There was another one recently oddly enough regarding the police. It too was shot down if I recall because they were soldiers by strict definition.
Wanna have a serious conversation about the Constitution?
- Thread starter GOPerfect
- Start date
There was another one recently oddly enough regarding the police. It too was shot down if I recall because they were soldiers by strict definition.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I've already stated how so in previous threads. To do so again will only result in being called a random internet dude, insults, and labeled a cop hater by those who wish to defend themselves and justify themselves from the oath they have broken.
What it all boils down to is this. A law passed is either constitutional in its inception or it isn't. After that some guy in a black robe will either rule based on the actual text itself or he will inject his own feelings or party line BS into it.
The Constitution is a static document. It either says something or it doesn't just like any Penal Law. There should never be a 5 to 4 decision ever. It should be close to unanimous each and every time. 5 educated people can't interpret a sentence one way and 4 the other. English is English.
Enough with the bullshit already. Everyone of us here know deep down in our hearts and minds what an article in the Bill of Rights says.
You can either accept the corruption of the courts and know you can't do anything about it or you can lie to yourself about their decision and act as if it is a JUST decision to make yourself feel better about having your rights infringed upon or you having to infringe the rights of others.
We all know the difference between right and wrong. We don't need a judge to interpret English for us.
Last edited:
Anyone saying that the individual can determine the constitutionality of a law is not even remotely correct for a split second.
The crux of the argument that comes up on this forum regularly is not questionable and never has been.
Only the courts can determine whether a law is constitutional or not.
I welcome Darth or anyone else to provide anything substantional to argue their point, but they won’t and can’t.
“You’re wrong and an idiot” is exactly why we have courts to settle these issues rather than internet dudes who think they are skilled debaters.
No bearing whatsoever on the conversation at hand.
Bigfoot
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It's a given that LE would be part of this discussion. After all, LE are the ones responsible for enforcing the laws and have the power of arrest. You do make some very good points though... By the way, I am pro LE incase you haven't noticed by my post history.
You will not find any cop bashing in any of my posts. I just want to be clear about that.
I understand that the blame for any bad laws falls squarely on the legislators shoulders.
If anyone wants to address why the living founders - including Thomas “drain the blood of tyrants” Jefferson - ignored M v M, they are more than welcome. I’m all ears. Or they can just keep pontificating.
Goperfect, I apologize for bringing actual Constitutional law into this conversation.
Goperfect, I apologize for bringing actual Constitutional law into this conversation.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
How so?
GuyMontag
.44 mag
Juries are the ultimate arbiter of justice, it's beyond hilarious that you want to pretend otherwise.
To convict someone of a crime for an UNJUST law, is not justice. It's why juries and not judges or prosecutors are vested with the real power. You need only ONE person on a jury to understand this reality to secure justice.
So the law is the law and that will never change so just sit your peon ass down and eat your shit sandwich like a good little peasant?
I don't accept that.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
All that is relevant if the decisions aren't biased and rendered ethically without party influence.
I didn’t say that, but ok.
I’m well aware by now that most of the time these conversations are not debates based on fact and law. I will continue to only post that way though.
I’m not dicussing perfect world scenarios. I’m posting evidence of how things actually work in this country per the rule of law we live under.
That situation is unacceptable.
Ok so address what I said then, don’t just pontificate.
What happens when a jury tells the judge they are finding someone not guilty due to disagreement with the law, regardless of the facts of the case?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
You are posting things on how they are supposed to work. Correct. We both know that. But don't act like you don't know that almost every circuit, appeals, or supreme court isn't corrupt. If it weren't, there would be unanimous decisions because something is either constitutional or it isn't. Decisions wouldn't need to be overturned. It's a circus and you know it but are instead quoting how things are supposed to work to defend those that are corrupt and those that do the bidding of the corrupt.
@Airborneguy, so what do you suggest then?
All I know is that I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the current state of affairs. What am I to do? Go mad? Have the animal control come out and shoot the mad dog down? At least then I'd be free of this sorry state of affairs.
All I know is that I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the current state of affairs. What am I to do? Go mad? Have the animal control come out and shoot the mad dog down? At least then I'd be free of this sorry state of affairs.
Jabs aside...
