Punishing the oath breakers

Bill asked if we dismiss all of those who voted in favor law found to be unconstitutional.

YES. We do so because those who are responsible for making laws need be be experts as far as the Constitution is concerned. It's not like the BoR is exceedingly long.

The issue of child porn got thrown in and I feel the need to comment on it.
It may very well be in the realm of free speech seeing as how adults are allowed to participate in porn, but it is not unconstitutional to get a warrant to investigate wether or not the children were harmed in any. There is nothing in the BoR that protects the abuse of children. If the investigation reveals that the child has been traumatized, raped, drugged or what have you, then the child's right to be secure within her person (4A needs to apply to all who can cause harm, not just government) has been violated and somebody needs some time in prison.

If the investigation reveals that the girl was willing (and dare say enjoying) in the making of said porn, then there is no crime because there was no tyranny against the girl even if her parents think whoever was involved needs to be locked up.

Another example. There has been much ballyhoo over the whole sharing of music thing. Record labels and artists who aren't being paid their asking price have lost money by theft. Copyright and the defense against theft was covered by Article 1, section 8...to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

The artists (inventors of the music), song writers (authors) and record companies (legal owners of said art when purchased by contract) have the option of asking for an investigation that must have an official warrant. Upon discovery of intent to defraud all complaining parties charges may be pressed by the complaining parties, whereby a jury trial will be had to detiermine innocence or guilt of the accused. If found guilty then punishment as prescribed by law will required.

Our Constitution and BoR cover most of the things that involve our daily living. Granted new laws have had to be created to keep up with modern times (cars, airplanes, rockets, etc) and that is all good, but there had better be some serious study on the part of the law makers to insure that they are not infringing the rights of the people. Because if they don't there may be hell to pay when they are found to have knowingly and willfully passed a law that is in violation of the people's god given rights.

I keep a copy of the supreme law at my desk. Politicans need to as well. Police need to read the BoR before going on duty every day and judges better have it memorized. Then we can get to work on insuring all have liberty uninfrindged.
 
If the investigation reveals that the girl was willing (and dare say enjoying) in the making of said porn, then there is no crime because there was no tyranny against the girl even if her parents think whoever was involved needs to be locked up.
Click to expand...

That is sick.
 
Care to explain that statement?

I was simply stating that if no harm was done, how can there be a crime? There are lots of laws that have nothing to do with protecting people, places, and property. Laws are supposed to be made in order to insure that there is punishment for those who would be willing do harm and uphold the rights of the people.

I will use the case of the black kid in GA who got sentanced to ten years for engaging in oral sex with a 15 year old while he was 17. The girl did it willing and admitted so. Porn was produced because the act was video taped. There were no child porn charges, only sexual violation charges. Children break laws the same as adults and that girl did knowingly make child porn, yet she was never charged. Why? Was because she wanted to do it and no adult could say that she was violated?

The crime they commited (not the porn, but engaging in sexual acts with a minor) was considered a normal way of life all over the world for who knows how long and is still happening in other countries as we speak. Are these places that do not act as we do filled with sick savages? Adults have come up with laws that are supposed to protect children from sexual preditors (as though laws actually stop the evil minded) and this kid was not a preditor yet was charged as one. This makes no sense especially considering both were minors of two years age difference. Obviously a 17 yr. old having at it with a 12 yr old is a whole other deal.

If the law makers wanted to protect children in regards to them being active sexually then they would need to make it illegal to engage in coitus if under 18 yrs. of age and all children who did knowingly do so shall be prosecuted. But we know that kids won't stop breaking the law, especially when the view their activity as harming no one. Adults do the same thing. I guaranty there are people at TFL that smoke pot and they do so because they feel the law is unfair and the government has no buisness telling them what they can and cannot do in the safety of their homes. Marijuana laws or unconstitutional. And, NO, I do not use drugs. Just beer from time to time.



