PDA

View Full Version : Are legislators criminally liable...


downfall
01-04-2010, 4:21 PM
for continuing to support a confirmed unconstitutional law? If the Supreme Court rules in our favor and incorporates the 2nd amendment then can the members of the "State Soviet" that actively oppose the ruling be held accountable criminally? Civilly? if not, what recourse do Americans held hostage have in the PDRK?

berto
01-04-2010, 4:31 PM
Vote

Cokebottle
01-04-2010, 4:33 PM
Not personally.

Witness welfare reform. California STILL refuses to follow the time limits and other guidelines that have been Federally mandated.
The only thing the Fed can do is threaten to cut funding.

Even the Federal government refuses to enforce it's own immigration laws.

ELBong
01-05-2010, 2:29 PM
I was wondering about this too. I also wondered if NGOs could be found guilty of conspiracy to deprive rights. US Code TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 13 § 241 states:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

It seems to me that lobying or enacting laws that limit or eliminate 2A rights is an act of opression. It may be a matter of establishing intent. A group may say they are attempting to limit criminal's access to firearms; while their actual agenda is to eliminate or nullify the second amendment.

FloridaEllie
01-05-2010, 5:21 PM
Hello everyone. I took a poly sci class last semester, American Politics, and the teacher was lecturing on people claiming lots of laws are "unconstitutional". He said these people are living in the past, and that since the constitution represents we the people, it is ours to interpret. I can't remember all the examples he sited - I wish I took better notes, but he used things like how slavery was permitted, and only white males could vote and states could leave the union and all that was changed by Americans who's views had changed. Any thoughts?

twotap
01-05-2010, 5:34 PM
They do what they do and we just have to settle for what we get ..

FloridaEllie
01-05-2010, 5:45 PM
They do what they do and we just have to settle for what we get ..

I know!!! It's so sad. People wouldn't put up with that at a fast food restaurant, but they put up with it when it comes to their lives and the rules that they must live by!! I, for one, am trying to educate myself so I can defend my rights. Sorry to say that the extent of my education is from college (and some highschool) and I think mostly from liberal professors and teachers. So maybe I'm no better than when I started :(

kf6tac
01-05-2010, 5:47 PM
Hello everyone. I took a poly sci class last semester, American Politics, and the teacher was lecturing on people claiming lots of laws are "unconstitutional". He said these people are living in the past, and that since the constitution represents we the people, it is ours to interpret. I can't remember all the examples he sited - I wish I took better notes, but he used things like how slavery was permitted, and only white males could vote and states could leave the union and all that was changed by Americans who's views had changed. Any thoughts?

Sounds like typical "living Constitution" BS to me. And the examples are a total red herring.

Slavery used to be permitted, but it was changed by Constitutional amendment. White males used to be the only ones that could vote, but that was changed by Constitutional amendment. And the proposition that states could freely leave the Union was never clearly accepted in this nation anyway -- we fought a whole frickin' Civil War over it because the people didn't agree one way or another on it.

If the Constitution really meant whatever the heck people happen to want it to mean at any particular given moment, why did the Framers even bother to write it all down in one place? We could just have an unwritten constitution like the Brits have.

Crusader Matt
01-05-2010, 5:59 PM
I took a poly sci class last semester, American Politics, and the teacher was lecturing on people claiming lots of laws are "unconstitutional". He said these people are living in the past, and that since the constitution represents we the people, it is ours to interpret. I can't remember all the examples he sited - I wish I took better notes, but he used things like how slavery was permitted, and only white males could vote and states could leave the union and all that was changed by Americans who's views had changed. Any thoughts?

Legislators should be held liable IMO, criminally :mad:. Also, political science professors are blatant liberal extremists (I've dealt with them firsthand and it makes me speechless at the fact I'm paying for their curriculum). Liberals tend to view the Constitution as a 'living document', meaning its open to interpretation relative to the time and circumstances. People who actually understand American history know that the Founding Father's intentioned the Constitution to be an eternal set of laws, not something relative to the circumstances. Thats why Lincoln said, "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."

The notion that the Constitution can be re-interpreted is an argument made by people who just can't accept what it has to say, these are people who want to live in America geographically but simply redefine what American means slowly but surely. BLEEP THAT.

hoffmang
01-05-2010, 6:57 PM
Heh. How can you hold a group of people who can change the law criminally liable exactly?

-Gene

G17GUY
01-05-2010, 7:05 PM
Heh. How can you hold a group of people who can change the law criminally liable exactly?

-Gene

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-479146/Brutality-justice-The-truth-tarred-feathered-drug-dealer.html

bodger
01-05-2010, 7:05 PM
Heh. How can you hold a group of people who can change the law criminally liable exactly?

