Can Government Make You Pay For a Right?

Published on March 14, 2025
Duration: 10:29

This video explores the legality of government fees and licensing requirements for exercising constitutional rights, using historical Supreme Court cases as precedent. It argues that conditioning a right on payment, as seen with 'permit to purchase' laws, may be unconstitutional, drawing parallels to challenges against poll taxes and certain First Amendment restrictions. The discussion highlights that while some regulations are permissible, they cannot fundamentally alter a right into a privilege requiring payment.

Quick Summary

The government generally cannot impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution, as established in Murdoch v. Pennsylvania (1943). While some regulations exist, they cannot convert a fundamental right into a privilege that requires payment to exercise.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: Permit to Purchase and Government Fees
  2. 00:47Sponsor: Soran Desert Institute
  3. 01:24Permit to Purchase: A Government Permission Slip
  4. 01:52Supreme Court Precedent on Charging for Rights
  5. 02:40Case Study: Murdoch v. Pennsylvania (1943)
  6. 03:30Case Study: Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham (1969)
  7. 05:23Historical Precedent: Poll Taxes
  8. 05:50Case Study: Breedlove v. Suttles (1937)
  9. 06:26Case Study: Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966)
  10. 06:56Distinguishing Privileges from Rights (Driver's Licenses, etc.)
  11. 07:59Marriage Licenses: A Constitutional Right Requiring a Fee
  12. 08:23Conclusion: Can Government Charge for Rights?
  13. 09:07Shuttlesworth Quote: Fundamental Right vs. Privilege
  14. 09:24The Future of Permit to Purchase Litigation
  15. 09:43Contact Washington Gun Law

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the government legally charge a fee to exercise a constitutional right?

Based on Supreme Court precedent like Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, the government generally cannot impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. However, the application can be complex, especially when distinguishing between fundamental rights and privileges.

What is the significance of Murdoch v. Pennsylvania regarding government fees for rights?

In Murdoch v. Pennsylvania (1943), the Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a constitutional right. This case is a key precedent when arguing against government-imposed costs for fundamental liberties.

How does Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham relate to licensing requirements for rights?

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham (1969) established that laws requiring a license for free expression in public places must have narrow, objective, and definite standards to be constitutional. Unconstitutional licensing schemes can be ignored by individuals exercising their rights.

Are 'permit to purchase' laws legal if they require a fee?

The legality of 'permit to purchase' laws that require fees is a contentious issue. Drawing from cases like Murdoch, critics argue that conditioning a constitutional right, such as the right to bear arms, on a fee is unconstitutional. This area is subject to ongoing legal challenges.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Washington Gun Law

View all →