Regardless of how sick you think I am for my opinions, I do not advocate child porn. You may want to keep in mind that many societies prior to ours felt a girl was a woman as soon as she could take part in procreation. Are they sick too?

I know I haven't been as clear as I would like to be because my mind is occupied with other things as well.
 
If I was the CEO of a mutual fund company that had the same rules as Social Security I would be arrested and put in prison. If I was the CEO of a company that sent armed employees to collect late payments I would be arrested and put in prison. What would "Equal Protection Under the Law" require?
 
That's enough of your silly straw men examples. Sensei says, "Grasshopper, you must focus!"
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

No. The point of the OP was that ANY law that was found to be unconstitutional or any "unconstitutional" acts are grounds for punishment and potentially imprisonment.

My goal was to point out that laws can be passed that would appear to pass muster in a congressional debate or review, but later be found unconstitutional by SCOTUS or a lower court.

Likewise, failing to Mirandize someone at the time of their arrest, before questioning about the crime is not an unconstitutional act (or omission)... as of right now.

How do you implement such a "punishment" requirement?

Certainly, if Diane Fienstien stands up in Congress and introduces the 2008 Absolute Gun Ownership Ban bill or Chuckles Shumer introduces the 2008 Waiver of Trial By Jury For Gunowners Act, these are obvious and agregious violations of the constitution.

Likewise, a pair of cops beating you with a rubber hose until you sign a confession is an obvious constitutional violation.

But what about non-obvious actions?
Some years ago, the courts declared the police could only search the area near an arrested suspect where he might lunge to reach a weapon. Some officers would announce the arrest in, say, the living room and handcuff the subject in his den to allow him to put on his shoes - thus allowing them to search two areas. At the time, it was entirely "legal" per doctrine. Yet several years later courts ruled it to be illegal. Once ruled illegal do we now go back and fire/prosecute those who performed the same actions before the court's decision?

Attempts to reverse the CA semi-auto evil black rifle laws have been stopped by the Ninth Circus..er..Circuit court where a majority of judges ascribe to the "collective right" view. Now comes the D.C. v. Heller case. Suppose the ruling is in our favor and the next challenge to CA laws results in their being overturned. Do we now locate every CA legislator who voted for it and "punish" them? Do we fire every LEO who ever made an arrest based upon these laws? Every DA who prosecuted someone for violating the law?

Are you saying "Yes! Yer darn right we should prosecute those SOB's! Take 'em off the floor of the senate in handcuffs on C-Span!"

Before you answer, let me remind you of 12 words that makes this even more problematic.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
--Article I, Sec 8., USC
Click to expand...

So, sign yourself up for prosecution too, for advocating violation of ex post facto prohibitions.
 
animal wrote in part:

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.

-------------------------

Your reference to the need to show/prove INTENT and a "guilty mind", whatever that is or might be is interesting, but what of cases, more than one I believe, brought by BATF, with or without the lately added "E", where there was not the slightest showing of "intent".

As to the ending of the above quote, where you make mention of legislators willfully and knowingly attempting to subvert said amendment (The Second I assume), through simple legislation. I submit that any attempt to legislate the fairy tale that is Gun Control, would nicely fit your characterization/definition.

A proposal to repeal The Second Amendment, being a constitutionally sanctioned approach, if you aren't happy with what The Constitution says, then try to amend it, is an entirely different story, for the party or parties involved are operating according to the constitution, as opposed to trying to sneak around a corner.
 
There was no ex post facto for legal full auto owners in California. It was either turn 'em in or be prosecuted. Even LEO aren't exempt.

That means who ever voted for that law violated two portions of the USC.

As far as the police attempting to move a suspect around his house just to open up their search area, yeah, fire 'em and punish 'em. The suspect is in custody, it is unlikely he can tamper with evidence. Get a proper warrant while securing the area that will searched (and no searching before the warrant shows up).

