PDA

View Full Version : Don't lawmakers check the Constitition?


anthonyca
04-19-2009, 5:07 PM
http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab814&year=2009

Wouldn't this be unconstitutional according to the 8to 1 US vs Haynes decision? Would we need incorporation to strike this?

Not that I am so much against this particilar law but look where it could lead.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

BillCA
04-19-2009, 6:03 PM
Wouldn't this be unconstitutional according to the 8to 1 US vs Haynes decision? Would we need incorporation to strike this?

Only if they attempted to charge him with a crime after the fact. Here are a few examples:


Defendant claims he possesses no firearms. Later, police buy several guns from a friend who says defendant needs cash for his defense. DA prosecutes for "perjury" but court rejects under Haynes - an affirmative signature would admit guilt to weapons violations and potentially a new crime (stolen weapons).
In a drug case, police arrest defendant for illegal drug use and possession of drugs. Defendant signs document describing a pump shotgun after being told that he must sign the document to sell off any guns he owns. DA adds "possession by prohibited person" charge. Defense objects, claiming the law "requires" admission of guilt to new crimes which is a violation under Haynes.
D.A. attempts to prosecute under this law for the defendant's refusal to sign the document and/or make any declaration at all (even to his lawyer). Defense files motion to dismiss charges under Haynes and under the Fifth Amendment - defendant not required to offer any information that is self-incriminating.
Defendant signs off on 4 guns in his possession, even though he's a prohibited person. Police seize the guns and they are not listed as stolen in NCIC (or other databases). Guns are turned over to defendant's agent for sale under the law. No other charges filed. Perfectly ok.
Defendant signs off on 4 guns in his possession, even though he's a prohibited person. Police seize the guns and they stolen weapons from a burglary. Guns are seized and original owner(s) notified. No new charges are filed. Perfectly okay.
Defendant has Dom.Violence conviction and signs document indicating ownership of a Ruger Mini-14 rifle stored at the home of a 3rd party. Police obtain a search warrant, perform a raid. They force open the 3rd party's safe and afterwards search the bedroom closet to recover the Mini-14 from a corner. 3rd Party person charged with unlawful possession of a Colt AR-15 and accessory to posession by a prohibited person. Ideally, the courts overturn since defendant was told declaration was required and that police illegally obtained the warrant.

RRangel
04-19-2009, 7:51 PM
Don't lawmakers check the Constitution? It would probably be like showing the holy cross to a vampire. In California our rights practically exist to be trampled on by typical arrogant legislators and other assorted bloodsuckers in California. ;)

evan69
04-19-2009, 7:57 PM
I doubt most of them care what the constitution says. It's horrible, and it's why I won't live in california a day longer than I have to after college it done.

grahlaika
04-19-2009, 8:33 PM
It's not the lawmakers' role to check the constitutionality of their laws, so no I don't think most of them bother with it. They're just interested in passing laws that make sense to them. It's up to the courts to determine the constitutionality of laws passed, which doesn't happen until someone brings a legal case challenging that law.

jjperl
04-19-2009, 8:36 PM
Don't lawmakers check the Constitution? It would probably be like showing the holy cross to a vampire. In California our rights practically exist to be trampled on by typical arrogant legislators and other assorted bloodsuckers in California. ;)

LOL... SO true!

RomanDad
04-19-2009, 10:26 PM
It's not the lawmakers' role to check the constitutionality of their laws, so no I don't think most of them bother with it. They're just interested in passing laws that make sense to them. It's up to the courts to determine the constitutionality of laws passed, which doesn't happen until someone brings a legal case challenging that law.

Thats not actually correct.

Legislative bodies are not SUPPOSED to pass UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws. Its considered a serious waste of taxpayers resources, a waste of time, and a waste of the Court's time. Not to mention, an interference with the people's rights.

Which is why, every legislative body in the United States, from the lowliest City Council, all the way up to the U.S. Senate, has Legal Counsel to advice them on the legality of proposed legislation and language.

