Case Law

For example, if you read Burwell V Hobby Lobby, you would probably understand the effect and wording of Title 42 Chapters 21B and 21C better than someone who had actually read it.

Here is the whole case
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

Here is an example from the first page.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the
“Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results
from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the
burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a),
(b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious be-
lief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A). At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), which, as relevant here, requires specified employers’ group health plans to furnish “preventive care and screenings” for women without “any cost sharing requirements,”42 U. S. C. §300gg–13(a)(4). Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide.
Ibid
.

Corporate Personhood started in 1886 and effected the Burwell V Hobby Lobby decision based on Precedent.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co.118 U.S. 394 (1886)

Before argument, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE said:

"The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does. "

Page 118 U. S. 397

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

These several actions were brought -- the first one in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, the others in the Superior Court of Fresno County, in the same state -- for the recovery of certain county and state taxes claimed to be due from the Southern Pacific Railroad Company and the Central Pacific Railroad Company under assessments made by the State Board of Equalization upon their respective franchises, roadways, roadbeds, rails, and rolling stock. In the action by Santa Clara County, the amount claimed is $13,366.53 for the fiscal year of 1882. For that sum, with five percent penalty, interest at the rate of two percent per month from December 27, 1882, cost of advertising, and ten percent for attorney's fees, judgment is asked against the Souther Pacific

Page 118 U. S. 398

Railroad Company. In the other action against the same company, the amount claimed is $5,029.27 for the fiscal year of 1881, with five percent added for nonpayment of taxes and costs of collection. In the action against the Central Pacific Railroad Company, judgment is asked for $25,950.50 for the fiscal year of 1881, with like penalty and costs of collection.

The answer in each case puts in issue all the material allegations of the complaint and sets up various special defenses, to which reference will be made further on.

With its answer, the defendant in each case filed a petition, with a proper bond, for the removal of the action into the circuit court of the United States for the district as one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The right of removal was recognized by the state court, and the action proceeded in the circuit court. Each case, the parties having filed a written stipulation waiving a jury, was tried by the court. There was a special finding of facts, upon which judgment was entered in each case for the defendant. The general question to be determined is whether the judgment can be sustained upon all or either of the grounds upon which the defendants rely.

The case as made by the pleadings and the special finding of facts is as follows:

By an Act of Congress approved July 27, 1866, the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Company was created, with power to construct and maintain, by certain designated routes, a continuous railroad and telegraph line from Springfield, Missouri, to the Pacific. For the purpose -- which is avowed by Congress -- of facilitating the construction of the line and thereby securing the safe and speedy transportation of mails, troops, munitions of war, and public stores, a right of way over the public domain was given to the company and a liberal grant of the public lands was made to it. The railroad so to be constructed, and every part of it, was declared to be a post route and military road, subject to the use of the United States for postal, military, naval, and all other government service, and to such regulations as Congress might impose for restricting the charges for government transportation. By the

Page 118 U. S. 399

18th section of the act, the Southern Pacific Railroad Company -- a corporation previously organized under a general statute of California passed May 20, 1861, Stat.Cal. 1861, p. 607 -- was authorized to connect with the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad at such point near the boundary line of that state as the former company deemed most suitable for a railroad to San Francisco, with "uniform gauge and rate of freight or fare with said road," and in consideration thereof, and "to aid in its construction," the act declared that it should have similar grants of land, "subject to all the conditions and limitations" provided in said act of Congress, "and shall be required to construct its road on like regulations, as to time and manner, with the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad." 14 Stat. 292, §§ 1, 2, 3, 11, 18.

In November, 1866, the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company and the Southern Pacific Railroad Company filed in the office of the Secretary of the Interior their respective acceptances of the act.

By an Act of the Legislature of California passed April 4, 1870, to aid in giving effect to the act of Congress relating to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, it was declared that

"To enable the said company to more fully and completely comply with and perform the requirements, provisions, and conditions of the said act of Congress and all other acts of Congress now in force or which may hereafter be enacted, the State of California hereby consents to said act, and the said company, its successors and assigns, are hereby authorized to change the line of its railroad so as to reach the eastern boundary line of the State of California by such route as the company shall determine to be the most practicable, and to file new and amendatory articles of association, and the right, power, and privilege is hereby granted to, conferred upon, and vested in them to construct, maintain, and operate, by steam or other power, the said railroad and telegraph line mentioned in said acts of Congress, hereby confirming to and vesting in the said company, its successors and assigns all the rights, privileges, franchises, power, and authority conferred upon,

Page 118 U. S. 400

granted to, or vested in said company by the said acts of Congress and any act of Congress which may be hereafter enacted."

It took almost 150 years for Corporations to finally win their own Religious Liberties, lol. But really.

Has anyone ever tried to find a lawyer that would take a Religious Marijuana case? You can't.
Even though we have meaningful access to the courts, and are supposed to have an attorney (meaning also an advocate in your defense)
For that matter, try to find a Lawyer that can Write a Writ. Lol.
Everyone should study Case Law themselves.
Regardless of the lofty ideas engraved on paper, such as the Constitution or Declaration, the basic nature of the white European man remains virtually unchanged.

Also, on top of case law. If you have 0 convictions (like I do) that helps, because if you are not a religious person and you break the law just because, and not for religious reasons, if you get a conviction it will be more lenient if you point out that you have never been convicted of anything before.

Everyone should read at least 1 Supreme Court Case, here is Burwell V Hobby Lobby, but everyone should read at least one if not many
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

And just btw, for everyone who reads Black's Law Dictionary.

That book is about British Common Law, and while American courts did start with British Common Law (similar types of Law would be French Common Law, Roman Canonical Law, Spanish Law, etc), there has been about 300 years of Constitutional Law on top of that. So Black's Law, and books like it, do come in to play when they need a definition for what "Property" meant to Thomas Jefferson, and things like that. But Black's Law is not an American Law book.