-Gene


Yeah, they hold the power to vote an increase in their own salaries too.
Kinda nice.

anthonyca
01-05-2010, 7:15 PM
Hello everyone. I took a poly sci class last semester, American Politics, and the teacher was lecturing on people claiming lots of laws are "unconstitutional". He said these people are living in the past, and that since the constitution represents we the people, it is ours to interpret. I can't remember all the examples he sited - I wish I took better notes, but he used things like how slavery was permitted, and only white males could vote and states could leave the union and all that was changed by Americans who's views had changed. Any thoughts?

All of his examples are perfect reasons why the constitution is so amazing, those are all unconstitutional!!! All of those laws were repugnant to the constitution and expressly prohibited.

bodger
01-05-2010, 7:54 PM
Hello everyone. I took a poly sci class last semester, American Politics, and the teacher was lecturing on people claiming lots of laws are "unconstitutional". He said these people are living in the past, and that since the constitution represents we the people, it is ours to interpret. I can't remember all the examples he sited - I wish I took better notes, but he used things like how slavery was permitted, and only white males could vote and states could leave the union and all that was changed by Americans who's views had changed. Any thoughts?


My first thought is that people who think like this are the reason we have so many ridiculous worthless laws.

fleegman
01-05-2010, 8:10 PM
They do what they do and we just have to settle for what we get ..
I, for one, do not settle, and I do not settle on a daily basis.

jamesob
01-05-2010, 8:25 PM
the best we can hope for is that each politition does something criminal outside of politics.

Tankhatch
01-06-2010, 10:19 AM
How about perjury ???

They took an oath to uphold the constitution.

kf6tac
01-06-2010, 10:21 AM
How about perjury ???

They took an oath to uphold the constitution.

Breaking an oath is not perjury; one only commits perjury if they make false statements while under oath not to make false statements.

littlejake
01-06-2010, 10:37 AM
Everyone is preaching to the choir in this thread...

What can you do --


Donate to progun organizations
Write letters to your representatives and politely state your position.
Support pro-gun candidates -- even if they do not represent your district.
Keep a list of companies who support anti-gun causes; do not give those companies your business.
Do not be outrageous -- walking into a public place with UOC does not make friends and influence people.
Give Heller a chance to trickle down -- organizations like GCF know when to challenge unjust laws.
Engage youth in the shooting sports.


Expect that those weenies in Sacramento will continue to pen unjust laws as fast as they can be taken down.

Roadrunner
01-06-2010, 10:52 AM
Hello everyone. I took a poly sci class last semester, American Politics, and the teacher was lecturing on people claiming lots of laws are "unconstitutional". He said these people are living in the past, and that since the constitution represents we the people, it is ours to interpret. I can't remember all the examples he sited - I wish I took better notes, but he used things like how slavery was permitted, and only white males could vote and states could leave the union and all that was changed by Americans who's views had changed. Any thoughts?

That's the same liberal propaganda as when they claim that the constitution is a "living document". Slavery was not in the constitution, and women received the vote through the 19th amendment. The constitution doesn't change merely because of peoples changing points of view, it changes through deliberate voting to add or repeal an amendment.

Barney Gumble
01-06-2010, 1:43 PM
for continuing to support a confirmed unconstitutional law? If the Supreme Court rules in our favor and incorporates the 2nd amendment then can the members of the "State Soviet" that actively oppose the ruling be held accountable criminally? Civilly? if not, what recourse do Americans held hostage have in the PDRK?

No. That's not how our system works. Take a civics class.

You're not being "held hostage". You're just being outvoted. The sooner you get the difference, the more effective you'll be at changing things.

SanSacto
01-06-2010, 1:55 PM
legislators aren't accountable for :censored:

FloridaEllie
01-06-2010, 2:08 PM
Everyone is preaching to the choir in this thread...

What can you do --


Donate to progun organizations
Write letters to your representatives and politely state your position.
Support pro-gun candidates -- even if they do not represent your district.
Keep a list of companies who support anti-gun causes; do not give those companies your business.
Do not be outrageous -- walking into a public place with UOC does not make friends and influence people.
Give Heller a chance to trickle down -- organizations like GCF know when to challenge unjust laws.
Engage youth in the shooting sports.


Expect that those weenies in Sacramento will continue to pen unjust laws as fast as they can be taken down.

Our professor said something about this. I'm so sorry I can't really remember. Something about the politicians not being "anti-gun" and many of them are hunters and gun owners themselves, but they are against milita groups. He said many gun organizations are really wanting to separate the US along racial or class lines or something like that, something like the old south, and want the most powerful weapons for the only purpose of killing the most people. I think he said that there is no law to take away the hunting rifle and the home defense handgun, and that is propaganda saying there is. He was talking about the gun industry, but I can't remember if he said they were involved in this.