Here is a nice link to The U.S. Senate office of Legislative Counsel (http://slc.senate.gov/Drafting/drafting.htm)

Obviously, some issues of Constitutionality are close calls, and sometimes the legislators just roll the dice and hope they survive a challenge.... And obviously, the quality of advice varies from attorney to attorney, so sometimes youre going to get politically motivated opinions rather than legally based ones, or just BAD ADVICE.... But to say "its not their job" is simply untrue.

yellowfin
04-19-2009, 10:38 PM
I honestly don't think they care. They are so insulated from consequences they know virtually nothing of the concept. The most that can happen to them personally is getting voted out of office, but that's almost laughable. The odds so steeply favor incumbents with gerrymandering, a leftist media that virtually NEVER complains about unconstitutionality to any effect, and an apathetic and/or underinformed public with 2 years or more to cool off and forget about it. They really have little or nothing to fear. Waste of taxpayers' resources? Wasting their time, ours, and everyone else's? Since when have they honestly cared about that either...have you read the things these people vote on? They show more evidence of fearing getting hit by a falling meteorite than worrying about any of that.

RomanDad
04-19-2009, 10:45 PM
I honestly don't think they care. They are so insulated from consequences they virtually know nothing of the concept. The most that can happen to them personally is getting voted out of office, but that's almost laughable. The odds so steeply favor incumbents with gerrymandering, a leftist media that virtually NEVER complains about unconstitutionality to any effect, and an apathetic and/or underinformed public with 2 years or more to cool off and forget about it. They really have little or nothing to fear. Waste of taxpayers' resources? Wasting their time, ours, and everyone else's? Since when have they honestly cared about that either...have you read the things these people vote on? They show more evidence of fearing getting hit by a falling meteorite than worrying about any of that.

I think thats probably true for a great many of them.... Until you've spent some time on the Hill, you cant really appreciate the sense of self-importance that place can imbibe a person with.... In DC, Senators and Congressman are treated like royalty.... And even the staffers get caught up in it... Its intoxicating, and not at all conducive to the humility and sobriety that SHOULD go into passing laws that effect other people's lives.

BUT... MY POINT WAS, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO CARE!

yellowfin
04-19-2009, 11:05 PM
...Or else what? What good does supposing to care do when there's nothing to effectively tell them not to do as they wish? It ceaselessly angers me that there are no consequences to these people. I don't give a crap about what intoxication of power, sense of self importance, or red carpet lifestyle they have--that's irrelevant. They can have Rush Limbaugh's ego, Hugh Hefner's harem, and Warren Buffet's money--what the hell should that matter? I don't care if they spend $50 million putting gold plating on Mother Theresa's grave and donating their kidneys to 8 year old kids needing a transplant or screw identical redhead triplet Notre Dame cheerleaders while reading the satanic bible in the middle of the Sistine Chapel. It's the complete lack of rules and enforcement thereof for these people. There is not a single penalty levied upon them breaking the basic foundational law of our country, whereas you and I have to somehow pay attention to the itty bitty absurd nth degree detail about petty subsections of unending piles and piles of legal code that if we ignore and one person finds out our lives would be ruined. If I show up to a range in California with a selector switch on my rifle not even firing one round and someone looks at it my life is effectively over, all over a stupid subsection of an obscure code .001% of the population will ever know about forbidding $5 worth of metal; if they write or vote for any law or action that clear as day violates the Constitution, of which 100% of properly educated people born in this country know by age 12 or 14 NOT A SINGLE THING HAPPENS TO THEM, NOT EVEN A PARKING TICKET.

Our country is broken because this is not addressed.

N6ATF
04-20-2009, 12:30 AM
Don't lawmakers check the Constitition?

Yes, to make sure they violate it in EVERY POSSIBLE INSTANCE.

They do not suffer death for their treason or any lesser retribution that would suit the harm they do to us, so they will keep printing the Constitution and their oaths of office on toilet paper until they die natural deaths and are buried in golden caskets.

GuyW
04-20-2009, 1:38 AM
It's not the lawmakers' role to check the constitutionality of their laws, so no I don't think most of them bother with it. They're just interested in passing laws that make sense to them. It's up to the courts to determine the constitutionality of laws passed, which doesn't happen until someone brings a legal case challenging that law.

Wrong.

"You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal…."
-Thomas Jefferson- to William C. Jarvis, 1820
.