If it is obvious that there is a kidnapping victim in the house then they have reasonable cause to search without a warrant because a life is at stake. As a matter of fact the search wouldn't be considered unreasonable at all (therefore not violating the 4th) because they are upholding the the victims right to be secure in her person (thus affirming the 4th).

Like I said every law needs to examined under a microscope before being passed and enforced.

Maybe I could soften my stance on harshly punishing LEO considering they are pawns in most cases. Most are just doing their job, but many times they have the option of arrest and pressing charges. 99.9% of cops know what the 2A says and they still enforce laws repugnant to the 2A. They are guilty of violating their oath to uphold the constitution.

I say it is fine for them to arrest someone for stealing or assault but not for posessing a firearm. The whole simultanious posession while commiting crimes bit is a load of crap. If the bad guy is has a gun and is mugging someone then charge him with attempted murder and robbery. Leave the gun out of it. As sad as it is too some, the 2A doesn't say shall not be infringed except for felons and nut cases. If they are that much of a danger lock them up and throw away the key.

Even bad guys want to defend themselves from other bad guys and I think they have the same basic human rights we do:eek: Ya, that comment will make me real popular. But, then again, I am not trying to win any popularity contests.

If crack dealer A knows that crack dealer B wants his turf and willing to kill him for it then dealer A gets to use the best means for defense. Same as you want the best means. If dealer B attempts to murder dealer A then dealer A gets to shoot dealer B to defend his life.

The police arrest dealer A for killing dealer B. Dealer A's rap sheet means he will not likely get the benefit of the doubt and will stand no chance of being let off the hook even though he had a valid reason for shooting dealer B.

Let's assume that dealer A was walking down the street to get some cigarettes. He has no contraband and is minding his own buisness when dealer B runs up to him and attempts to stab him. Dealer A is quick on the draw and kills dealer B. Dealer A is arrested for being a felon in posession of a firearm and murder. Even if dealer A is cleared of the murder charge he is still going down for having the gun in the first place. Why?

Laws were passed that banned him from owning firearms. These laws do not agree with the highest gun law of all, so the politicians and judges that sent the dealer A to prison for owning a gun have violated their oath to uphold the USC and need to be punished. The police are in the clear since they were arresting him for the intent to prove he commited murder as long as they do not press charges for the gun.

Regardless of how you feel about drug dealers, they are protected by the 2A even if you feel they shouldn't be. As I said before, if a person is found to be real threat to others than they do not belong outside of a cage, not free to find other means of harming others regardless of the tool used.

That is what makes me so angry at politicians who pass laws to disarm us while setting the viscious humans free and telling us that we need to submit and everything will be just fine. Not only have broken their oath, but they have intentionally set out to harm us in the name of creating a utopia that will never exist.
 
Maybe I could soften my stance on harshly punishing LEO considering they are pawns in most cases. Most are just doing their job, but many times they have the option of arrest and pressing charges. 99.9% of cops know what the 2A says and they still enforce laws repugnant to the 2A. They are guilty of violating their oath to uphold the constitution.
Click to expand...
The Gestapo were just doing their jobs too. So were the New Orleans cops during Katrina. So were the ATF and FBI in Waco and Ruby Ridge.

All just following orders.

Oh, and by the way, speaking of the last three examples - NONE of the cops were EVER punished for what they did. EVER. So you can take your child porn and Miranda straw men examples and shove them into the sand that you can go pound.
 
Last edited:
BillCA,

As usual you are trying to put up phony straw men and posit that I am saying those words.

The point of this discussion is not to play grey area games. What I'm saying is simply this:

If there was a law that made it possible for a legislator to be truly prosecuted for passing a law that violated the Constitution, that MIGHT give legislators pause before passing any law that they considered. They might even have to open the Constitution and read it and make sure that they were in line with it. I guarantee you they do no such thing now.

And if one, only one, Senator or Rep were convicted of such a crime (make it a misdemeanor, I don't care), the precedent set would be quite an effective deterrent for future violations.

