Posted on 01/10/2013 7:14:20 AM PST by SeekAndFind
So, you’re “seceding” from argument, discussion, debate? Not a good omen.
__________________________
I am disregarding the insignificant.
Really? Then you assert that mere tradition, even contrary to the law, is superior to the law and is itself a more firm base wherewhich to base official [government/police] action upon?
I believe Mr. Jefferson, and the Founders, would agree that such is the manner by which tyranny is established, else why should they say the following?
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
On Friday I had to renew my concealed weapons permit. Some would say that this permit is an affront to the Second Amendment and I would generally agree with them.
But it is the prerequisite if one wishes to conduct himself within the law in my state. So I keep one.
And I can, and will show you the exact sections in my State constitution which prohibit the activity I described -- NM Constitution, Art II, Sec 6:
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.Now, is a statute or rule or protocol which is contrary to the Constitution establishing the agency which has the statute/protocol/rule lawful?
If it is lawful, then of what use is a Constitution? The agency which is sent is not constrained by the so called authorizing authority -- and if that is the case, then the agency indeed has more power than that agency. Applying such an idea to the military the private is the most powerful individual: for he is not constrained by the Constitution, nor by superiors, nor by orders.
If, however, it is not then why should you defend such a policy?
I would submit that you have been to public school, where you were taught (brainwashed) to an uncritical view of authority.
The county in which I reside only processes these permits from the county courthouse location, which means disarming for entry. Since the area is rife with disreputable types I’m not crazy about being disarmed, but recognize that it is the established rule of law.
Really, I see from your about page you're from WA.. which says in its Constitution:
ARTICLE I, SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.Further:
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 3 PERSONAL RIGHTS.the above means that some law would be required to divest you of your property [arms], which in conjunction with "shall not be impaired" applying to the bearing of arms means that any such stature/rule/protocol would be unlawful.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
It was then a matter of pleasant serendipity to discover that they had moved the permit processing offices across the street to a location that didn’t require me to go without arms. I was able to retain my firearm for my comfort and security and also allowed to conduct my business.
Conforming to established law isn’t submission to tyranny - unless your definition of tyranny is so low that any perceived insult is despotic. What an unhappy and uncomfortable lifestyle that must be.
It is indeed tyranny when the "established law" is itself unlawful -- what about the idea that a legislative act, being contrary to the constitution establishing that legislature is no law at all?
Or, as Marbury v. Madison put it:
The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
This principle must needs be apply to the Executive and Judicial branches as well, else TN's Constitution is meaningless when it says:
Article 1, Section 3.Or are you willing to assert that a judge compelling a child to abide by his parent's divorce agreement concerning "religious upbringing" does not violate the prohibitions of "no man may be compelled" & "no human authority can control" regarding religion? This is not actually a hypothetical, it happened.
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.
In short, is a judge a sovereign king in his own courtroom, unbounded by any law?
No I was not unlawfully deprived.
By law, Judges control their courtrooms. Bailiffs work for the judges.
That doesn’t make me a statist. It makes me recognize reality.
Of course a judge is not unbounded by law. The process by which to correct a judge’s error is appeal.
If appeal does not lead to justice, either by continued court error, or by error in law, the judges may be corrected by changed law. That can be changed common law, changed legislative law, or changed constitutional law.
One can also file a writ of error, asking for appeal long after the fact. That is how Fred Korematsu eventually got justice after being ordered to report to a concentration camp. That was an injustice much more severe than any complaint of the southern states in 1860.
Of course errors in any human process can happen. There are legal and political processes by which errors can be corrected. Individuals are bound to use those processes rather than resort to violence. States are bound to use those processes rather than resort to violence.
Yes, you were.
By law, Judges control their courtrooms. Bailiffs work for the judges.
By the very law that establishes the courtrooms there are restrictions placed thereon: violations of these restrictions are nothing less than tyranny.
That doesn’t make me a statist. It makes me recognize reality.
Actually it does: you recognize the state as the highest and final authority, upon which no restrictions are valid. This is the definition of a statist.
QED.
You just asserted, in post 143 that judges control their courtrooms, with the implication that control is absolute.
If appeal does not lead to justice, either by continued court error, or by error in law, the judges may be corrected by changed law. That can be changed common law, changed legislative law, or changed constitutional law.
Ahm, so why does it not work the other way: if the deprivation of arms in the court is really needful, why not amend the Constitution to say: "excepting courtrooms, no law shall abridge" [etc]?
Apparently it is precisely a case of either (a) "do what what the Constitution [or other laws] means, not what it says [oh, and the court determines what it means!]", or (b) "the laws don't apply to me."
Which is it?
I support the confinement of dangerous loonies in a medical facility where they can do no harm.
To the extent that dangerous loonies start being dangerous and have not been confined for their good and for the protection of others, I submit that private citizens have the right to use force, up to and including deadly force if they reasonably deem it necessary to protect themselves or others.