I know someone came back at him and said there are some cities like Chicago that banned all handguns, so I think they got him on that one, and he agreed that most americans would think that went too far, but I don't think anyone disputed the rest of what he said.

Hunt
01-06-2010, 2:09 PM
Vote

doesn't work anymore the system is beyond failure phase, look to the Free State Project and Free Keene Project as the evolving new paradigm in restoring individual Liberty. All systems go through stages of life look to the new evolutionary phase to see what is on the horizon.

kf6tac
01-06-2010, 2:11 PM
Our professor said something about this. I'm so sorry I can't really remember. Something about the politicians not being "anti-gun" and many of them are hunters and gun owners themselves, but they are against milita groups. He said many gun organizations are really wanting to separate the US along racial or class lines or something like that, something like the old south, and want the most powerful weapons for the only purpose of killing the most people. I think he said that there is no law to take away the hunting rifle and the home defense handgun, and that is propaganda saying there is. He was talking about the gun industry, but I can't remember if he said they were involved in this.

I know someone came back at him and said there are some cities like Chicago that banned all handguns, so I think they got him on that one, and he agreed that most americans would think that went too far, but I don't think anyone disputed the rest of what he said.

Sounds like your prof is living in his own little left-wing whackjob fantasy world.

Hunt
01-06-2010, 2:19 PM
No. That's not how our system works. Take a civics class.

You're not being "held hostage". You're just being outvoted...
and when the ignorant masses vote to redistribute *your* life savings it's called mass rape. Could we agree political systems are not stagnant and over time they evolve? I say look to the horizon, see what is evolving on the Liberty front. Magna Carta, U.S. Constitution, Suffrage Act, Civil Rights Act...
there is a pattern to political evolution we just need to make sure that it is pointed towards Individual Liberty.

Barney Gumble
01-06-2010, 2:51 PM
and when the ignorant masses vote to redistribute *your* life savings it's called mass rape. Could we agree political systems are not stagnant and over time they evolve? I say look to the horizon, see what is evolving on the Liberty front. Magna Carta, U.S. Constitution, Suffrage Act, Civil Rights Act...
there is a pattern to political evolution we just need to make sure that it is pointed towards Individual Liberty.

I'm all for more liberty. But in answer to the OP's question, our legal system has processes for addressing laws that are unconstitutional, and they don't include criminalizing the legislators for supporting those laws. That was the original question.

Look at how much the CGF has accomplished. They are actually moving the needle. That's how you get it done.

kf6tac
01-06-2010, 2:53 PM
I'm all for more liberty. But in answer to the OP's question, our legal system has processes for addressing laws that are unconstitutional, and they don't include criminalizing the legislators for supporting those laws. That was the original question.

Look at how much the CGF has accomplished. They are actually moving the needle. That's how you get it done.

I don't think the OP is asking about legislators who support unconstitutional laws before they are declared unconstitutional. He's asking about legislators who, after the U.S. Supreme Court says "You can't do this in the United States," do it anyway. Analogous example would be state legislators who refused to de-segregate schools after the Brown v. Board ruling came down.

I think the answer is the same in any event, but sometimes it seems like different people are talking about two different scenarios in this thread.

Hunt
01-06-2010, 2:58 PM
Look at how much the CGF has accomplished. They are actually moving the needle. That's how you get it done.

I agree, but think we can accomplish even more than CalGuns, with others tools from the toolbox and we can somehow make these criminals (politicians) responsible.

downfall
01-06-2010, 5:16 PM
Heh. How can you hold a group of people who can change the law criminally liable exactly?

-Gene

Gene, does this mean the legislators are above the law? if you make the laws then you cannot be criminally liable for breaking the law?

kf6tac
01-06-2010, 5:20 PM
Gene, does this mean the legislators are above the law? if you make the laws then you cannot be criminally liable for breaking the law?

No, it just means that passing unconstitutional laws is not a crime under any law currently on the books. As far as I know, there is no federal crime for passing unconstitutional laws. And in all cases, there is no state crime for doing so, because what state legislature in its right mind would pass a law criminalizing something they will probably all do at some point in their careers?

downfall
01-06-2010, 5:21 PM
I don't think the OP is asking about legislators who support unconstitutional laws before they are declared unconstitutional. He's asking about legislators who, after the U.S. Supreme Court says "You can't do this in the United States," do it anyway. Analogous example would be state legislators who refused to de-segregate schools after the Brown v. Board ruling came down.

I think the answer is the same in any event, but sometimes it seems like different people are talking about two different scenarios in this thread.

That is exactly what I meant..if we get the 2nd amendment incorporated, the fight in California really begins. My question is why do we have to fight? it's incorporated, it is the law of the land and the Ca. State Soviet should be held accountable for supporting unconstitutional laws.

GuyW
01-06-2010, 5:22 PM
Hello everyone. I took a poly sci class last semester, American Politics, and the teacher was lecturing on people claiming lots of laws are "unconstitutional". He said these people are living in the past, and that since the constitution represents we the people, it is ours to interpret.

I bet he'd be singing a different tune if a little German guy with a mustache came to power and interpreted it to permit concentration kamps for socially-undesireable people....

.

kf6tac
01-06-2010, 5:29 PM
That is exactly what I meant..if we get the 2nd amendment incorporated, the fight in California really begins. My question is why do we have to fight? it's incorporated, it is the law of the land and the Ca. State Soviet should be held accountable for supporting unconstitutional laws.

We have to fight because unless the legislature does EXACTLY what the Supreme Court says it cannot do (e.g. the CA legislature bans all handguns after the Supreme Court says in McDonald that you can't ban all handguns), then it will never be clear enough for purposes of a criminal case that the legislature was intentionally violating the Constitution. And state legislators have absolute immunity from civil suit for things they do in their legislative capacity.

Cokebottle
01-06-2010, 5:47 PM
That is exactly what I meant..if we get the 2nd amendment incorporated, the fight in California really begins. My question is why do we have to fight? it's incorporated, it is the law of the land and the Ca. State Soviet should be held accountable for supporting unconstitutional laws.
That's why we have 3 branches.
The job of the judiciary is to determine if a law is "legal" (Constitutional).
I could author and run a campaign that would create a law that says that all people with blue eyes and shaved heads have to move to Arizona.
The voters might even pass it. It would be struck down as unconstitutional by the courts, but not until AFTER it became law.

Courts rarely issue pre-emptive rulings. When they do, it is normally viewed as "landmark" (a screwup), or "legislating from the bench".

We will get incorporation from the SCOTUS. At that point, each and every one of the laws of the PRK will need to be contested, just as they always have been. The difference with incorporation is that there will be specific case law basically forcing the ruling to go in opposition to the bad law.
I bet he'd be singing a different tune if a little German guy with a mustache came to power and interpreted it to permit concentration kamps for socially-undesireable people....

How long has it been since you've been in a class fronted by one of these clowns?
I'm sure he would have no problem with the little German guy if "socially undesirable" happened to include conservative straight gun owners.

downfall
01-07-2010, 6:42 AM
Informative answers, this is enlightening for a layman with a basic understanding of the judicial system and it's workings in reality, versus how most people think it works. Thanks to all.

dixieD
01-07-2010, 6:47 AM
Hello everyone. I took a poly sci class last semester, American Politics, and the teacher was lecturing on people claiming lots of laws are "unconstitutional". He said these people are living in the past, and that since the constitution represents we the people, it is ours to interpret. I can't remember all the examples he sited - I wish I took better notes, but he used things like how slavery was permitted, and only white males could vote and states could leave the union and all that was changed by Americans who's views had changed. Any thoughts?

All of those things were changed through the amendment process which is a part of the constitution. This process is relatively slow and difficult reflecting the gravity of changing something as important as the constitution and bill of rights. The problem nowadays is that people like your professor think that it is is therefore ok to ignore the constitution, legislate otherwise unconstitutional laws, and rely only on legal precedent. For example requiring Americans to purchase health insurance in order to be in "compliance" with being a citizen is unconstitutional. If this is what Americans really want then it should go into the bill of rights along the lines of something like "In order to have a more healthy and equitable populace, the people are hereby ordered to purchase health insurance," which of course would never pass.

blacksheep
01-07-2010, 2:55 PM
Heh. How can you hold a group of people who can change the law criminally liable exactly?

-Gene

You can't, but you can make them unemployed. It's called getting involved.

Geodetic
01-07-2010, 3:00 PM
No. And that's the reason why you never give up your guns.

GuyW
01-07-2010, 3:18 PM
How long has it been since you've been in a class fronted by one of these clowns?

A long time. Is that relevant?


I'm sure he would have no problem with the little German guy if "socially undesirable" happened to include conservative straight gun owners.

Well, I was implying that he might find himself on the wrong side of a developing community consensus about the meanings and limitations of the Constitution....

.

N6ATF
01-10-2010, 12:12 AM
Heh. How can you hold a group of people who can change the law criminally liable exactly?

-Gene

State Constitutional amendment initiative?