View Single Post
Old 02-12-2018, 5:09 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,740
iTrader: 1 / 100%

Originally Posted by Phalanx20mm View Post
When Laws are not Law because they are unconstitutional citizens should exercise their Constitutional and Inalienable rights.....
Looks like you flunked Civics class in high school and badly need a lesson in reality.

Quite simply, you don't get to decide what the Constitution means or how it applies. The Founding Fathers assigned in the Constitution that authority to the federal courts (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,....
The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute. Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and well understood what the exercise of judicial power meant and entailed.

What our Constitution states and how it applies has been a matter for dispute almost as soon as the ink was dry. Hylton v. United States in 1796 appears to be the first major litigation involving a question of the interpretation and application of the Constitution. Then came Marbury v. Madison decided in 1803; and McCulloch v. Maryland was decided 10 years later, in 1813. And as the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), 1 Cranch at 177):
...It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.....
The courts give deference to legislative acts and presume statutes valid and enforceable, until unconstitutionality is determined. As the Supreme Court said in Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827), at 437:
...It has been truly said, that the presumption is in favour of every legislative act, and that the whole burden of proof lies on him who denies its constitutionality....
And much more recently in U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000):
...Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577_578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether 13981 falls within Congress' power under Article I, 8, of the Constitution....
So in the real world a statute is valid and enforceable unless and until it is found invalid by a court having appropriate jurisdiction. You might think the law is unconstitutional, and therefore invalid, but no one cares. Your belief in the unconstitutionality or invalidity of a law keeps no one out of jail, nor does it have any effect on the lives and property of real people in the real world.

So the opinions of courts regarding matters of law, including the meaning and application of the Constitution, affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on such matters and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Originally Posted by Phalanx20mm View Post
....If the politicians, attorneys and judges who violate the Constitution were removed from office and prosecuted we law abiding citizens wouldn't fell a need to acquiesce to tyrants.
How is it that you're not smart enough to recognize that you're implying by that statement that you know the true meaning of the Constitution, that you know what the Constitution really means, and that others don't? Aren't there some of our fellow citizens who believe that those politicians, attorneys, and judges are not violating the Constitution? So I guess you insist that even though there is disagreement, you're correct?

It seems sometimes that some folks aren't really opposed to tyranny. They're just opposed to other people's flavor of tyranny, and are perfectly okay with their own.
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote