Fyi:
Sure about this? Do you really know what happens when one person bucks the rest of the jury?
Wanna have a serious conversation about the Constitution?
- Thread starter GOPerfect
- Start date
Fyi:
Sure about this? Do you really know what happens when one person bucks the rest of the jury?
They can be subject to prosecution I belive?
Is it so inconceivable that a man would put his ideals before his personal interest?
Celt
.450/400 Nitro Ex
My .02..
Many of us here are smart enough to know in our hearts whether a law is constitutional or not when comparing the law to the Second Amendment(specifically). For example we all know that the New York Safe Act is unconstitutional. What we can agree on here is that there are two aspects to this; one which is morally the second which is legally.
However, what we know in our hearts has no bearing in a court of law and the way our system is written only the courts can rule whether a law is constitutional or not; which then allows the Executive Branch the power to enforce it or not.
Unfortunately our government has grown so big and corrupt that we are very far removed from where it originally was. A simple commoner can no longer afford to challenge an unconstitutional law without the backing of big money donors. So unfortunately , many of us get stuck having to deal with what we know in our hearts is unconstitutional or we face being punished by the corrupt government that enforces the law that "is on the books".
Many of us here are smart enough to know in our hearts whether a law is constitutional or not when comparing the law to the Second Amendment(specifically). For example we all know that the New York Safe Act is unconstitutional. What we can agree on here is that there are two aspects to this; one which is morally the second which is legally.
However, what we know in our hearts has no bearing in a court of law and the way our system is written only the courts can rule whether a law is constitutional or not; which then allows the Executive Branch the power to enforce it or not.
Unfortunately our government has grown so big and corrupt that we are very far removed from where it originally was. A simple commoner can no longer afford to challenge an unconstitutional law without the backing of big money donors. So unfortunately , many of us get stuck having to deal with what we know in our hearts is unconstitutional or we face being punished by the corrupt government that enforces the law that "is on the books".
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Isn't it the judges jury? How does he have the right to prosecute any of them? Never heard of that. One man of conscience can hang a jury in a case where constitutional bounds have been breached. It happens all the time and its up to the prosecutor if he wants to re-try. Much more common then jury nullification.
Robin
Robin
The main weapon against this is civil disobedience. The 18th Amendment was repealed largely due to widespread noncompliance. What if a few hundred thousand people went to the range all on the same day with non compliant arms? They cant arrest everyone.
Celt
.450/400 Nitro Ex
You're right, they couldn't get everyone, but in this state they would surely pick off a few, and they wait till the next time and then they'd pick off a few more and wait till the next time and pick a few more.
Our only hope would be that those actions would wake up enough citizens to elect some different officials that could then repeal a law, but it doesn't mean that the lawwould still not be in effect and enforceable while we waited for that to happen.
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
They would pick off a few high profilers on the way home and make an example out of them. Now if those same 'few hundred thousand showed up armed at the jail house and demanded release, the would be real civil disobedience. Then it would be up to the reigning authority as to whether it becomes uncivil.
Robin
Robin
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I wasn't trying to jab you. I don't know you. I'm just speaking truth about corruption and those who accept and enforce it. Those are the problems this country faces and why it cannot be changed.
You may think I'm full of shit but if one day I ever find myself wearing a black robe, as much as I hate the Muslim religion, I'd vote a case in it's favor because that's what the Constitution calls for. As much as I'd hate someone like the Vegas shooter if he lived, I'd rule against any excessive bails placed on him.
Yes. Human emotion is there. But you cannot say that one cannot put it aside and rule fairly. My emotion drives me to want to run an Antifa fag or a "Yo Yo Yo. Na mean? Mos def son!"off the road and end him. The world would be better for it but I don't even if I know I can get away with it because it's wrong. My emotions are kept in check and I make sure they don't get the better of me.
The Bill of Rights isn't a restraint on individuals. It's a restraint on the government. So, no, they wouldn't be violating the Constitution.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I got one even better. What if law enforcement went there right beside them and not a single one arrested them? What if the thousands of cops, chiefs, sheriff's, troopers, deputies, ect went there in force and said that they will never enforce an unconstitutional gun law? What would the law makers do then?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Without law enforcement enforcing draconian laws, there are no laws. They and only they have the power to do it without violence.
Thats basically what needs to happen.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
But instead they say the law is the law so it'll never happen.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
But what do I know. I'm just a stupid internet dude that hates cops, judge's, and politicians and don't know what I'm talking about.
I actually understand this. I was only to point out how rampant the violation of rights are.
