If I may, since some don't wish to read it on their own:

"That is the reason that the Islamic fundamentalists are in such dire straits. They are trying to live in the 21st century by abiding word-for-word the Quran and shari'a law. They do not want to change, and that is why they are hiding out in caves, executing women and chopping off limbs. All based on laws from centuries ago."

No, the reason they are hiding out in caves is that they had the stupidity to attack somebody who had the gonads to strike back. They execute women and chop off limbs because their laws are antiquated, that is true. But that is actually because they have not adopted the concept of seperation of church and state, a fairly recent and by no means widespread concept in history.

What makes a law right and just is not how old or how new it is, it is how just it is. And a just body of law that is over 200 years old is still a just body of law, especially when ammended to alter/remove parts that are unjust and truly antiquated. I the U.S., in the past, it was done just like that. Rather than judges making up rulings from the bench that "created" new rights that never existed in the minds of the architects/ammenders, they actually jumped through the hoops and made amendments. That demonstrated respect for the law, respect for the constitution. Likewise, legislators actually seemed to respect the constitutuional limits of government and did not seek to pass laws that exceeded that (well, for the most part, there were notable exceptions to that) with the thought that if they were truely pushing the envelope into the realm of unconstitutionality, that the judiciary would strike it down. Such is not the case anymore. It seems that the legislature and the judiciary now work hand in hand to create ever more powers for the government at the expense of the citizenry, a citizenry who really have no choices and don't really care that much to change things for the better anyway.

Sickening.

EndRant.
 
Hugh, I think you'd be doing a diservice to yourself by ignoring Frank.
Click to expand...

Well, based upon his apparent ignorance and/or disrespect for the form of government which the Constitution creates, plus his attitude, I think I would be doing myself a diservice to pay attention to his posts. For instance, notice how he makes the assertion that I want to discuss "the legal or political ramifications of shooting people with different kinds of bullets, or which politician is most likely to sponsor a bill that will let you hunt with a tactical nuke when it's only muzzle loading season". I thought we were discussing the Constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment and federalism, and Frank's response is nothing but an interruption. He really is quite emotional, isn't he? I am now ignoring him (I found the "ignore" button, thanks).

The Constitution creates a specific form of government. It is a federal system of dual sovereignties. The US is limited to delegated powers, and the States remain sovereign in their internal affairs. That is the Constitution. And case law is case law ... like I said, we have strayed from the Constitution. We strayed big time in the 1860's. But I still believe in the Constitution i.e. sovereign States and a limited federal government. If y'all believe in something else then SAY IT!! Say "I do not believe in limited federal government, I believe in a national government which is supreme over the States in all matters". But don't tell me that is the Constitution, because I know better.
 
"I believe they're impeachable."

The people themselves can't do that, it takes the legislatures, who apparently haven't got the spine for it.

"As far as justifying what I do at work, I just work with the tools that the legislature gives me in the form of statutes, and enforce them the way the Federal and State courts tell me I can."

Meaning, you are relying on that same body of flawed case law to justify your actions. An unconstitutional statute that the legislature passes and the judiciary refuses to overturn is still unconstitutional. An unconstitutional ruling that the judiciary hands down, thus making it into case law is still unconstitutional. And yet you still use them to justify your work and your actions.
 
What makes a law right and just is not how old or how new it is, it is how just it is.
Click to expand...

I would think that what makes a law just is the position of the society that is subjected to that particular law. If you have 100 Syrians who think it's OK to kill the neighborhood herion dealer, and their lawmakers pass a law that says that heroin dealers die, I'd say it was a just law.

Meaning, you are relying on that same body of flawed case law to justify your actions. An unconstitutional statute that the legislature passes and the judiciary refuses to overturn is still unconstitutional. An unconstitutional ruling that the judiciary hands down, thus making it into case law is still unconstitutional. And yet you still use them to justify your work and your actions.
Click to expand...

Laws are as unflawed as the people who make them. If the Supreme Court hands down a ruling, the ruling is constitutional.
 
"So, it's nothing more then a lost cause."

One can say with much truth that the cause was actually lost back in the 1860's.

Not wanting to glorify slavery (an abomination), but those in the Confederacy actually were in the right. Their views actually respected the 9th and 10 ammendments, where the Northerners did not, they were upholding the strong central federal government. Of course, to the victors went the spoils, the 9th and 10th ammendments became essentially null and void in favor of the "Commerce" clause, and now the states are little more than puppets of the federation. The sovereignity of the states were lost in that war, to the detrement of us all.
 
Laws are as unflawed as the people who make them. If the Supreme Court hands down a ruling, the ruling is constitutional.
Click to expand...
um, no.
Just because the Supreme Court calls something Constitutional, doesn't mean it is.
 
"I would think that what makes a law just is the position of the society that is subjected to that particular law. If you have 100 Syrians who think it's OK to kill the neighborhood herion dealer, and their lawmakers pass a law that says that heroin dealers die, I'd say it was a just law."

I understand what you are getting at, and while I am not in favor of drug laws in general (let's leave that for another day, ok?), what you are getting at is still flawed.

Ever hear of the tyranny of the majority?
Ever hear the one about the 2 wolves and the sheep trying to determine what's for lunch?

Democratic action is not in itself automatically right and just, just because the majority wishes something to be so.

Right and just is right and just. Legislatures may have the mandate of the people, but they also have the duty to see that the peoples' wishes are met while at the same time insuring that the rulings are actually righteous (yes, I know it is a religious term, but it applies here as well) and in accordance with the liberal (in the classical sense, as in libertarian) principles our republic was based on. Sometimes that means telling the people (and you, the police) "No, you can't have that, it is wrong". In the case of U.S. law, it must be in accordance with the wishes if the people, it is true, but it must also be in accordance with the constitutuion. Note -- I specifically said the constitution, not the body of case law, which is extra-constitutional and subjective in nature. The actual constitution is (or should be) the rule, as it once was.

If the rule itself is no longer valid or is itself unjust, then it needs to be changed -- by ammendment (as in the 13th ammendment outlawing slavery). Or, completely rewritten by constitutional convention. I, for one, do not see it as being invalid. I see the mass of extra-constitutional case law and statutes as being invalid.
 
"Just because the Supreme Court calls something Constitutional, doesn't mean it is."

You would be surprised at just how many people don't understand that very valid point.

Of late, the SCOTUS has metaphorically decreed that down is up and left is right. That doesn't make it right, but they have done it anyway. They have, in effect, been ammending the constitution on the fly instead of interpreting it as written, as the writers actually meant when they wrote it. Haven't they heard of the Federalist Papers? And the Anti-Federalist papers? Haven't they actually read the rulings of the SCOTUS of the early 1800's? Or have they conveniently forgotten?

How can the Constitution be meaningful if it doesn't mean what it said when the writers wrote it? The point of having a standard rule such as that is precisely that it always remains the same, from generation to generation, not subject to the whims of the day.

The constitution is the foundation on which our country was founded. Like the foundation of a building, the building is no stronger than the foundation. A foundation that shifts in the sand -- moving at whim -- can NEVER make for a strong building. A constitution (unammended, of course) that does not mean the same thing from generation to generation is like that, too. It becomes meaningless, worthless.
 
"I believe they're impeachable."

The people themselves can't do that, it takes the legislatures, who apparently haven't got the spine for it.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiousity, when was the last time a federal appellate judge was impeached? If it has been more than, say, 50 years, we may have a problem. The impeachment clause was put in as a check and balance. There is no way that we have not needed a check and balance in 50+ years. Bad apples are everywhere, even in the federal appellate courts.
 
I would think that what makes a law just is the position of the society that is subjected to that particular law. If you have 100 Syrians who think it's OK to kill the neighborhood herion dealer, and their lawmakers pass a law that says that heroin dealers die, I'd say it was a just law.
Click to expand...

This should end the discussion. Frank believes that majority rules, as he has quoted above.

Frank believes in the falsehood of the so called "democracy", majority rules. He doesn't believe in the Republic, as is the basis of our government.

He won't be changed unless the laws go against his profession, as he's already admitted. The people must bow to the "democracy" and should reject the Republic.

Wayne

*saddly, signing off from this debate. It's a Republic Frank, no matter how much you hate that.
 
For my purposes, if the Supreme Court says it's constitutional to break down a door with probable cause, exigent circumstances and no search warrant, it's constitutional. If they say that it's unconstitutional for me to continue to question a suspect who says he doesn't want to answer any more questions without a lawyer, it's unconstitutional to question him further without a lawyer. You can argue otherwise all day long, but in front of the judge, I'll take the advice of the Supreme Court over yours.

He won't be changed unless the laws go against his profession, as he's already admitted. The people must bow to the "democracy" and should reject the Republic.
Click to expand...

Plenty of case law has already gone "against" the police. It makes no difference to me. It just modifies the way I work.
 
GB: I'd jump in there with you, but you're handling it well. Keep it up, you're on the right track.

I believe that some here haven't read or do not understand the Constitution, the intent and the language it was written in. Keep fighting- We'll win it eventually.

Yours in Liberty:
Kjm
 
I believe that some here haven't read or do not understand the Constitution, the intent and the language it was written in. Keep fighting- We'll win it eventually.
Click to expand...

Tell me who here understands the constitution please...I have questions....
 
Dang, I think that I've done here and they pull me right back in.

Okay Frank, what questions?

Police aren't mentioned. The Militia is. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights being a living document isn't mention, but is done. Laws that are against the Constitution are Null and Void, unconstitutional laws and those enforcing them being treasonous are.

What do you want to know? As Long Path put it, you can take a sentence, a word, or an article and take it as far out of context as you wish but you're still wrong no matter what you believe.

Honestly, what word, sentence, comma, phrase, or paragraph do you have in mind that will make your agruements right in your head? That the Constitution or the Bill of Rights are a living document or are open to international interputation(sp) that will add force to you doing or defending uncontitutional or comment unlawful acts for the good of society, of which is not written in the vary documents that you wish to use to debunk any of our agruements?

Maybe, just to be fair, we should take the Constitution first and debate and think about it, what it says, what it means. Then go from the preamble to the articles one by one. And then hit the amendments and do the same.

Actually, that's not a bad idea if Rich will allow it. Let's have a Constitution and Bill of Rights study.

Wayne
 
OK, here's the first question. You have 5 seconds to answer: You're the police and you get a run to a house on shots fired, children screaming. You get to the house, look through the window and see 3 children lying on the floor, apparently dead with from gunshots to the head. You kick the door in and search the house for any other suspects/people. You don't find any and begin looking for the murder weapon. You find a pistol with blood spatter on it in a desk drawer with blood spatter on the outside of the drawer in the room where the dead children are. You later match a fingerprint on a spent casing in the gun to the children's father who lives with them. Is this constitutional? Hurry hurry!! (only Wayne please...)
 
Hurry Wayne!! The neighbors are screaming "Why won't you pigs DO something!!!" and "The killer is probably getting away!! What are you morons waiting for!!"
 
Come on Wayne, what's taking you??? You're not consulting your law books are you? You can't do that in the real world with people dying and criminals fleeing to possibly kill the witnesses...You have to understand the constitution NOW!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top