks, but to me and the other plaintiff’s on the case, that was an admission of guilt on the part of defendant members of the ADA. But, even when I brought this to the attention of our illustrious Judge Robart, no judgment was forthcoming from the bench.

Finally, after the case idled away in his chambers for nearly one full year, he dismissed the case, with prejudice, with no findings of fact and/or conclusions of law showing any justification for his failure to follow Court Rules, or settled case and/or statutory laws. As a result of Judge Robart’s failure to follow the law, I decided to file a complaint about his lack of judicial ethics with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Guess what. The 9th Circuit refused to hold him accountable for his obvious perversion of the law. So, while I still had some respect for our judicial system at the time, I filed complaints with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice; again to no avail.

I’m not sure if what I experienced is the norm, but I’ve come to the conclusion, erroneously or not, that it does little good to try to hold our public officials accountable whenever they violate our Rights under color of law. I find that beneath contempt; especially when I know that if someone is caught with an “open container” in their vehicle, they will suffer the oppressive tactics of government coming down their throats whether they, or someone else were the ones that drank the offending brew. All it takes for the public to draw official ire in a case like that, is for there to be an open container in the vehicle, and the driver is automatically guilty regardless of how it got there, or who left it there.

Am I wrong, or are we dealing with a double standard in the law where our public servants are concerned?

The reader must also realize that many of these restrictive laws are brought about by their own labor unions, associations such as the American Dental Association, and any other organization bent on restricting the number of persons allowed to independently labor at any given occupation. Generally speaking, this is done for the sole purpose of the membership of these organizations being able to maintain a monopoly on their services, or to give them power over their employers.

1. 236 U.S. 1, 14, 35 S.Ct. 240 (1915): …”the principle is
fundamental and vital. Included in the Right of personal liberty and the Right of private property – partaking of the nature of each – is the Right to make contractes for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this Right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense. The Rights are as essential to the laborer as to the Capitalist, to the poor as to the rich; for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property, save by working for money.”

2. 239 U.S. 33, 41, 36 S.Ct. 7 (1915): “It requires no
argument to show that the Right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the (14th) Amendment to secure.”

3. 360 U.S. 474, 492, 79 S.Ct. 1400 (1959): … “right to hold
specific private employment and to follow a chosen profession free from unreasonable governmental interference comes within the ‘liberty’ and ‘property’ concepts of the Fifth Amendment.”

4. 418 F.3d 486, 491 (5th Cir. 2005): “The Supreme Court has
Said that ‘the Right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to secure,’ ‘and this Court has confirmed the principle that one has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in pursuing a chosen occupation.’”

5. Beacon Theatres vs. Westover, 252 F.2d 864, 871 (9th Cir.
1958): “This Right to protection by way of injunction against interference with property or contracts or other pecuniary Rights, has been applied so as to protect a person in his Right to earn a livelihood and to continue in employment unmolested by efforts to enforce void state statutes.”

6. City of Tucson vs. Steward, 45 Ariz. 36, 55, 40 P.2d 72
(1935): “As was said in Coffeyville Vitrified Brick and Tile Co. vs Perry, 69 Kan. 297, 76 P.848, 849, 1 Ann. Cas. 936, 66 L.R.A. 185: “The Right to follow any lawful vocation, and to make contracts is as completely within the protection of the Constitution as the Right to hold property free from unwarranted seizure, or the liberty to go when and where one will. One of the ways of obtaining property is by contract. The Right therefore to contract cannot be infringed by the Legislature without violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Every citizen is protected in his Right to work where and for whom he will.”

7. Weatherby vs. Pittman, 24 Ga. App. 452, 101 S.E. 131
(1919): “The Right to work and make a living is one of the highest Rights possessed by any citizen. It may be abridged to the extent, and only to the extent, that is necessary, reasonable and to insure the public peace, safety, health, and like words of the police power.”

8. Scully vs. Hallihan, 365 Ill. 185, 191, 6 N.E. 2d 176, 179
(1936); City of Osceola vs. Blair, 231 Iowa 770, 772, 2 N.W., 2d 83 (1942): “It is one of the fundamentals of our… form of government that every citizen has the inalienable Right to follow any legitimate trade, occupation or business which he sees fit. His labor as his property, is entitled to the full and equal protection of the law under the Due Process Clause of the Federal Constitution. It is also embraced within the constitutional provision guaranteeing to everyone liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Allgeyer vs. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 41 L.Ed. 832). This Right to pursue any trade or calling is freedom of action by statutory regulation where the public health, safety or welfare of society may require.”

9. State vs. Harrington, 229 Iowa 1092, 1096, 296 N.W. 2221,
223 (1941): “The Right to follow any of the common occupations of life, subject only to the reasonable regulations under the police power in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare.”

10. State vs. Chisesi, 187 La. 675, 685, 175, So. 453
(1937): “Banjavich vs. Louisiana Licensing Board for Marine Divers, 237 La. 467, 111 So.2d 505, 511 (1959): “To deprive a person of his Right to pursue his chosen calling deprives him of his liberty, and to prevent his continuing in a lawful business or pursuit in which he is already engaged deprives him of his property.”

11. West vs. Winnsboro, 252 La. 605 211 So.2d 665 (1967):
“The Right to pursue employment or to conduct a business is a property Right which equity will protect. The protection extends to any substantial interference produced by unconstitutional legislation.”

12. Kusnetzky vs. Security Ins. Co., 313 Mo. 143, 157, 281
S.W. 47 (Mo. 1926): “It is not within the power of the Legislature to forbid a man to transact any business otherwise perfectly lawful.”

In short, the only constitutionally justifiable limitation on a man’s Right to labor at his chosen occupation by restrictive government legislation, regulation, orders, etc., is that the occupation must represent some form of potential for harm to someone. Failure to meet that criteria leaves the law, regulation, order, etc., in a quagmire as an unconstitutional restriction on a person’s Right to labor at his/her chosen occupation.