Here's a movement, while not exactly what we're discussing, that may have a profound effect on the future passage of bills in the future.
 
The point about the Gestapo et al is well taken. Back to the original stance for harshly punishing police who did knowingly and willfully violate any citizen's rights.

As great as a proposal to make legislators actually read laws the pass may sound, I just don't see it happening in my lifetime. The obligations of actual responsibility just don't jive with the recklessness that has overrun the buisness of being a lifetime politician.
 
Okay, let's say we get to punish the "oath breakers" if they vote for bills in congress or are signed by the President that are found to be somehow not in support of the Constitution since oaths by the Legislative and Executive branches of government both say they will support and defend the Constitution.

From this, I would have to argue that any legislator abstained from the vote, they would get to be thrown out of office and never allowed back in because of their failure to defend the Constitution.

However, bills in Congress are almost never that simple. You have the initial bill and then you have all the riders that get attached to it. This is where voting stats on issues get muddled. A legislator can be said to have voted 10 times for educational funding and 30 times against it when in reality the legislator only was voting 5 times for it and the rest of the time the votes were actually for or against the the other parts of the bill submitted. Bills are often multi-sided in this regard.

Okay, say a bill is put forth that repeals all gun laws except for the 2nd amendment. One of the riders on the bill expands the scope for what is considered legal search and seizure that turns out to be unreasonable by SCOTUS and hence in violation of the 4th amendment.

So we have those in Congress who voted for the bill and the President who signed it who are no all going to have to be removed from office because they have broken their oaths and made a vote against the Constitution (4th). You then have all those who voted against the bill, hence against the 2nd amendment of the Constitution who will have to be removed from office. Then, anyone who abstained will have to be removed as well for not supporting the Constitution (2a) and not defending the Constitution (4th).

And BOOM, the Executive branch of government has been severely injured by the removal of the President (but replaced by the now former VP) and Congress has been wiped out because no matter how they voted or if they voted, every single person in Congress broke their oath either to support the Constitution, in defense of it, or both.

Given what would be the outcome of CDH's plan to punish the oath breakers by removal from their positions and not ever allowing them to return that CDH really didn't give much thought to what the ramifications of his plan would be. Or maybe he did and in reality he is just an anarchist with desires of destabilizing the US Government.
 
. Or maybe he did and in reality he is just an anarchist with desires of destabilizing the US Government
Click to expand...

Why don't you call me an Al Queda agent or a Bin Laden lover while you are at it. That comment is most insulting and you said just to provoke me.

Okay, say a bill is put forth that repeals all gun laws except for the 2nd amendment. One of the riders on the bill expands the scope for what is considered legal search and seizure that turns out to be unreasonable by SCOTUS and hence in violation of the 4th amendment.
Click to expand...

Why is that rider there in the first place. Bills need to addressed as single issue subjects not ramrods of ''we'll do good this way and screw 'em this way with one vote". They want two seperate issues then they need seperate votes. One law at a time please. If any thing so they can be read, instead of being missed because it buried in 300 pages of other laws that are going to get voted on at the same frickin' time.

So we have those in Congress who voted for the bill and the President who signed it who are no all going to have to be removed from office because they have broken their oaths and made a vote against the Constitution (4th). You then have all those who voted against the bill, hence against the 2nd amendment of the Constitution who will have to be removed from office. Then, anyone who abstained will have to be removed as well for not supporting the Constitution (2a) and not defending the Constitution (4th).
Click to expand...

If they had cast two seperate votes then everything would be ok for those who did the duty and those didn't would up a creek.

From this, I would have to argue that any legislator abstained from the vote, they would get to be thrown out of office and never allowed back in because of their failure to defend the Constitution.
Click to expand...

And why would he or she abstain? What is the point of being in Congress if you aren't going to do your job. I don't pay my taxes so they can avoid doing the work they convinced everybody who voted for them that they could do. If they want to do nothing, tell them go be CEO's in the private sector and let those who actually care about running a good government take over.

CDH really didn't give much thought to what the ramifications of his plan would be. Or maybe he did
Click to expand...

Your dang skippy I put a lot of thought into my ideas. I've spent more time thinking about how to make it work well to the benefit of the people, not the government. Thats what this about. A better, more responsible government that actual protects liberty instead of putting its head on the chooping block.
The ramifactions are that we will be able to persue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not to mention that people will be able to make choices that they were unable to make before because the government stole the ability to make those choices.

You always give love to your country, but only to your government when it deserves it. My government does not deserve my love as long as it continues to slide down its slippery slope.

Frankly, judging by your tone, I think you want more government and do not care how reckless they become because something has to be driving you to actually say that those who violate their public oath to insure the liberty of the people are AOK in your book.

thunderhawk88 said to me
No, you're frightening!
Click to expand...

The few people who have been completely against my arguement for a guaranteed way to protect liberty frighten me.

As far as I am concerned any person who had anything to do with writing and passing either Patriot Act should be first on the list those who need a little time in club fed for civil rights violations. If you disagree with statement then I get the feeling you have zero concern for yourself, your family or your fellow man.
 
alan…
ok … I was unclear … "guilty mind (latin: mens rea)" generally means the criminal intent in committing the act of which the defendant is accused. In the second sentence of my post I should have said either "guilty mind" or "criminal intent" rather than separating "intent" from "guilty mind". I plea guilty to "foggy mind" and admit that I was very tired at the time I misspoke.
Your reference to the need to show/prove INTENT and a "guilty mind", whatever that is or might be is interesting, but what of cases, more than one I believe, brought by BATF, with or without the lately added "E", where there was not the slightest showing of "intent".
Click to expand...
In criminal cases, intent is assumed unless the accused specifically mounts a defense bringing it into question. "I didn’t do it " does not bring intent into question. "I committed the act but not on purpose" does. Sometimes, the successful use of this defense effectively results in a guilty plea to a lesser crime (ex. murder reduced to involuntary manslaughter). In lesser crimes, particularly when there is no injury to any party, the case is sometimes thrown out or a not guilty verdict is rendered. The inaccurate speedometer defense in the previous post is one example. Another could be an individual accused of modifying a firearm to full auto claiming that he filed the sear "too much" while attempting to lighten the trigger pull. In these cases, the accused is claiming not "ignorance of the law" but his "ignorance of having broken the law". This type of defense is used fairly rarely for several reasons, including:
1. By definition, the defendant has to admit that the "crime" was committed by his hand.
2. It is easy for the prosecution to attack simply by demonstrating evidence of the defendant’s knowledge, experience, or proclivities.
3. It opens areas of evidence to the prosecution which previously had been inadmissible.

The concept of mens rea can also apply to the mental desire and will to act contrary to the terms of a contract. If you violate a provision of a contract without mens rea present (in other words, you made a mistake and didn’t mean to be in breach), you are not held responsible for any punitive action. The court will rule to correct your actions and possibly order restitution but not punish you. With mens rea present, you definitely face the possibility of punishment since you acted willfully.
Looking at the a Congressman’s oath of office as a contract to uphold the Constitution of the US the same test of mens rea would apply in determining whether he was subject to punishment. Without mens rea present, it is the job of SCOTUS (after a protest/suit is filed) to correct his actions (by declaring the law unconstitutional) and inform him of his mistake. With mens rea, it would still be their job to correct his actions and they could also issue a non-binding recommendation to congress for censure or even a more serious penalty. SCOTUS has no authority to punish the Congressman for breaking his oath. Punishment of the official would be the job of Congress.
Thanks to the living document doctrine, there is already a defense in place for anyone to interpret the Constitution in almost any way they wish. Thus, to prove guilty mind, you would have to furnish proof that they knew and believed that they were acting against the Constitution as they understood it. That leaves little possibility of a conviction unless they were stupid enough to condemn themselves with their own words relating to intent (something like "With this legislation we are making and end run around the Constitution)".
As to the ending of the above quote, where you make mention of legislators willfully and knowingly attempting to subvert said amendment (The Second I assume), through simple legislation. I submit that any attempt to legislate the fairy tale that is Gun Control, would nicely fit your characterization/definition.
Click to expand...

