Posted on 02/22/2003 10:49:06 AM PST by forest
What do you think the Founding Fathers would say about the oppressive legislation, rules, regulations, and executive orders emanating from today's federal government? Luckily, in The Federalist Papers No. 78, Alexander Hamilton gives us a pretty good idea:
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
Strong stuff! "No legislative act, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid." Hamilton may have been a lawyer and a politician, but there is certainly no equivocation there! That is quite a concept, especially coming from a man who actively participated in the Convention that wrote our Constitution.
Strong stuff! "No legislative act, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid."
That says it all. It should tell us that we must get off our fuds, stand up on our hind legs and take our government back. That is done at the Ballot Box.
By who's definition? Congress'? The President's? The USSC's? Your's?
What if the United States Supreme Court rules that a law is Constitutional? Does that make it valid? (Roe v. Wade)
What if a law is passed by Congress, but not challenged in the courts? Since the courts have not ruled on it's constitutionality, is the law valid? (Campaign Finance Reform)
What if the President vetoes a law passed by Congess because he says the law is unconstitutional, yet the Congress overrides the veto? Is that law valid?
If we, personally, don't feel that a law is constitutional, therefore invalid, may we disobey that law?
"It is certainly unfortunate that our national government leaders can not read the Constitution."
I think you mean, "It is certainly unfortunate that our national government leaders can not read the Constitution the way I do".
Sound like a slogan to me =^D
While our founding fathers might recognize our present government, I doubt they'd like it.
Given your responses to my questions, it sounds to me like you are influenced less by the Constitution and more by the consensus of the general public. True?
LOL my friend - I agree 100%. Unfortunately, some misguided Americans are of the opinion that no violation has occurred until the Supreme Court decides it has. For example, the Contitution requires the "Advice and Consent of the Senate [for] Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States." It does not state that it requires the advice and consent of a committee. Any person with half a brain (sorry dims) can understand that the full senate must vote. What is the remedy, or is the Supreme Court the final arbiter on all such issues?
In that same writing, Hamilton also wrote, "the power of the people is superior to both [the legislature and judiciary]". The people wrote the Constitution, via their state's representatives; and ratified it, via their state's convention. The people of each state being superior to their elected representatives, and the states as parties to the Constitution, have the legal right to adjudge violations, and to refuse to abide with unconstitutional laws.
Actually yes, yes it does. Marbury v. Madison (1803, Chief Justice John Marshall presiding) It was this case wherein the Supreme Court established its powers of review over acts of congress and to determine the constitutionality of those acts.
WE the people!! Twenty laws are all that's needed:
The Bill of Rights (10), and
The Ten Commandments.
No. Only as valid as as many who adhear to the ruling.
==============
The law is the law. Period. In a civilized and free society, a law's validity is nowhere contingent upon personal interperation.
If it's a bad law, change it; otherwise, the law is the law.
That's why we have the Supreme Court.
I'd say the poster is making the same points contained in the Mission Statement of Free Republic:
"What is our mission? Free Republic is dedicated to reversing the trend of unconstitutional government expansion and is advocating a complete restoration of our constitutional republic."
Surely you're not saying that individual States and/or individual citizens have the right to interperate and/or obey Federal laws as they choose?
YOu are right about the power of jury nullification, but you are wrong that its power is gone. I still use the power of jury nullification.
OK, no problem. And where do we look for that definition? Who's interpretation? Maybe we just go with the Libertarian Party platform and call it a day?
Some specifics would help here, because I may not read the Constitution the same way you do. I mean, you may read "free speech" as to allow all forms of pornography. There are those that do. I don't. Who's right? Were the Founding Fathers thinking about allowing porn under the first amendment? I'd be interested in your cites.
Is the income tax constitutional? It better be, it's the 16th amendment. But the Libertarians say it's unconstitutional. How can that be? Is repeal of the 16th amendment part of "restoring our constitutional republic"? Eliminate the 14th? Repeal the 17th? Re-write the 2nd? What do you have in mind here?
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.