Posted on 04/01/2013 8:53:02 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. Though Chief Justice John Marshalls decision in the landmark case Marbury vs Madison has led to 2 centuries of power-abusing mischief on the part of our federal government, he did have the premise correcta law which is unconstitutional is not a law at all. What he did not add, but might have I suspect, is that such a law need not be followed and should not be enforced, especially not by those who have sworn an oath to uphold and defend that Constitution.
For months the American people have been threatened with legislation promoting gun confiscation, assault weapons bans and schemes which would lead quite inevitably to the national registration of firearms and their owners. New York and Colorado have already enacted such legislation, all in typical leftist, knee-jerk response to the Newtown killings.
Each new piece of gun control legislation proposed by the left, whether at the state or national level, has one thing in commonan utter disregard for...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Or does the feral government enforce laws cafeteria-style?
I trust my county sheriff a hell of lot more than I trust obama.
Shove it, Obamadork.
Shove it deep.
Shove it often.
We really don’t give a smelly Obama what the h*** you say or think.
You are slime.
“Demand” all you want, Odumbass... Stomp your feet too..
what are you going to do about it?
The question becomes who decides if a law is repugnant to the Constitution? Marshall answered that as well - the courts, not the president or the sheriff. So if Obama's gun control legislation is ruled unconstitional by the courts then the law enforcement agencies cannot enforce them, no matter what Obama says. But before then...?
Why does the federal government insist that certain federal laws be enforced, but then allows sanctuary cities where federal immigration law is not enforced?
BTT, E! Perfect point made. Essentially, it is “enforce what I want and don’t enforce what I don’t”.
The county sheriffs blow a collective Bronx cheer to the adolescent boy POTUS.
Those who seek to enforce unconstitutional laws are themselves outlaws and should be dealt with as such. This, I think, is the very definition of tyranny and the very definition of resistance to such tyranny.
The Sherrif is an institution going back to Saxon Britain that provided local autonomy and a check on a rapacious Monarch.
Excellent reply at your link:
.... I suppose it is academically interesting to still speak of what is or is not constitutional in 2013. But, considering that 90% of what the Feds do is unconstitutional, why split hairs?
After the Civil War, the Constitution essentially ceased to exist, but sentimentalists wish to search for a more recent date for its passing.
OK, how about this trifecta from the 1960s, then
1964 Civil Rights ActInstalled permanent victim remedy as a federal functionfor all time
1965 MedicareFed intrusion into health care brought us to where we are today.
1965 Immigration reformPurposely set up to turn US into a third world country
Each of these led to massive, uncontrollable bureaucracies, and ever-increasing Federal power.
The only hope is that this miserable system runs out of money.
I saw a brand new shiny Homeland Security mini 18 wheeler in our suburban town the other day
Is one subservient to the other, does one agency have more jurisdiction?
Obamanation Counterculture File.
ClearCase_guy~:” Those who seek to enforce unconstitutional laws are themselves outlaws and should be dealt with as such.
This, I think, is the very definition of tyranny and the very definition of resistance to such tyranny.”
Exactly so !
Selective enforcement of some Constitutional laws
while ignoring other Constitutional laws
is illegal and unConstitutional .
Sheriffs meet regularly with their constituants daily
and are responsive to the rights of its citizens.
Federal bureaucrats isolate themselves from the constituants,
remain geographicaly isolated in Washington and purposely ignore citizens’ rights (until re-election time)
and performan intellectual “daisey-chain” of information by telling each other what they want to hear.
So when is Obama going to start removing officially elected county sheriffs....???
the same way Obama decided to not enforce a law about homsexuals in exchange for campaign/library contributions?
we need to out any law enforcement officers who are pro-obama and anti-second. They should be forced to wear this albatross as a career ending decision.
And President Andrew Jackson answered Justice Marshall regarding Worcester v. Georgia "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," (that is, the Court's opinion because it had no power to enforce its edict) (which was popularized as "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
Neither Obama nor the Supremes have a mechanism for removing a sheriff for refusing to expend resource to enforce a federal law he disagrees with.
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.