Continue to opine, I don't think you're as anti cop as sometimes you lead us to believe.
Do you want street cops to decide what laws are and what laws are not in the realm of the Constitution? Do you want them to decide?
I am not only speaking of the 2A. All rights and all clauses of our foundation.
Celt
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Our system, as designed, certainly is not perfect but you won't find any better anywhere in the world. The problem lies within Human Nature.
We need to have term limits for Representatives and senators in congress at the federal and state level. Also there needs ito be a better system to keep activist judges in check. And we need recall elections Countrywide.
Wesley there needs to be a system in place that allows the commoner to challenge laws that are deemed unconstitutional more affordably without needing, literally, millions of dollars.
We need to have term limits for Representatives and senators in congress at the federal and state level. Also there needs ito be a better system to keep activist judges in check. And we need recall elections Countrywide.
Wesley there needs to be a system in place that allows the commoner to challenge laws that are deemed unconstitutional more affordably without needing, literally, millions of dollars.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It's real simple. As far as 2A Rights go. You know what's right. I know what's right. This whole forum and the gun world know what's right as far as the 2A.
The same goes with the other amendments as long as it doesn't cause another crime. For example. You can say "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But you'll be arrested for creating a public disturbance. That's a different charge. Same as you can carry a pistol. But if you murder someone, you can be charged with murder.
spat
.950 JDJ
You guys are conflating 2 separate questions.
Is a particular statute constitutional ?
How does our system resolve disputes regarding the constitutionality of a statute ?
Any law is either sanctioned by the constitution or it isn't. This is an immutable fact and doesn't require *anyone* to "interpret" it. Just like the earth was always round, even when nearly every legal authority and person in existence said otherwise.
When disputes happen, there needs to be a method for society to determine which side is right, and that leads to the courts, and the fact that everyone doesn't get to make the call on their own. But this in no way ensures that the courts make the right decision, just that they make a decision that society will force everyone to live by.
Now everyone is stuck with whatever decision SCOTUS makes, that's how the system works. However, the caveat that nobody seems to get is that we are only stuck with it as long as people put up with it.
The colonists were stuck with whatever King George ruled too, until they decided that he had gone too far and they weren't going to put up with it anymore. They *knew* that certain thing were "self evident" and the king could not simply rule them otherwise by royal (or judicial) fiat.
Is a particular statute constitutional ?
How does our system resolve disputes regarding the constitutionality of a statute ?
Any law is either sanctioned by the constitution or it isn't. This is an immutable fact and doesn't require *anyone* to "interpret" it. Just like the earth was always round, even when nearly every legal authority and person in existence said otherwise.
When disputes happen, there needs to be a method for society to determine which side is right, and that leads to the courts, and the fact that everyone doesn't get to make the call on their own. But this in no way ensures that the courts make the right decision, just that they make a decision that society will force everyone to live by.
Now everyone is stuck with whatever decision SCOTUS makes, that's how the system works. However, the caveat that nobody seems to get is that we are only stuck with it as long as people put up with it.
The colonists were stuck with whatever King George ruled too, until they decided that he had gone too far and they weren't going to put up with it anymore. They *knew* that certain thing were "self evident" and the king could not simply rule them otherwise by royal (or judicial) fiat.
spat
.950 JDJ
This means that if at *any point in the future* SAFE, or Sullivan, or NYC knife laws, or anything else, is struck down by SCOTUS, that they are *right now* unconstitutional.
To claim that they aren't this minute unconstitutional *even within the framework of our judicial system* you have to claim that they will *never* be overturned.
Last edited:
spat
.950 JDJ
Something not that different than showing up on the Berkeley campus at an ANTIFA rally wearing a Trump shirt, or walking down Ave "D" in Rochester with $100 bills hanging out of your back pocket at 3am. Just because you will suffer unfortunate consequences, it doesn't mean you were in the wrong.
History is replete with examples of people who did "the right thing" and suffered for it at the hands of the government. This doesn't make the people wrong.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Who decides if the courts are corrupt? Who determines if the government is corrupt?
Last edited:
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Right now we laws on the books that have not been Judicially reviewed or tested. That in itself , have allowed people to question the legitimacy of that particular law.
Who decides that bombing Syria and placing ground troops there, without ever having been attacked or even threatened by Syria, without the consent of congress is legitimate?
Who decides if the people are treated unjustly by the courts?
Who decides that bombing Syria and placing ground troops there, without ever having been attacked or even threatened by Syria, without the consent of congress is legitimate?
