Replies

I agree with Reagan Man?s last post, though:
?If an individual believes a specific law enacted by Congress is in violation of the Constitution, that person should fight within the political arena and the legal system, to reverse such a law. Until and unless a law is overturned, it remains legal and valid. It is the law of the land. Period.?

Then you are as wrong as he it. Look up Marbury v. Madison. To paraphrase, a law repugnant to the Constitution is invalid FROM THE DAY it is ENACTED, NOT just from when it was found so. As such it need not be enforced or obeyed.

This is all in the decision and it has never been challenged, which would tend to mean that RM, like his counterparts who unconstitutionally enacted and currently ENFORCE this legislation will, at some point and sooner than RM wants to see, be liable for their actions. Hopefully it will entail CRIMINAL liability and if there's any justice, the enactors and the JBTs who enforce this crud will be on death row for all the murders that they have committed in so doing. The damage they have done and continue to do to the very fabric of the Republiic is incalculable.

You are correct, that a law repugnant from the Constitution is invalid from the day that it is enacted. That means that if you are imprisoned for violating said law, that you should be released from prison, when it is found unconstitutional. It does not mean that we are supposed to pick and choose which laws that we want to obey, based upon our rationale for determining a law’s constitutionality. An ignorant nation (such as ours) would be quickly reduced to near-anarchy, if this were the case.

For those who believe that a law is unconstitutional, civil disobedience is a means for winning the public opinion battle, to increase the odds of winning in the political and legal arena. Those people still go to jail, though, no matter how strongly they believe in the unconstitutional nature of the law.

As for determining liabilities incurred through enforcement of our current drug laws, I cringe at the ugliness that will accompany this. Clearly, there are legal or possible monetary reparations that are due to people whose rights have been violated by the so-called War on Drugs (more appropriately called the War on Individual Rights), but this will not be so simple as pointing the finger at people to imprison or sue. What precedent do we set when we can punish law enforcement personnel who enforce laws that are later deemed unconstitutional? Also, think of how many people are behind bars, only because they plea bargained to give a guilty plea on the drug charges, in return for dropping other legitimate charges. Think of how many people were only caught committing a crime, because law enforcement was given authority to snoop on them because law enforcement agencies had probable cause to believe that the individual was in possession of drugs. It will be a field day for lawyers. The courts will be as clogged then as they are now, until this is sorted out, which will take a long, long time.