Posted on 03/29/2013 1:25:10 PM PDT by EXCH54FE
Trial by his peers? In his /her county? Yeah, right.
But leave the illegals (a.k.a. undocumented democrats) alone. The country is in the hands of fools.
:-)
“...In fact, they reflect the president’s commitment to (destroy) our Second Amendment rights.” (my parenthesis)
How can these people make such ridiculous statements without laughing out loud?
Exciting Times,,,
Can't have it both ways
An excellent and salient point. Unfortunately, since law means nothing to the power-hungry mobsters currently running the federal leviathan, they WILL have it both ways.
They’ll enforce them on me; I wouldn’t trust any LEO with my guns, never.
No. It is more like the senseless rantings of a dictator who is powerless outside his own borders.
General proposition, Mr. Carney!? The Executive branch of the government is responsible for enforcement of ALL laws. Although, your regime likes to pick and choose which laws to enforce...
You know, Jay, like voting rights, or maybe DOMA, or maybe gun smuggling and killing without due process? I could go on...
This regime reminds me of King George.
5.56mm
BTTT
I have stated many times, and I will no doubt state it many more, that one should never use the term "law" to describe an illegitimate statute. Laws are, by definition, legitimate; hence, unconstitutional statutes are not laws. A statute which is contrary to the Constitution does not become illegitimate merely as a consequence of a court's declaring it to be thus. Nothing in the Constitution says that Congressional legislation shall have unlimited authority between the time it is passed and the time a court strikes it down.
It's ironic that Marbury v. Madison has been misread both as giving Courts carte blanche to make things Constitutional or not, and as giving Congress and the Executive carte blanche to do whatever they want until such time as the Court orders them to stop. The Marbury v. Madison claim that the Court's job is to say what the law means is true, but that doesn't mean that whatever the Court says should be deemed law. If the Court decides a case in conformance with all applicable laws (including the Constitution), then what the Court says and what the laws mean will be one and the same thing. If the Court decides a case in a manner that isn't in conformance with applicable laws, however, what it says and what the law means would differ.
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.