Punishing the oath breakers

CDH, you are mistaken. If you fire a person from their job because of a performance issue, that IS a form of punishment. If you then keep them from being able to hold that job or similar job ever again for their actions, that is punishment. I see you are not familiar with labor laws either, or do you have them there at your desk as well?

If it makes you feel better I keep a copy of all the ''important papers'' like the Constitution, Declaration of Dependence, etc... at my desk for easy access. I am not ignorant in this regard.
Click to expand...

If that is the case, then why are you proposing new laws and enforcement for laws and enforcement that we already have?

Since when do we give a person a choice between prison and exile?

Yes, they swore to uphold the Constitution, but they do so in the manner that they perceive it. From what you are saying, changing the Constitution in any way would mean perjury because they are not upholding what is already in place or in place as you perceive it. The passage of amendments could be considered perjury and what you would call "in opposition to the Constitution."

Thunderhawk is still right.

No, you're frightening!
Click to expand...
 
Once you understand what I am talking about you will be angry too. After that I may not frighten you.
Click to expand...

I totally understand what you are talking about and that is why it is frightening. There may be more like you out there. You do not like our system, so you wish to change it to a system where punishment (prison?) is used for those who have a different idea of the Constitution than yours.
We have a system to take care of politicians you don't like. VOTE THEM OUT!

If I frighten you I imagine that you are in the category of people I refer to as The Scared.
Click to expand...

And save your childish psycho-babble, you don't even know me.
 
If you think your vote still counts in this country, I feel sorry for you.

Dead people vote, party members count the votes, and megawealthy people can buy themselves an election by playing to the sheeple class.

I wonder what Jefferson would have said if somebody had told him to just "VOTE OUT" the British.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

-- Attributed to Josef Stalin
 
I wonder what Jefferson would have said if somebody had told him to just "VOTE OUT" the British.
Click to expand...

That is a rediculous comment.

Their crimes are not against the state. Their crimes are against the people.
Click to expand...

I see! So then, a bill is written, passed by both the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President. The law is then overturned by the Supreme Court on appeal.
Now, by your idea we need to not only fire, but imprison all members of Congress who voted for approval of this bill, PLUS the President for "Crimes against the people"?

Where would you find basis for this in the Constitution?
 
I dont actually recall my exact post, but I was simply referring to this...

The only way to change things currently is through armed revolution. Does the current situation warrant such an act? No.

However, should there come a time in which it can no longer be denied that the government is corrupt, tyrannical, and facist, then an armed revolt must ensue.

Now tell me - the first revolutionary who fires the first shot, what will he be called? May it be politician, soldier, media icon, whatever - what would the act be called by the mass media and current government? An assassination.

I used the wrong terminology, and I apologize. Im not advocating terrorism - im advocating subversive tactics under the impression of a "civil war". I hope it never happens.
 
What's really ''scary'' is that there appear to more people in this thread who seem to have an understanding of what I am talking about then the couple who don't get it. Obviously I am not in the minority here.

Perception of the Constution doesn't do it for me. You are either upholding the law or breaking it. Lots of people percieve getting wasted every weekend is a good thing, but that don't make it so.

The 2A is THE firearms law. There are over 20000 laws on the federal, state and local books that are repugnant to the 2A. Those who passed these laws are guilty of their oath to defend the Constitution. The BoR is for the people, not the politicians, police or judges who are in a position to hinder life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are freely abused due to a lack of reasonable punishment.


If you can't figure it out after a few days of thinking about...well...you probably never will. I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about if you do not understand that your liberties have been stolen and more on the chopping block now. Just how far does it have to go before you finally wake up and see what I am getting at.

I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I know that there are times when I am right, and this be one of 'em.

Law makers and enforcers are like small children. Sometimes a good smack is needed because yelling at them wasn't enough.

For those that get it, thank you. For those that never will, I give up.
 
The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

- Bertrand Russell
 
I think that any violation of the Constitution deserves immediate removal from the position that gave them the power along any chance to ever come into power again.
Click to expand...

Nice in theory, bad in practice. It's just not feasible.

Consider this situation...

On a domestic disturbance call police find the wife seriously beaten with a 'blunt object'. Husband has clammed up and won't say anything. Weapon is not obvious where the woman was found or in the area of the crime scene. A visual search of other rooms turns up nothing. A visual search outside reveals nothing noteworty either. Blood on husband's hands & t-shirt may or may not indicate involvement. Since husband refuses to talk, officers indicate he is being arrested and handcuff him. Detectives begin a methodical search of the house for the murder weapon.

Officers do not read a Miranda warning before transporting him to jail. While in the car, both officers engage in conversation about the crime scene. One officer suggests that from the wounds, the woman was probably "minding her own business, watching TV or reading when the husband clubbed her...poor helpless lady" - to which the husband in the back seat screams "Helpless? She's a G-damn nagging bit--! I told her one day you're gonna go too far and tonight she did!"

So...

Do the officers lose their jobs forever because they didn't "Mirandize" the suspect?

Do the detectives lose their jobs forever because they didn't get a search warrant?

My point is that what is legal procedure today could be "unconstitutional" at some future date, depending on court decisions. Do the officers lose their jobs 5 years from now, just as they are promoted to detectives when a court rules their actions unconstitutional in this case? More importantly, do they lose their jobs in Ohio because cops did a similar (but not identical) procedure in Texas 2 years ago and the court's decision comes 24 hours before the husband's trial?

At what point do people lose their jobs? If the trial court rules officers violated the USC, when do they lose their jobs? At the state Appeals Court level? State Supreme Court? Federal Appeals? SCOTUS?
 
If the guy is being taken to charged with a crime then dang skippy they better read him his rights. They are called rights for a reason. In this case he obliously commited a crime and will charged. While I have no proof, I would be willing to bet police have omitted Mirana during an arrest so they can get a mouthy criminal to keep on talking so they can make charges stick. Granted that mouthy criminals tend to not shut up any way, but a few might clam up when they are Miranda-ized.

If a major felony has occured it won't be hard to get a judge on the phone for a quick warrant. Even if the judge won't issue the warrant until morning the crime scene will not be tampered with because the woman is at the hospital and the man is in jail. There is plenty of time to it the right. This is not about probable cause. It is obvious a crime has been commited.

As to prosecuting the violation of an oath that belongs on the level of the offender. Local offenses are tried locally, state offenses tried at the state level and federal offenses tried in federal courts.

If the action of the officers in question are found to be unconstitution five years later then there need to be a determination wether or not the violation was an act of malevolence or simply out of ignorance. Malevolant acts are to be punished (refer to not reading rights) and maybe ignorance can be punished in a lighter fashion.

I never said I could explain it all by myself in a manner that you will understand. It took several people to come up with what we started out with and many more have come along and defiled it. Thomas Jefferson said that they failed to adequately cover the judicial part of government and that is part of the reason I am going on about this. There haven't been charges brought nor trials had for those who have worked to undermine the government that is supposed to be for the people, by the people and of the people.

I don't have all the answers and to tell you truth this makes my head hurt, but I do know I will not waiver on my opinion and if some chose to call me a fool or an extemist or even stupid...well...there are worse things to be called.

The Constitution says what it means and is not open to liberal interpretation as fas I am concerned.

That's all right, I fully expect the dang thing to be burned in a White House fireplace any day now. Patriot Act part III will be our new Bill of Rights and we won't have any. This country is on a slipery slope and sliding fast. Most people can tell you the names of all five Simpsons characters, but they can't tell you the five rights guaraneed by the First Amendment. As long as it continues this way there is little hope of regaining liberty and punishing those who seek to destroy it.
 
Last edited:
The 2A is THE firearms law. There are over 20000 laws on the federal, state and local books that are repugnant to the 2A. Those who passed these laws are guilty of their oath to defend the Constitution.
Click to expand...