Who decides if the people are treated unjustly by the courts?
Last edited:
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I think that system is broken too. They import democratic voters that are known to become dependant and allow illegals to vote. Trump winning was a special case that'll never happen again with another Republican for many years.
We all see how fast these imports breed. Years ago when I was a kid, the Bronx had American people. Now they don't. Lower Westchester and Rockland is gone. I'm sure the same is happening in Buffalo and Rochester and it's surrounding areas.
Florida is turning blue now. Once Republican California is gone. We are fucked.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Apparently we are to stupid to determine if the safe act is infringing on our rights , we need politically appointed Judges to tell us we are all wrong.
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The courts have generally determined that vague laws deprive citizens of their rights without fair process, thus violating due process.
[T]he terms of a penal statute [...] must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties… and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.
The void for vagueness doctrine is a constitutional rule. This rule requires that criminal laws are so written that they explicitly and definitely state what conduct is punishable. The void for vagueness doctrine thus serves two purposes. First: All persons receive a fair notice of what is punishable and what is not. Second: The vagueness doctrine helps prevent arbitrary enforcement of the laws and arbitrary prosecutions.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
the U.S. Supreme Court case opinion in MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
Chief Justice John Marshall states:
"Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the Supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Chief Justice Marshall was correctly saying that, like everyone in government, those in the judicial branch, because of their "oath of office", have a required constitutional duty to examine and determine if their actions are constitutional or unconstitutional. To not so discharge their duties "is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime."
We also must remember that it is settled law that an unconstitutional "law" is not law.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and 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.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
(16 Am. Jur. 2d, Section 177; later 2d, Section 256)
In Pennsylvania, the required constitutional "oath of office", found in Article VI, Section 3, states: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."
Before anyone in government does anything, he or she must, as a matter of law, ask, at a minimum: 1) Is it moral? (Because all of our laws are to conform with God's Laws) and 2) Is it constitutional?
If the answer to either of these two fundamental/primary questions is NO, the action must not be taken!
So before a Legislator decides to act, for example: introduce a Bill and/or vote on a Bill, he or she must first answer "YES" to these two primary questions in order to comply with their "oath of office".
The Governor must likewise answer "YES" to these two primary questions before he or she signs a Bill into law, or does anything else in his or her official capacity. Remember, the Governor's primary duty "is to see that the laws are faithfully executed." (Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania)
It is the constitutional duty of each judge or justice in the courts to make sure that they, and all others in the judicial branch, always strictly follow their constitutional "oath of office". When a case is placed before the court, the judge(s) or justice(s) must first determine if they have constitutional authority (jurisdiction) to hear the case. If they have this authority, then they are also required to hear and determine the case strictly according to the original intent of the law, the appropriate Constitution and then statutes, codes, regulations, etc. which are themselves constitutional. To do otherwise would, as Chief Justice Marshall said in MARBURY v. MADISON, "be solemn mockery and … equally a crime."
Finally, the people/the Citizens, individually and collectively, have the ultimate power and authority to determine if a "law" is unconstitutional, because the people are the sovereigns in America.
Yes, the people are the sovereigns in each State of the Union and in the United States of America. This is confirmed, at a minimum, by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of Pennsylvania, and by many United States Supreme Court decisions. For example, consider:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," (Declaration of Independence)
"All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all time an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper."
(Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania)
"In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall, 54, 93; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Weat. 316, 404,405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370. The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect
the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared." (PERRY v. UNITED STATES, 294 US 331, 353, (1934))
Therefore, the clear and unavoidable correct answer to the question - "Who can determine if a "Law" is unconstitutional?" is: each and everyone in government, who must do so before they act. This is a required solemn, constitutional duty according to their "oath of office" or the oath of their superior(s).
However, ultimately each individual Citizen has the sovereign power, duty and responsibility, always being responsible for their decision(s) and action(s), to determine what is unconstitutional. Some may say this will result in "total chaos and anarchy". No! It will once again result in freedom and liberty. Those in government must constantly be held accountable for their actions and/or lack of lawful actions.
Chief Justice John Marshall states:
"Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the Supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Chief Justice Marshall was correctly saying that, like everyone in government, those in the judicial branch, because of their "oath of office", have a required constitutional duty to examine and determine if their actions are constitutional or unconstitutional. To not so discharge their duties "is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime."
We also must remember that it is settled law that an unconstitutional "law" is not law.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and 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.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
(16 Am. Jur. 2d, Section 177; later 2d, Section 256)
In Pennsylvania, the required constitutional "oath of office", found in Article VI, Section 3, states: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."