Human nature is why decisions are rarely unanimous. This has existed from the dawn of time and always will. Curruption is a specific term with specific consequences under the law based on the scenario in which it presents instelf. Simply being in disagreement with your beliefs is not corruption.
Work within the system to change it or foster a second revolution. Notbeing facetious, those are your only options. It’s the same scenario the Founders faced.
Bigfoot
.577 Tyrannosaur.
OK, I will be that anyone else. But I am definitely not a skilled debater though. LOL
I don't care what any judge says,,, What you say,,, Or anyone else.
The pistol permitting system in NYS (IS BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL)
How can anyone possibly argue otherwise? In NYS one can't even legally touch a handgun without a PP permit.
Now of course, If I was to be arrested for possessing a handgun without a valid PP I will find myself in a serious jam.
But just because a court deems the law constitutional doesn't necessarily make it so.
A judge can't alter the words that are clearly written in the US constitution.
But like I said before, A person will still take the ride regardless. And still end up in front of a judge regardless.
But that does NOT change the fact that the Pistol Permitting system in New York State IS unconstitutional.
The system is broken and no longer works as originally intended.
You sum it up well, where our personal beliefs and the law rub against each other. I’m not saying that what we believe is not true. I’m pointing out that it doesn’t matter and some of the more off-the-wall statements frequently seen on sites like this one are simply assinine (not directed at yours).
That's all I've ever suggested. I have no illusions, but death is better than life as a slave. Come what may, I just want the uncertainty to go away. Tired of living with this permanent knot in my stomach.
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Jefferson was not at all silent on the M v M decision.
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."
—Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson
But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best."
—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.
"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825.
"My construction of the Constitution is . . . that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.
And he was right.
Robin
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."
—Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson
But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best."
—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.
"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825.
"My construction of the Constitution is . . . that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.
And he was right.
Robin
He absolutely was not happy about the decision. For anyone interested, the events surrounding Marbury v. Madison, beginning with Adam's appointments, are an amazing study in political intrigue and the early parties within our government. These were two men who would end their lives as great friends, yet at the time their machinations caused actual duels where people died or were seriously injured. To think that they even died together, on the 50th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration! It's fascinating.
Most people will never grasp the full breadth of these men's lives. Cursory glances at history barely scratch the surface. Deep study of the Founders and the times are fascinating. I enjoy the subject a lot. Adam's biography is my favorite book of all time.
That said, my point is Jefferson accepted it. He did not follow his own trope that every generation or so a good revolution was necessary. Considering the timeline, he was well within the period he prescribed in prior statements. Why did he accept the decision?
Most people will never grasp the full breadth of these men's lives. Cursory glances at history barely scratch the surface. Deep study of the Founders and the times are fascinating. I enjoy the subject a lot. Adam's biography is my favorite book of all time.
That said, my point is Jefferson accepted it. He did not follow his own trope that every generation or so a good revolution was necessary. Considering the timeline, he was well within the period he prescribed in prior statements. Why did he accept the decision?
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I haven't ever where he did accept it. The degree to which this power grab was applied during that time period is no where near what it is today, not even the solar system. But Jefferson was correct in his vision in how that fateful decision would evolve badly for the country he so dearly loved.
Robin
Robin
The Officer who swore an oath to the Constitution will understand he is within his rights! Or am I missing something here?
@thewheels
.308 Win
From the article:
Finally, although his ruling dismissed the Mitchells’ Third Amendment argument, Judge Gordon did allow many of their other claims to go forward, including causes of action under the First and Fourth Amendments, and violations of federal and state statutory law.
I don't see how this is a 3rd am issue either but it's good to see that the judge didn't toss the rest.
A Real Live Third Amendment Case - The Volokh Conspiracy
GuyMontag
.44 mag
You posted a total bullshit hypothetical, then have the nerve to attempt passing this gem?
Walk me through how a Judge FORCES any juror to defend their decision, and bend it to meet a Judge's expectation. Your "perfect world" nonsense is hilarious, as is your so-called "evidence" of how things don't actually work. One person on a jury who understands who's vested with the real power, is all it takes to secure justice, contrary to your suggestion.
I’ve posted numerous links regarding actual Constitutional law. I’ve no interest in responding to hyperbole. For just one thread, calm your emotions and debate intelligently.