Such reasonable force is subject to judicial review after the fact.
If I was interested in changing the general rule that judges control their court room, I would start by hiring a lawyer to file a writ of error. To do that in general you would have to openly attempt to enter the court room area and be denied for open carry at the perimeter. With that ‘traffic ticket’ documentation, you would have grounds.
Consider this. Courts are established to be independent of the municipality or county where they are located. The government prosecutor is one party before the court, just as is the defendant. Accordingly, the bar to municipalities interfering with the right to keep and bear would not extend to interfering with the control of the judge over his court room. Generally, police officers who testify in court must do it disarmed, and are called to the witness stand, sometimes compelled by court order.
I submit that most people accept that the law as it is, now permits judges to control their court room, since they are independent of the municipality where the court is located.
So the constitutional restriction on the municipality does not, under current understanding of the law, apply to the court room.
I have my own issues with government inflicted religion.
A divorce agreement is an interesting thing. It is a legally compelled agreement between two disagreeing parties that regulates both the agreeing parties, and may cover their interaction with other parties (under age).
The coercive religious aspects you describe are permitted while the child is under age, because a child is quite simply not a man. The divorce agreement means that at some time both parties agreed to the wording, which would contrast with a divorce judgement to which noone has to agree.
After people agree, they sometimes change their mind. Normally a judge will attempt to enforce the agreement, rather than reopen previously settled issues. The exception would be where necessary for the good of the child, by some reasonable standard.
I have sadexperience in unhappy divorces. For the good of the children I refuse to fight with my ex-wives for dubious notions of abstract justice. Rather, I resolve to smooth matters as much as possible by removing myself from conflicts, or providing support to make the children whole despite the errors of my ex-wife. Such results as I have obtained are far more the result of personal characteristics than the rule of law.
Nice ‘about’ page.
I memorized that verse (new american standard version) when I was a plebe. It helped me a bit back then.
One just has to recall in humility that one is most likely to get G-d’s aid if one is on G-d’s side.
Rather, it accepts that the state is limited by the people. The people establish constitutions based on their best judgement. The judgements are expressed in carefully written and precise language, and that language is nuanced, and highly meaningful.
In that meaningful expression of the limitations of the state, expressed and given power by the will of the people, the municipality (executive) is prevented from restricting your RTKBA, but the judge in a court room, and the baliffs who report to him or to fellow judges, are not restricted, by the carefully written words of the constitution, as interpreted by legislative law and the common law of past cases and appeals.
Of course if you disagree, you, are free to attempt to change the wording of the constitution, or the meaning of the words by common law (a case and successful appeal) by legislation (changing the legal definition of municipality to include the courtrooms located in the municipality) or by amendment to correct what you see as error. To do that last two you would have to invoke the sovereign people and their representatives.
That is the opposite of a statist. I assert that the state can do wrong, can do evil, and that is is the responsibility of the sovereign people to correct error as they perceive it.
I salute you for perceiving error, and encourage you to pursue your duty to seek its correction.
I would have called for a volunteer to be selected at random from the families of the men he had shot for refusing to continue in treason.
Lee destroyed an army. His own.
The Declaration of Independence was a propaganda document, perhaps one of the most effective such documents ever written.
And that is a good thing.
It is important to note that one of the complaints against George III was that he refused his assent to laws passed by the local governments. Another is that he was inflicting laws passed by England on localities outside their jurisdiction.
The founders certainly recognized that law was needed, while law was restricted in scope and jurisdiction.
Absolutely.
It also helps if one doesn’t attempt to wear their piety like a sheep’s cloak while conducting ungodly business.
You dismiss ‘man’ ignoring the possibility of the generalized-use (i.e. “no man may be judge in his own cause” — Blaise Pascal) and also ignore the words “that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience” — might a child have conscience?
I do not dismiss “man” in the generalized sense, but think it may be very likely that the law does in some jurisdictions. To see if the jurisdiction of interest is one of those, you have to read the law, look up the cases that involve the legislation at issue, and then read the case files.
Being a lawyer is a bunch of reading and a few ‘look up’ tricks. I understand WestLaw has a really good search engine, but I have never used it. Rather I use the paper document law research skills taught to me by my grandfather. I can only say that I have an appreciation for the reading skills necessary to be a lawyer, and when I need to, I hire one.
I am told that anyone who acts as their own lawyer has a fool for a client.
If such reasonable restrictions have long been the practice, then it would seem rather daunting to now claim they are all suddenly unconstitutional, right?
FWIW, most of the famous gunfights of the Old West, specifically including the OK Corral, were precipitated by law officers attempting to enforce “gun control” laws within city limits.
Also, recently read an essay on the history of Bowie knives. They were outlawed, prior to Civil War, in a bunch of southern states. I suspect concealed carry of pistols was also often outlawed. Of course, the 2nd arguably didn’t apply to the states at that time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.