Posted on 11/19/2018 6:36:28 PM PST by TexasGurl24
“Good to know that the day a law is passed requiring all of us to get chipped and turn in our guns you’ll be a compliant sheep.”
Hardly. I would fight tooth and nail within the “rule of law” to change it. Now the day that someone comes to confiscate my weapons is the day that this nation is no longer a constitutional republic and the day when open rebellion and revolution would not only be acceptable but wholeheartedly advised.
Yes, Presidents throughout History HAVE acted at times in an unconstitutional manner. And though at the time the act may have been correct, it doesn’t make it right.
My point being that absent the “rule of law” anarchy will ultimately follow. You can’t very well bemoan the left for not following the law on immigration and then turn around and advocate disobeying the law on a gun restriction that you believe to be overly burdensome.
It’s called hypocrisy.
I hear what you're saying but have to disagree with you here. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and "...shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.
That’s a pretty sad use of Matthew 22:21. Think about what you just wrote, the second part answers your own objection.
“To God the things that are God’s.”
Gods law overrules all human laws and any human law that is contrary to
God’s is void ab initio.
That’s the reason the “I was only following orders” defense didn’t work at Nuremberg and is not a defense to following orders to commit war crimes today.
The very foundational document in this country recognizes this same principle.
“
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “
You can tout “rule of law” all that you like, but Lex iniusta non est lex.
“Not the average Joe who decides on his own or with others which laws are or are not constitutional.”
When in the course of human events... etc.
Don’t really appreciate your self righteous condescention directed at someone who simply has an opinion different from your own
We are not in Nazi Germany, we are not talking about war crimes and as far as I’m aware, the bible says nothing about man’s inherent God given right to bear arms.
I made it clear in an earlier post on this thread that when this nation ceases to be a constitutional republic then any and all actions would be deemed appropriate including vigorous rebellion and committed revolution.
But as of now we are still a viable constitutional republic adhering, at least for the most part, to the values and principles that have perpetuated this nation for nearing 250 years.
Without the “rule of law” we become at best an authoritarian democracy at worst a mobocracy. Your definition of an unjust law is likely different than mine and mine is likely different from my neighbor’s. If everyone simply decides to disobey a law as it suits them, chaos results.
There are a myriad of legal remedies for overturning bad or unjust law in our wonderfully designed constitutional republic. But just picking and choosing willy nilly which ones a citizen will obey and which not is the height of self important individual hegemony carried to a ridiculous extreme.
An entire population believing such tripe would be very short lived indeed.
If you’ve decided that “separation” is your only remedy, then by all means knock yourself out.
I still have some hope that this magnificent “Grand Experiment of a country can survive and even prosper and until I feel differently I WILL adhere to the “rule of law”.
You are retreating to ad hominem arguments now. There isn’t any “self righteous condescension” on my part.
If you want to believe in your version of “rule of law” so be it, no skin off my back.
However, history is quite clear that your version of the “rule of law” is different than the framers and the common law would support.
You seem to miss the governing principle here. There is a hierarchy of law. God’s revealed law in scripture > natural law > constitutional law > statutory law.
The law of nature and nature’s God supercede and are superior in obligation to all human law. That’s Blackstone’s point. That’s the basis for the Framer’s appeal to heaven.
That’s the governing principle today.
Ad hominem attacks? Simply stated a fact concerning your initial statement. The first line of your comment was self righteous in intent in that your scripture interpretation is superior to my “pretty sad use” of same and the condescention along with it is quite obvious. Hardly an attack let alone an ad hominem one.
I have not “missed” and do NOT disagree with your concept of “a hierarchy of law. God’s revealed law in scripture > natural law > constitutional law > statutory law”. That’s not the issue here. The rub is whether you or anyone has the the innate right to disregard a law simple because they don’t agree with it. I firmly believe not as the alternative is societal suicide.
Secondly, a constitutional republic is precisely established to address and incorporate that hierarchy of laws into it’s governance. Redress of laws that violate any “higher” position of ranking in that order are specifically enumerated actions that may be initiated all within the constructs of the “rule of law”.
This concept by design removes the requirement that a potentially misinformed, ignorant, stupid, just plain evil or even well intentioned individual cannot attempt to circumvent societal prerogative because of lack of alternatives.
In the United States there is not ever an excuse to violate the “rule of law” to achieve a given result simply because their are just too many “lawful” options to accomplish the same.
Personally, I believe that if in a persons mind a law is so egregious that they cannot possible live with it’s existence; Either they work within the “rule of law” to rescind/rectify it or they move someplace in the world where they are not under it’s purview. There is not a 3rd acceptable option.
Yes, Ad Hominem attacks. Not once did you provide actual support for your position. Just your own opinion and “interpretation” of what the “rule of law” means.
I provided examples from history, from our founding documents, from the common law, and from common sense.
Scripture is filled with countless examples of obedience to God rather than men.
For example: “The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! 30The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
It’s pretty pointless continuing this conversation, and I am not really out to change your mind. You can have your opinion regarding the “rule of law.” May your chains rest lightly on you. I choose to obey God rather than men, and I’ll follow my conscience, whether you like it or not.
“There is not a 3rd acceptable option”
After reading my comment, I will amend that statement to this...There is not a 3rd acceptable option AT THIS TIME. Should constitutional allegiance by elected officials decay to a point of intolerability, then armed rebellion would be an acceptable, even preferable 3rd option.
Now there you go again....why must you be so snarky? (whether you like it or not) I have no judgement either to “like” or not to “like” your behaviors. It’s your life, live it as you see fit.
My point is simply this, everyone should live by the “rule of law” man’s law in the society in which he resides. If one finds that impossible because of some perceived conflict with a “higher law”, they should either work to change the man’s law in question or remove oneself from it’s auspices.
I’m done, have a great day.
Bye.
You won’t find that anywhere in article 3 or anywhere else in the constitution.
And it is not true.
Not precisely those words but most certainly their meaning. Only an obtuse interpretation could possibly believe otherwise.
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial Powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
I guess Thomas Jefferson was obtuse
Thomas Jefferson’s comments on Marbury v. Madison and judicial review
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
There is plenty more of this by Jefferson but I wanted to be brief.
“Below is the parts of the Constitution delegating power to the Judicial Branch. I challenge you to find in the below description of delegated powers those that give the courts the power to decide what laws are “repugnant to the Constitution.”
All true....That being said, the precedent was set and has been almost universally accepted since 1803. I believe it was a ruling by Justice Marshal and I don’t see it changing.....ever.
Which is why we must have an article 5 convention of the states.
The constitution has been ignored pretty much from day 1
Good luck with that. Many (perhaps a significant majority) believe that Marbury vs Madison was a positive ruling as it (in there mind) established 3 co-equal branches of government.
220 years of solidifying a societal belief will not be overcome easily.
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.