To date, there has been no SCOTUS decision on the scope of the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, it is difficult to determine what kind of laws constitute an unconstitutional "infringement" on the right -- at least as of now.

Just as the right of free speech is not unlimited, I'll go so far as to say that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit certain "limitations" on the right.

I'd argue that all of the following would likely be held as constitutional under the 2nd Amendment;

  • Registration at title transfer
  • Prohibition against sales to/possesion by felons & the insane
  • Prohibition of "menacing acts" with arms
  • Permits for concealed carry
  • Limit on maximum bore diameter without restriction
  • Prohibitions against possessing/using WMD's (Nuclear Biological and Chemical)
  • Restrictions on the ownership/use of explosive munitions or "area munitions" (e.g. license, permit or storage bunker required)
  • Restrictions on ownership/use of rockets, fueled missles.
  • Permits or licenses for crew-served weapons (mortars, howitzers, tanks, etc.)

I'd certainly argue that the NICS check would need modification to pass strict scrutiny. Specifically, if the gov't can't provide an answer in a reasonable time (within 60 minutes let's say) the sale goes through. If a the purchase should have been denied it becomes a law-enforcement issue to reclaim the firearm.

I'm sure we can agree that assault-weapon bans, magazine limits, waiting periods, 1-a-month laws, licenses to own or possess are all prima facie unconstitutional.

I'd argue that state taxes (sales or special taxes) on the purchase of a firearm or ammunition are also unconstitutional. As would fees for so-called "safety" cards or "firearms owner ID" cards.
 
If the guy is being taken to charged with a crime then dang skippy the better read him his rights. In this case he obliously commited a crime and will charged. While I have no proof, I would be willing to bet police have omitted Mirana during an arrest so they can get a mouthy criminal to keep on talking so they can make charges stick. Granted that mouthy criminals tend to not shut up any way, but a few might clam up when they are Miranda-ized.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but wrong.

Courts have held that Miranda must be read to a suspect in a crime before questioning. If officers arrest you and don't ask you any questions related to the crime for which you were arrested, any statements you make are considered "voluntary". Typically officers will Mirandize suspects during the booking procedure at the latest, to ensure they understand they have a right to a lawyer. But there is no hard & fast rule that says you need to be advised of your rights when placed in handcuffs.

Additionally, no warrant is necessary to perform a search for a murder weapon at the crime scene. In this case, the crime scene would be the residence where the crime was comitted. If officers suspect that a tire iron or fireplace poker was used, searching areas too small to contain that tool would be illegal.

This is exactly why I say your proposal is impractial. You believe a warrant is needed to search the crime-scene house for the murder weapon. Today, it isn't, but a year from now a court might render a different verdict. Do we fire officers for doing something that was legal at the time they did it?
 
Failure to Miranda-ize upon upon arrest needs to be an issue then, doesn't it? Otherwise I see it a police ploy to get a suspect to ''volunteer information'' before he has a chance to get a lawyer to tell him to shut up.

If no warrant is needed for a crime scene then why do police bother to get them for a known crackhose. You can't have it both ways. If the tool of crime is not in easy sight and will need to be looked for in an area that is not the place where the crime was commited than a warrant needs to be issued. For example, if wifey was attacked in the living room and the weapon is not there then they don't get to go pokin' around the bedroom or the shed until the warrant is issued. Seal off the area and wait for the warrant. Finding the weapon 12 hours after the attack isn't going to change a thing.
 
This cop/Miranda example is a straw man. This situation as described has not yet been adjudicated, so no rights have been violated. This man's "testimony" inside the cop car has not been used against him yet, correct? So how can his rights have been violated? Yes, they are supposed to read him his rights as described and decided by the Miranda case, but so far no charges have been leveled yet. There is already a provision for someone not being read their rights - it's called "inadmissibility of evidence." This does not mean the cops need to be fired. It means they will probably be embarrassed and have their peepees smacked by their Lieutenant later on for omitting such a simple procedure.