Before anyone in government does anything, he or she must, as a matter of law, ask, at a minimum: 1) Is it moral? (Because all of our laws are to conform with God's Laws) and 2) Is it constitutional?
If the answer to either of these two fundamental/primary questions is NO, the action must not be taken!
So before a Legislator decides to act, for example: introduce a Bill and/or vote on a Bill, he or she must first answer "YES" to these two primary questions in order to comply with their "oath of office".
The Governor must likewise answer "YES" to these two primary questions before he or she signs a Bill into law, or does anything else in his or her official capacity. Remember, the Governor's primary duty "is to see that the laws are faithfully executed." (Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania)
It is the constitutional duty of each judge or justice in the courts to make sure that they, and all others in the judicial branch, always strictly follow their constitutional "oath of office". When a case is placed before the court, the judge(s) or justice(s) must first determine if they have constitutional authority (jurisdiction) to hear the case. If they have this authority, then they are also required to hear and determine the case strictly according to the original intent of the law, the appropriate Constitution and then statutes, codes, regulations, etc. which are themselves constitutional. To do otherwise would, as Chief Justice Marshall said in MARBURY v. MADISON, "be solemn mockery and … equally a crime."
Finally, the people/the Citizens, individually and collectively, have the ultimate power and authority to determine if a "law" is unconstitutional, because the people are the sovereigns in America.
Yes, the people are the sovereigns in each State of the Union and in the United States of America. This is confirmed, at a minimum, by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of Pennsylvania, and by many United States Supreme Court decisions. For example, consider:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," (Declaration of Independence)
"All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all time an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper."
(Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania)
"In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall, 54, 93; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Weat. 316, 404,405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370. The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect
the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared." (PERRY v. UNITED STATES, 294 US 331, 353, (1934))
Therefore, the clear and unavoidable correct answer to the question - "Who can determine if a "Law" is unconstitutional?" is: each and everyone in government, who must do so before they act. This is a required solemn, constitutional duty according to their "oath of office" or the oath of their superior(s).
However, ultimately each individual Citizen has the sovereign power, duty and responsibility, always being responsible for their decision(s) and action(s), to determine what is unconstitutional. Some may say this will result in "total chaos and anarchy". No! It will once again result in freedom and liberty. Those in government must constantly be held accountable for their actions and/or lack of lawful actions.
Last edited:
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
the U.S. Supreme Court case opinion in MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
Chief Justice John Marshall states:
"Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the Supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Chief Justice Marshall was correctly saying that, like everyone in government, those in the judicial branch, because of their "oath of office", have a required constitutional duty to examine and determine if their actions are constitutional or unconstitutional. To not so discharge their duties "is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime."
We also must remember that it is settled law that an unconstitutional "law" is not law.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and 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.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
(16 Am. Jur. 2d, Section 177; later 2d, Section 256)
In Pennsylvania, the required constitutional "oath of office", found in Article VI, Section 3, states: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."
Before anyone in government does anything, he or she must, as a matter of law, ask, at a minimum: 1) Is it moral? (Because all of our laws are to conform with God's Laws) and 2) Is it constitutional?
If the answer to either of these two fundamental/primary questions is NO, the action must not be taken!
So before a Legislator decides to act, for example: introduce a Bill and/or vote on a Bill, he or she must first answer "YES" to these two primary questions in order to comply with their "oath of office".
The Governor must likewise answer "YES" to these two primary questions before he or she signs a Bill into law, or does anything else in his or her official capacity. Remember, the Governor's primary duty "is to see that the laws are faithfully executed." (Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania)
It is the constitutional duty of each judge or justice in the courts to make sure that they, and all others in the judicial branch, always strictly follow their constitutional "oath of office". When a case is placed before the court, the judge(s) or justice(s) must first determine if they have constitutional authority (jurisdiction) to hear the case. If they have this authority, then they are also required to hear and determine the case strictly according to the original intent of the law, the appropriate Constitution and then statutes, codes, regulations, etc. which are themselves constitutional. To do otherwise would, as Chief Justice Marshall said in MARBURY v. MADISON, "be solemn mockery and … equally a crime."
Finally, the people/the Citizens, individually and collectively, have the ultimate power and authority to determine if a "law" is unconstitutional, because the people are the sovereigns in America.
Yes, the people are the sovereigns in each State of the Union and in the United States of America. This is confirmed, at a minimum, by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of Pennsylvania, and by many United States Supreme Court decisions. For example, consider:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," (Declaration of Independence)
"All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all time an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper."
(Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania)
"In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall, 54, 93; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Weat. 316, 404,405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370. The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect
the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared." (PERRY v. UNITED STATES, 294 US 331, 353, (1934))
Therefore, the clear and unavoidable correct answer to the question - "Who can determine if a "Law" is unconstitutional?" is: each and everyone in government, who must do so before they act. This is a required solemn, constitutional duty according to their "oath of office" or the oath of their superior(s).
However, ultimately each individual Citizen has the sovereign power, duty and responsibility, always being responsible for their decision(s) and action(s), to determine what is unconstitutional. Some may say this will result in "total chaos and anarchy". No! It will once again result in freedom and liberty. Those in government must constantly be held accountable for their actions and/or lack of lawful actions.
Who can determine if a 'law' is unconstitutional? | Times News Online
Chief Justice John Marshall states:
"Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the Supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Chief Justice Marshall was correctly saying that, like everyone in government, those in the judicial branch, because of their "oath of office", have a required constitutional duty to examine and determine if their actions are constitutional or unconstitutional. To not so discharge their duties "is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime."
We also must remember that it is settled law that an unconstitutional "law" is not law.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and 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.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
(16 Am. Jur. 2d, Section 177; later 2d, Section 256)
In Pennsylvania, the required constitutional "oath of office", found in Article VI, Section 3, states: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."
Before anyone in government does anything, he or she must, as a matter of law, ask, at a minimum: 1) Is it moral? (Because all of our laws are to conform with God's Laws) and 2) Is it constitutional?
If the answer to either of these two fundamental/primary questions is NO, the action must not be taken!
So before a Legislator decides to act, for example: introduce a Bill and/or vote on a Bill, he or she must first answer "YES" to these two primary questions in order to comply with their "oath of office".
The Governor must likewise answer "YES" to these two primary questions before he or she signs a Bill into law, or does anything else in his or her official capacity. Remember, the Governor's primary duty "is to see that the laws are faithfully executed." (Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania)
It is the constitutional duty of each judge or justice in the courts to make sure that they, and all others in the judicial branch, always strictly follow their constitutional "oath of office". When a case is placed before the court, the judge(s) or justice(s) must first determine if they have constitutional authority (jurisdiction) to hear the case. If they have this authority, then they are also required to hear and determine the case strictly according to the original intent of the law, the appropriate Constitution and then statutes, codes, regulations, etc. which are themselves constitutional. To do otherwise would, as Chief Justice Marshall said in MARBURY v. MADISON, "be solemn mockery and … equally a crime."
Finally, the people/the Citizens, individually and collectively, have the ultimate power and authority to determine if a "law" is unconstitutional, because the people are the sovereigns in America.
Yes, the people are the sovereigns in each State of the Union and in the United States of America. This is confirmed, at a minimum, by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of Pennsylvania, and by many United States Supreme Court decisions. For example, consider:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," (Declaration of Independence)
"All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all time an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper."
(Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania)
"In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall, 54, 93; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Weat. 316, 404,405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370. The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect
the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared." (PERRY v. UNITED STATES, 294 US 331, 353, (1934))
Therefore, the clear and unavoidable correct answer to the question - "Who can determine if a "Law" is unconstitutional?" is: each and everyone in government, who must do so before they act. This is a required solemn, constitutional duty according to their "oath of office" or the oath of their superior(s).
However, ultimately each individual Citizen has the sovereign power, duty and responsibility, always being responsible for their decision(s) and action(s), to determine what is unconstitutional. Some may say this will result in "total chaos and anarchy". No! It will once again result in freedom and liberty. Those in government must constantly be held accountable for their actions and/or lack of lawful actions.
Who can determine if a 'law' is unconstitutional? | Times News Online
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
It doesn't take a scholar, to determine if the courts , the law ,or the government, is in conflict with the constitution. That is utter bullshit. The founders stated in the declaration :
""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed""
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
How would that ever be possible if only the courts could decide right and wrong? In the case of corrupt courts or corrupt laws the people would have no legal recourse to address the problem .
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
it is saying that the PEOPLE have the right and the power to decide if the government is corrupt.
""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed""
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
How would that ever be possible if only the courts could decide right and wrong? In the case of corrupt courts or corrupt laws the people would have no legal recourse to address the problem .
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
it is saying that the PEOPLE have the right and the power to decide if the government is corrupt.
Oh, so I was right? My translation was correct? Who’da thought? Heck.