From our point of view(the constructionist doctrine), it seems obvious that some Congressmen are violating their oath of office … BUT ….you must prove that from THEIR point of view, they are violating that oath.
A proposal to repeal The Second Amendment, being a constitutionally sanctioned approach, if you aren't happy with what The Constitution says, then try to amend it, is an entirely different story, for the party or parties involved are operating according to the constitution, as opposed to trying to sneak around a corner.
Click to expand...
I fully agree and attempted to say the same in my previous post.
 
Why don't you call me an Al Queda agent or a Bin Laden lover while you are at it. That comment is most insulting and you said just to provoke me.
Click to expand...

No, I said it because what you propose would essentially destabilize the government and if the knowledge you claim is true, then you know this. Or, you really didn't give much thought to the reality of the ramifications. Or maybe you have decided that we need to punish the oath breakers and then completely revamp the whole legislative system? However, if I have provoked you, hopefully is was into thinking more about this matter with consideration given to reality that you seemed to have missed.

Why is that rider there in the first place. Bills need to addressed as single issue subjects not ramrods of ''we'll do good this way and screw 'em this way with one vote".
Click to expand...

Well you see CDH, that isn't how it works. Maybe you missed it in Gov101. Riders are part of legislation and have been for a long time, regardless of whether you think they should be there or not.

They want two seperate issues then they need seperate votes. One law at a time please. If any thing so they can be read, instead of being missed because it buried in 300 pages of other laws that are going to get voted on at the same frickin' time.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but like I said, that isn't how it works.

I take it from your posts that you don't actually know how the legislative process works especially given that you can't figure out why there are riders to bills. So your scheme to punish the oath breakers really shows a light of significant insight or consideration for the ramifications. If you want your plan to work, you have to work within the system that is the US Government, not the magical system perceived inside cold dead hands' head.

FYI, you aren't going to find all the answers you want in the copy of the supreme law of the land you keep on the desk. The details necessary to understand this go way beyond that document.
 
I take it from your posts that you don't actually know how the legislative process works especially given that you can't figure out why there are riders to bills
Click to expand...

I think he understands plenty well how legislative process works. So do the rest of us. Just because you think it is fine & dandy, doesn't mean everybody else does, or even that it's supposed to be that way. When congressmen don't even read much of what theyre voting on, how is that due legislative process?

Accountability for lawmakers who introduce laws that repeatedly go against the Constitution would be appropriate. It just depends on what that accountability would mean. I think fines, pay cuts & community service would go a long way. Because right now the Schumers of the bunch can keep throwing mud all they want and some of it is bound to stick. At the end of the day they can still enjoy their nice salary and the best benefits taxpayers money can buy.
 
I think he understands plenty well how legislative process works. So do the rest of us. Just because you think it is fine & dandy, doesn't mean everybody else does, or even that it's supposed to be that way. When congressmen don't even read much of what theyre voting on, how is that due legislative process?
Click to expand...

I do try very hard not to open my mouth and prove I am a fool.

Accountability for lawmakers who introduce laws that repeatedly go against the Constitution would be appropriate
Click to expand...

How is this inappropriate to you?

. At the end of the day they can still enjoy their nice salary and the best benefits taxpayers money can buy.
Click to expand...

When this country was originally fought and died for there were only volunteers for Congress. Now it is a career with faboo pay and benefits. Are you actually going to tell me that the system we have now is bettter than what we had in the beginning and should still have today?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top