Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: Dave W

Since when is the Rule of Law suddenly “crap”?

It this is your usual attitude, and the attitude of so many others, so surprise the nation is in trouble.

28 posted on 12/30/2012 10:52:31 PM PST by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: SatinDoll
First, the story itself is not true. No one from Hawaii has said anything about the birth certificate. Second, the issue is dead. Without media support, the story went no where and will stay dead and buried.

Everyone needs to recognize that it's time to move on. I sympathize and agree with the birthers, but we also need to be realistic that this story has long long since run its course and it is a waste of time to pursue it.

57 posted on 12/31/2012 6:54:31 AM PST by Dave W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: SatinDoll
Since when is the Rule of Law suddenly “crap”?

It's been crap for a good long while now. I'll use a specific example from my home-state and (1) a specific state statute, and (2) a specific rule, both of which illustrate the underlying problems.

New Mexico State Constitution
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)


NMSA 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.
A.   Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
(1)   a peace officer;
(2)   university security personnel;
(3)   a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
(4)   a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
(5)   a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property.
B.   A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
C.   As used in this section:
(1)   "university" means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
(2)   "university premises" means:
(a)   the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
(b)   any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
D.   Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
As you can see, the definitions in NMSA 30-7-2.4 make even on-campus housing a restricted place, thereby "abridg[ing] the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense."

Some people argue that this is acceptable because we restrict guns in courtrooms, this is addressed in (2) but like NMSA 30-7-2.4 is illegitimate under the State Constitution as the prosecution of any 'violation' must needs be under the law and the State Constitution is clear that no law should be used for that effect... it literally cuts out the rug from the lawfare tactic (warfare via courts, using other laws to get something done indirectly) and makes using catch-all 'crimes' like disturbing the peace (ex: because he was open carrying) more difficult to abuse.

Another argument raised is 'private property', i.e.: that the university is private property and the university has the ability to set whatever rules it wishes. This is a non-issue to this example: the Constitution forbids a law from abridging the right and the statute ['law'] I have produced abridges the right... whether the property is private, or public, is immaterial. (But for an interesting counter to the argument raised, Art II, Sec 4 specifically cites the right of defending oneself as inalienable, and therefore not "waivable".)

When I go by the courthouses in my old hometown I would see posted there prohibitions on weapons... even the municipal and county courthouses, which directly conflict with "no municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms." You might suppose this could be covered by a state statute, but no such statute exists, and if one did it would be invalid by the same operation that the above invalidates the stature concerning guns on university campuses. Where then do the courts get their 'power' to post such things? The answer, I found, was in "Court Rules" and the following is an example taken from "Rules of the District Court of the Third Judicial District" in Section I ("General Matters — General Powers & Duties of the Court").

LR3-113. Court security.
A.   Weapons. All deadly weapons, including knives and objects which could be used to inflict bodily harm, except those carried by court personnel and authorized court security officers, are prohibited in the judicial complex and any other related judicial office. Weapons which are intended for use as trial or hearing exhibits are not subject to this rule. Law enforcement officers who are witnesses shall not carry weapons in the courtroom and shall comply with all applicable sections of the security manual.
B.   Prisoner procedures.
(1)   The law enforcement agency having custody of any prisoner appearing for a court proceeding shall be responsible for keeping the prisoner secure while the prisoner is at the judicial complex. That agency shall be responsible for searching the prisoner and keeping the prisoner handcuffed or manacled. Prisoners are to be taken to the holding facility in the judicial complex immediately upon arrival, and shall be kept separate from court personnel and members of the public.
(2)   No attorney shall have the authority to authorize a prisoner to be released from handcuffs or manacles. Law enforcement officers having custody of a prisoner may remove handcuffs or manacles so a prisoner may sign documents or perform other functions necessary for the court proceeding, and as otherwise ordered by the court.
(3)   Prisoners shall not be allowed to mingle with family members or other persons, except at the discretion of the court or law enforcement agency having custody of the prisoner.
C.   Other precautions.
(1)   Metal detectors and physical searches may be used in any case upon court order.
(2)   Any law enforcement officer, court employee or attorney who believes that an altercation or violent situation may occur at a court proceeding should promptly notify the court. The court may implement appropriate security measures on such occasions.
(3)   During court proceedings where a party is in custody, security personnel must remain in the courtroom near the prisoner during the entire proceeding.
Notice now that the jurors, who have not even been accused of a crime, are not only stripped of their weapons by section A, but that only the prisoner is guaranteed protection (B.1).

It is this mentality of making 'rules' and 'statutes' both above [they are enforced, and you cannot easily challenge them on Constitutional grounds] and contrary the Constitution that has destroyed the Rule of Law. It is obviously prevalent in the Federal realm, but also on the State, county, and City realms as I have shown.
63 posted on 12/31/2012 8:22:44 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson