Wanna have a serious conversation about the Constitution?

[GOPerfect]

As stated in the title, I would love to have an honest and real conversation in regards to the Constitution, newly (Last decade) passed laws and the Second Amendment.

I have never claimed to be a Constitutional scholar. I have read it many times, I have studied it and I have done my own half ass research.

In the past couple of weeks, with some of the recent gun related arrests, we here have been tossing all kinds of things out there in regards to the Constitutionality of things.

I have stated one of my points many times and have been flagged pretty hard for my thoughts. I have changed the wording on some of my posts to try to get others to understand where I am coming from.

I have said, many times, that a law in Constitutional up until it becomes not Constitutional. There are only a few ways this can occur. One of those ways is NOT for people just to say it is not. Our Courts are broken, I admit this. I agree with this. But, that is the system that we have had for many years and unless changed, that is the system that we are stuck with.

@Darth said, Jury Nullification. Okay, that may work a few times on individual cases, but does not make the law un-Constitutional. Some have stated that an illegal law is void. Okay, Void by who?

We can try to elect people that agree with us. We can try to alter the outlook of the Courts. We can un-elect those who see things differently and we can elect better mined people to represent us. We could take up arms and overthrow that that we do not agree with.

What other ways can laws become un-Constitutional? Again, saying that a law violates our Founding Documents does not make it so.

Please, tell me how I am wrong?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Laws can be unconstitutional right when they are passed. For example. If they house a soldier in your home. Right then and there is unconstitutional. A judge will either confirm it's unconstitutional or deny that it isn't.

 

[GOPerfect]

Laws can be unconstitutional right when they are passed. For example. If they house a soldier in your home. Right then and there is unconstitutional. A judge will either confirm it's unconstitutional or deny that it isn't.

Only if you can get the court to hear the case.

 

[libertysnake]

We can try to elect people that agree with us. We can try to alter the outlook of the Courts. We can un-elect those who see things differently and we can elect better mined people to represent us.

I think the issue is that the right is really bad at mobilizing people, generally. Especially young conservatives. The hallmark of a lot of conservative groups are just a bunch of old guys in a room with a website that looks like they made it in the 90s on geocities.

It can't just be fudds and baby boomers. It needs to be people of a variety backgrounds if you're going to get a national movement. That's how you show unity.

 

[Airborneguy]

Marbury v Madison established the arbiter of “Constitutional” vs “Unconstitutional” in this country.

The president at the time was none other than the man who stated that the “tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

John Adams and many other members of the First and Second Continental Congresses, along with the Constitutional Convention were all still alive at the time.

Since the Marbury v Madison decision did not spark a second revolution, it should be quite clear who determines whether laws are Constitutional or not. End of story.

Random internet dudes pontificating about oaths and such don’t even make the bottom of the list.

 

[phatfarmerbob]

Yeah except conservative young people are too busy working and paying taxes and actually attempting to do a good job raising their kids. It doesn’t leave a lot of time

 

[GOPerfect]

Marbury v Madison established the arbiter of “Constitutional” vs “Unconstitutional” in this country.

The president at the time was none other than the man who stated that the “tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

John Adams and many other members of the First and Second Continental Congresses, along with the Constitutional Convention were all still alive at the time.

Since the Marbury v Madison decision did not spark a second revolution, it should be quite clear who determines whether laws are Constitutional or not. End of story.

Random internet dudes pontificating about oaths and such don’t even make the bottom of the list.

Marbury v. Madison - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

Great video.

 

[GOPerfect]

Constitutionality is the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution the status of a law, a procedure, or an act's accordance with the laws or guidelines set forth in the applicable constitution. When one of these (laws, procedures, or acts) directly violates the constitution, it is unconstitutional. But in order for that to occur, a Higher court must rule. All the rest are considered constitutional until challenged and declared otherwise.

 

[nortatoga]

@GOPerfect I thought about this type of thread also! Glad you started it!!

Maybe the Mods could Sticky it?

Hopefully it stays respectful!

I have to leave now but will be reading these post for sure.

 

[GOPerfect]

@GOPerfect I thought about this type of thread also! Glad you started it!!

Maybe the Mods could Sticky it?

Hopefully it stays respectful!

I have to leave now but will be reading these post for sure.

I am not looking for a fight or an ugly argument, a good civil conversation. If I am incorrect in my thinking; change my mind with facts. Not feelings or opinions.

 

[Darth]

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void. (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)"

How's that grab you for "end of story?"

One cannot kill someone and then un kill them at a later date upon review.

 

[GOPerfect]

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void. (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)"

How's that grab you for "end of story?"

One cannot kill someone and then un kill them at a later date upon review.

L

Okay, who deems it void?

 

[libertysnake]

I feel like this conversation is better had over alcohol. Take shots whenever someone says "unconstitutional" so the end of the day is just everyone passed out.

 

[Darth]

L

Okay, who deems it void?

Does it matter?

Given things like the aforementioned jury nullification a random internet dude may actually have MORE power in this respect given that the higher courts can just say "nah, we won't hear this case."

It's almost as if they planned for this eventuality.

 

[GOPerfect]

Does it matter?

Given things like the aforementioned jury nullification a random internet dude may actually have MORE power in this respect given that the higher courts can just say "nah, we won't hear this case."

It's almost as if they planned for this eventuality.

Possibly. But again, until a Court of Appeals decides to take a case and makes it void, or UC, the law sticks and we are stuck with it.

As for the random internet dude, I have noticed over the past few years, there are many smart ones out there.

 

[Airborneguy]

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void. (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)"

How's that grab you for "end of story?"

