Control to the point of illegal and illegitimate pronouncements?
I showed you where the NM Constitution forbids any law from abridging the right of the Citizen to bear arms; how then could they legitimately prosecute under the law?
But, consider the case of Stephanie Miller, where the judge threatened to hold her in contempt for supporting/assisting-with her 12 year-old son's decision to be baptized. In this thread, I lay out why, despite there being language about religious-upbringing in the divorce settlement it is null and void according to the State's own constitution:
Art 1, Section 3.
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.To assert that this agreement [from the divorce] has any binding force is to reject the above portion of the State's Constitution.
It violates the underlined portion in that it prevents the boy from worshiping according to his own conscience; i.e. that he is prevented from, say, being a Catholic [or trained thereby] if the parents are against it.
It violates the italicized portion in that he is being compelled to support [by his presence] the religious institutions in the agreement.
It violates the bolded part in that the enforcement thereof is reliant upon human authority to control and interfere with those rights of conscience.She reaped what she sowed.
Perhaps; but the disturbing thing in this case is the court's readiness and willingness to violate the State Constitution so flagrantly.
Such behaviors by judges are intolerable in that they make the supreme laws (constitutions), literally, of no effect.
I find the excusing and/or expectation of such behavior to be both repugnant and indicating that we are in fact under a soft tyranny -- ruled by men, not laws.
A judges control over his court is not by law, but rather by judicial authority to maintain his judicial independence, with a long tradition of common law behind it. Like other judicial authority, it is subject to appeal to other judges. Normally you get one appeal always, but you can ask for more, but the higher courts get to choose their cases, another long tradition of common law.
You showed me that you think that no law can abridge a right you think you have.
You didn’t show me that a law abridges a right that you actually do have.
Note the subtle difference. Your delusions are not law. See how that works?