@H2O MAN,
Quote:Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5239212)
We the people, are YOU one of them?
MILKY WAY GALAXY CALLING H2O...come in please...PLEASE!
Where in the Constitution does it give YOU the right to determine which laws are constitutional...and which are not?
@Frank Apisa,
Fact is...I don't even think the Constitution gives anyone or any thing the right to determine what is or is not constitutional. The Supreme Court has just assumed that right...and as far as I know, has not delegated it to you.
@H2O MAN,
Quote:Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5239212)
It's in the section you and Obama are ignoring.
Cute...but not worth much. It is okay...I know it is not in there, but I am not expecting you to acknowledge that.
@H2O MAN,
Quote:Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5239218)
There you go again
Yup...there I go again. Another comment you have to duck.
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:Fact is...I don't even think the Constitution gives anyone or any thing the right to determine what is or is not constitutional. The Supreme Court has just assumed that right...and as far as I know, has not delegated it to you.
Speaking for myself alone the SC as far as I am concern can decide borderline issues and even if I strongly disagree with their rulings such as allowing a ban on so call assault rifles and I will grant them my support.
However, if the government with or without the support of the SC tear up the US constitution such as an almost complete ban of firearms that the UK have now, then the government is no longer a legal government in my eyes and I will act accordingly.
@BillRM,
Quote:... then the government is no longer a legal government in my eyes and I will act accordingly.
Not entirely sure what that means...but if a warrant is ever required to be served on you, I would expect that anyone who has read it would recommend extraordinary safety procedures be used.
I'm not trying to be a wise-ass here, Bill. I am stating what I see to be the obvious.
Do you not understand the reasons officials who know your position would feel that way?
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Quote:Fact is...I don't even think the Constitution gives anyone or any thing the right to determine what is or is not constitutional. The Supreme Court has just assumed that right...and as far as I know, has not delegated it to you.
Speaking for myself alone the SC as far as I am concern can decide borderline issues and even if I strongly disagree with their rulings such as allowing a ban on so call assault rifles and I will grant them my support.
However, if the government with or without the support of the SC tear up the US constitution such as an almost complete ban of firearms that the UK have now, then the government is no longer a legal government in my eyes and I will act accordingly.
Your acceptance of the legitimacy of the government isn't required. If you ever attempted to act in some way that denied them their legitimacy, you would quickly realize this fact - just as all other deniers, including half the nation, found out.
Cycloptichorn
More than half of the country is allergic to Cyclobullshit
Article III, Section Two, second paragraph reads, in its entirety:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The appellate authority of the Court is beyond question. In 1688, Parliament declared itself the supreme atuhority, which meant it was superior even to statute--there is no written constitution in England. In the colonies, however, the colonial legislatures held that their enactments were superior to the authority of the courts, and some of their constitutions enshrined this authority, especially during and after the revolution when states wrote their own constitutions. Even before 1803, judicial review of alleged conflicts with state statutes had been taken place in both state and Federal courts.
Therefore, in 1803, when the Court reviewed the case of Marbury versus Madison, there was already a tradition of judicial review of cases in which a constitutional violation was alleged. Marbury versus Madison was the first time the Court visited the issue. In the constitutional convention more than a dozen delegates asserted the right of judicial review of the constitutionality of statute. The same assertion was made in several of the state constitutional conventions. Hamilton stated in the Federalist papers that Federal courts had not just the right, but the duty to review the constitutionality of statutes and actions of government officials.
In Marbury, the Court determined that there was a remedy for Mr. Marbury, which was a mandamus writ to be served on Mr. Madison (then the Secretary of State). However, Marbury's argument had been that Congress had given the Court the right to issue such a writ in the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Court ruled that it did not have original jurisdiction to issue such a writ based on the Judiciary Act, and that Congress had no constitutional authority to alter the jurisdiction of the Court, because that had already been established by the constitution. So, in denying their authority to issue the writ necessary as a remedy for Mr. Marbury, the Court established its authority to rule on the constitutionality of acts of Congress, or any inferior legislature. The Court held in its ruling (written by Chief Justice Marshall) that:
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.
I know of no challenge to this authority of the Court ever having been made.
(Credit to Joe from Chicago for pointing out to me, several years ago, that the Court did not issue the mandamus writ, and therefore leading me to study the case more closely.)
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:Your acceptance of the legitimacy of the government isn't required. If you ever attempted to act in some way that denied them their legitimacy, you would quickly realize this fact - just as all other deniers, including half the nation, found out.
We would sadly see the results of the government acting in an illegal manner and trying to maintain power by force and terror instead by the consent of the people.
The country held together in the 1860s only due to the support of the majority of it citizens that in the north was willing to sign up for volunteer service to the tune of many hundreds of thousands who was supporting the union and the constitution.
No government in the US had so far try the fear and terror means of governing and frankly I do not think it had a chance in hell of doing so given a population that is heavily armed.
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Quote:Your acceptance of the legitimacy of the government isn't required. If you ever attempted to act in some way that denied them their legitimacy, you would quickly realize this fact - just as all other deniers, including half the nation, found out.
We would sadly see the results of the government acting in an illegal manner and trying to maintain power by force and terror instead by the consent of the people.
The government DEFINES what 'illegal' is. If the SC disagrees with you regarding the second amendment, it's you that's wrong, not them - by definition. It's just how our system works.
Cycloptichorn
@BillRM,
Quote:the support of the majority of it citizens that in the north was willing to sign up for volunteer service to the tune of many hundreds of thousands who was supporting the union and the constitution.
I presume you don't think that many of them were in for the adventure, the wages, the travel, the chance of looting some mansions, meeting some Southern Belles, making a name for themselves and laying waste to the infrastructure? Or had been pressed?
You sound like Scott Pelley.
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:The government DEFINES what 'illegal' is. If the SC disagrees with you regarding the second amendment, it's you that's wrong, not them - by definition. It's just how our system works.
Cycloptichorn
You would had fit in well with the German government of the 1930s to 1940s or North Korea now but that is not how most citizens view our government.
In the Declaration of Independent spell it out that the people in some situations not only have a right but even a duty to overthrown a bad government.
Quote: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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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
@BillRM,
What about the right of the people to prevent those that are obviously delusional from having weapons ?
@parados,
Quote:about the right of the people to prevent those that are obviously delusional from having weapons ?
You mean people the government is not happy with and who dare to think that the power of the government come from the consent of the people not it SWAT teams?
@BillRM,
Lemme know how well that works out for you.
Cheers
Cycloptichorn
@BillRM,
I mean people that are clearly delusional and deny reality.
@parados,
So you two are of the opinion that the people of the US should and in fact need to live in fear of their government and their swat teams?
Sorry the fact is that armed citizens outnumbers all the police forces of this nation by a hundred to one so the ability of the government to imposed it will by force and terror have limits.
Very very sharp limits as a matter of fact.
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
So you two are of the opinion that the people of the US should live in fear of their government and their swat teams?
Who other than criminals and mentally delusional people fear the US government and swat teams. I am more likely to be struck by lightning and I don't live in constant fear of that.
Quote:
Sorry the fact is that armed citizens outnumbers all the police forces of this nation by a hundred to one so the ability of the government to imposed it will by force and terror have limits.
Thank god most of those armed citizens aren't as delusional as you are.
Quote:
Very very sharp limits as a matter of fact.
We have the ballot box Bill. It's pretty effective for keeping the extremes out of office.