The topic here seems to be broader in scope than just a cop reading someone his rights. This topic concerns people like Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer proposing legislation that clearly and blatantly infringes on one or more of our rights as enumerated (not granted) in the Constitution. If nothing else, these types of people should be removed for either incompetence or for violating their oath to support and defend the Constitution.
 
Fossten,

While I agree with you regarding legislators, the OP said that any violation of the constitution was grounds for dismissing a government official. Police are government officials, last time I looked, so it would apply to them as well.

If we limit the debate to legislators, cabinet officers, the executive and judicial branches then that omits the officials who primarily commit abuses of constitutional authority in the field against real people.

But supposing Congress does pass an act that restricts a freedom within the BoR. Good example might be the attempt to prohibit obscene child porn on the internet. Well-intentioned and certainly intended to protect children from exploitation. But the court later finds that that particular "portion" of the law unconstitutional. Do we now dismiss all the members who voted for it?
 
BillCA, of course we dismiss the members who voted for it if we follow CDH's plan. Hell, we might even have to put them in prison for it. Not to worry, the firing would not be punishment according to CDH even though CDH lists firing as one of the punishments for infringement.

For those who consider BoRs to be absolute, child porn would not be unconstitutional, hence restricting it via an unconstitutional law would mean we would have to punish the legislators who voted for it.
 
BillCA,

That's enough of your silly straw men examples. Sensei says, "Grasshopper, you must focus!"

There are 20,000 gun laws on the books, most of which are unconstitutional. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. Hate speech laws are unconstitutional. Shouldn't Mayor Nagin and all of his thugs that confiscated guns in NO be punished?

You strain at a gnat, while swallowing a camel. You fuss about, trying to conjure up the most obscure gray area examples you can think of, while I can easily think of thousands of laws off the top of my head that would be easy to not only overturn, but indict the person who endorsed their passage.

Your behavior is contentious without reason. There ought to be consequences for you as a public servant abrogating your civil duty which you swore an OATH to uphold.
 
Thunderhawk88:

Unless I missed something somewhere, you are the only contributor who mentioned anything about capitol punishment (shooting them).

I had suggested prosecution for perjury.
 
Thunderhawk88:

Unless I missed something somewhere, you are the only contributor who mentioned anything about capitol punishment (shooting them).

I had suggested prosecution for perjury.
Click to expand...

Alan, a bit late, don't you think. I was not responding to you, but to the idea that we start imprisoning someone for introducing legislation that is found to be unconstitutional. As in, we can start with Gulags, then eventually move towards firing squads. I do not thing the Founding Fathers had that as an idea for this Republic.
Maybe that is why they wanted three branches of government-checks and balances.
 
In general, the concept is almost unworkable. You would have to be able to prove intent as well as guilty mind. I see nothing wrong with those who would work towards repeal of the 2nd Amendment other than the fact that I would vehemently oppose them in debate. What is wrong (and a violation of their oath) is when a legislator willfully and knowingly attempts to subvert said amendment through simple legislation.

If a congressman helps the passage of a gun ban with the intent of controlling crime and he believes that it does not violate the constitution (even though in this example it does) he is guilty of nothing but needing education.(He has no "guilty mind" in this case) In this case it is the job of SCOTUS to strike down the law with no penalty to the congressman. Whether or not SCOTUS is doing its job is another debate.:mad:

Though "ignorance of the law is no excuse" (I didn’t see the speed limit 45 sign … I thought the limit was 60… WILL NOT fly in court) the absence of guilty mind is a defense (Yes sir, I thought I was traveling 45mph but due to a mechanical failure unknown to me, the speedometer was reading only 45 when I was actually traveling at 60mph ).

When guilty mind can be proved (pretty much only from the suspect’s own words in the case of a document "open to interpretation") punishment should be meted out. Expulsion from the House or Senate is actually possible under current law. You can bet that it’ll never happen. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top