Sinixstar
04-20-2009, 1:53 AM
It's not the lawmakers' role to check the constitutionality of their laws, so no I don't think most of them bother with it. They're just interested in passing laws that make sense to them. It's up to the courts to determine the constitutionality of laws passed, which doesn't happen until someone brings a legal case challenging that law.

This is correct.

Ironically enough, if you read the constitution - this is EXACTLY how the system was designed.

However, I think at the time - they kind of assumed that the public would have a bit more sense not to vote nit-wits into office, and that the people who did get elected, would have enough sense to sort of follow the ideas outlined in the constitution.

GuyW
04-20-2009, 1:59 AM
This is correct.

Ironically enough, if you read the constitution - this is EXACTLY how the system was designed.


Not according to Jefferson....maybe you can straighten him out....
.

Ford8N
04-20-2009, 5:56 AM
...Or else what? What good does supposing to care do when there's nothing to effectively tell them not to do as they wish? It ceaselessly angers me that there are no consequences to these people. I don't give a crap about what intoxication of power, sense of self importance, or red carpet lifestyle they have--that's irrelevant. They can have Rush Limbaugh's ego, Hugh Hefner's harem, and Warren Buffet's money--what the hell should that matter? I don't care if they spend $50 million putting gold plating on Mother Theresa's grave and donating their kidneys to 8 year old kids needing a transplant or screw identical redhead triplet Notre Dame cheerleaders while reading the satanic bible in the middle of the Sistine Chapel. It's the complete lack of rules and enforcement thereof for these people. There is not a single penalty levied upon them breaking the basic foundational law of our country, whereas you and I have to somehow pay attention to the itty bitty absurd nth degree detail about petty subsections of unending piles and piles of legal code that if we ignore and one person finds out our lives would be ruined. If I show up to a range in California with a selector switch on my rifle not even firing one round and someone looks at it my life is effectively over, all over a stupid subsection of an obscure code .001% of the population will ever know about forbidding $5 worth of metal; if they write or vote for any law or action that clear as day violates the Constitution, of which 100% of properly educated people born in this country know by age 12 or 14 NOT A SINGLE THING HAPPENS TO THEM, NOT EVEN A PARKING TICKET.

Our country is broken because this is not addressed.



This :iagree:

grahlaika
04-20-2009, 8:16 AM
"You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal…."
-Thomas Jefferson- to William C. Jarvis, 1820
.

Look, I didn't say I agree with how they're doing, just that it's how they're writing laws. Yes, I agree that it's a very dangerous way to run the country, but that's where we are. I'm not wrong in telling you how things work, you're wrong in thinking our nation is some idealistic, idyllic constitutional convention where everyone does the right thing. We're not, and it's why we have the three-legged system of government with checks and balances.

Just because Jefferson had one belief, doesn't mean it's how our country works. There were plenty of other minds working on writing the Constitution, and Jefferson was just one of many, so it wasn't just Jefferson's views that made it to the final document.

Whether you agree with it or not you need to accept it as political reality because it is. If lawmakers were concerned with writing constitutional laws, they'd consult constitutional lawyers BEFORE making any laws, which they don't. Like I said, that's the whole point of having supreme courts at the state and at the federal level - to make decisions on the constitutionality of laws passed by legislators. Having said that, the process of creating legislation is designed to minimize the creation of un-constitutional laws - bill drafting, committees, chamber vote, ratification by the other chamber, signature by the chief executive, etc. Of course, a lot of that breaks down when you have an overwhelming political majority of one persuasion or another, which makes it easy then to legislate the minority or those not represented at all into slavery if they so desired. Dangerous indeed.

grahlaika
04-20-2009, 8:22 AM
However, I think at the time - they kind of assumed that the public would have a bit more sense not to vote nit-wits into office, and that the people who did get elected, would have enough sense to sort of follow the ideas outlined in the constitution.

If you ask me that's the one big flaw with the system our Founders created - the presumption of an involved voting population, educated on the issues before them, and voting with their brains instead of their emotions. Right now we have just the opposite - a mob mentality that can be easily swayed with 'red-meat' issues to vote on whatever the politicians of our respective political party convince us is in our best interest, when in fact most of what they say is in THEIR personal best interest.