One cannot kill someone and then un kill them at a later date upon review.

Nice attempt.

Translation:

When a law is determined to have been unconstitutional by the courts, then it is null and void back to its inception meaning any ramifications from the time it was passed until the time of the court’s decision are void.

You didn’t just post some magical exemption that allows on-the-spot random dude determinations of constitutionality.

Regardless of the opinions that will inevitably been posited herein, only the Courts determine constitutionality. Period.

 

[Airborneguy]

Even if jury nullification wasn’t a fantasy (more on that in a few), the act of a jury finding someone not guilty does not change the law. Furthermore, if a jury stated “we find the defendant not guilty due to disagreeing with the law” then the judge would immediately declare a mistrial and start again. Juries are charged to find based on the facts of the case and the letter of the law. They cannot interpret the law or determine whether it is constitutional or not, period, end of story (yet again).

Now I mentioned fantasy because I’m sure the retort will be “they just won’t tell the judge why”. Well fine, but again even if everyone kept their mouths shut, the only result is one not guilty defendant: the law still doesn’t change.

So again, the only arbiters of constitutionality in this country are the Courts. Absent a successful armed uprising, that’s the legal way to determine whether a law stands or not.

 

[Darth]

Nice attempt.

Translation:

When a law is determined to have been unconstitutional by the courts, then it is null and void back to its inception meaning any ramifications from the time it was passed until the time of the court’s decision are void.

You didn’t just post some magical exemption that allows on-the-spot random dude determinations of constitutionality.

Regardless of the opinions that will inevitably been posited herein, only the Courts determine constitutionality. Period.

Translation:

I was wrong in my ham fisted to "prove who determines constitutionality", so watch me tap dance around and make sure we end up with "cops and the courts do!"

 

[Marine Cpl]

Only if you can get the court to hear the case.

Nope.

 

[Chuck D]

Our options are few. The ability to appoint Justices who are strict Constitutionalists will take centuries. I honestly believe I will never see a full restoration of the 2nd Amendment in my lifetime and this is why.

Heller clearly established the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right. Having lost that argument, anti-gun politicians have "split the atom" by regulating what type of arms are "protected" and where you can use them.

Examples: CCW rights, Modern Sporting Rifles, Magazine Capacity, Gun Free Zones.

From a pro-gun perspective, we can own just about anything. From an anti-gun perspective, we should own pump shotguns, bolt action rifles, and revolvers.

With a lack of strict Constitutional Justices, we get "watered down" 2nd Amendment rights.

I honestly don't know how you repair that mindset and policy directive especially when there is NO interest in the places where there HAS to be interest to even entertain the conversation.

 

[GOPerfect]

Nope.

Um, yeah. How not so?

 

[Robin]

An argument could easily be made that M v M does not give the court that ultimate authority and did not then, but it has evolved to that over time.
Constitutionality of law is not argued in the court room, and if you have a case based on the constitutionality of a law that was violated, the judge won't hear it and if (when) found guilty an appeal must be made on constitutional grounds and then maybe just then it will be heard, and start the climb to the supremes, if not overturned on appeal, based on constitutional merit.
Robin

 

[GOPerfect]

Nope.

Engblom v Carey


This is about the only time this "violation" was brought to the courts. The Soldiers stayed were they were.

They were not removed.

 

[Bigfoot]

When ever this subject comes up I think that @Willjr75 makes some good points.
Actually so far in this thread IMO everyone is making good points to support their position.
I find it kind of strange that even with the opposing views everyone is right in their own way IMO.
That's how I see it anyway.

But the bottom line as far as I'm concerned is this...
If a law is unconstitutional, and some / most of us know when a law is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter.
If caught breaking a unconstitutional law, unless the LE officer is in a position to use his discretion maybe do to his personal view regarding said law. One will still take the ride, go in front of the judge and if found guilty, will be hammered.
So that's that, it is what it is, as wrong as it is.

Speaking of hammered, my post alone is worth 3 beers...

 

[Robin]

I'm starting a 4:30, first one is for you Bigfoot!
Robin hic, hic

 

[masterswimmer]

If the US Supreme Court cannot offer unanimous decisions how pray tell is any internet forum going to have anything other than a split decision? I mean the reality of it is that we're of the same mind for the most part, and we can't agree.

Good conversation, this should be the longest thread on NYGF since there will never be a 'resolution'.

 

[GOPerfect]

I knew that LE would be brought up in this conversation. Glad it was sooner than later. Sure, LE, can arrest you and because of that arrest, your life will probably never be the same.

There are many other people that will violate your Rights as well. Go to a store and see if you can buy a pistol with no permit. Try to get an FFL to sell you a full non safe act AR. Will not happen
Are they guilty as well off violating the Constitution?

Go to a Post office armed to the teeth, think the employees are gonna turn a blind eye to that?

When the police show up, tell them that you find the laws to be UC and therefore void. What's gonna happen?

 

[GOPerfect]

If the US Supreme Court cannot offer unanimous decisions how pray tell is any internet forum going to have anything other than a split decision? I mean the reality of it is that we're of the same mind for the most part, and we can't agree.




Good conversation, this should be the longest thread on NYGF since there will never be a 'resolution'.

Funny thing, nearly everyone here is correct to a point. And in a round about sort of way, all agree.

 

[GOPerfect]

Gotta go to work. Criminals everywhere

 

[Airborneguy]

Translation:

I was wrong in my ham fisted to "prove who determines constitutionality", so watch me tap dance around and make sure we end up with "cops and the courts do!"

Whatever you say. I know you will regardless of any truth, statements, evidence etc.