Posted on 03/13/2005 10:22:40 AM PST by P_A_I
In a constitutional republic, the constitution is the supreme law, superior to all other public acts, whether by officials or private citizens.
Any statute, regulation, executive order, or court ruling which is inconsistent with that supreme law and not derived from it is unconstitutional and null and void from inception.
There are several ways in which statutes or other official acts may be unconstitutional:
It may be contrary to a right guaranteed under the Constitution.
It may not be based on one of the powers delegated to the government under the Constitution.
It may violate the provisions for the structures and procedures of government, such as the delegation of legislative or judicial powers to an executive agency in violation of the separation of powers principle of the Constitution.
It may neglect to perform some duty imposed under the Constitution.
It may involve the operation of government outside its constitutional jurisdiction.
It may not be applied in the way it was intended by those who wrote and adopted the original act.
It may be vague or incomprehensible to the people who must obey or enforce it.
It may have been intended to be applied selectively, or have come to be applied selectively, in violation of the equal protection provision of the Constitution that all laws must be applied uniformly.
Proper notice of the law or act may not have been given in a way that would allow people subject to it to become aware of it.
The aggregate of laws or regulations may become so burdensome that it becomes unreasonable for everyone subject to it to be sufficiently familiar with it to comply with all of it.
It may have never been properly adopted, or due process may not have been practiced.
Information needed to make a proper determination may have been withheld or distorted in a way that is intended to mislead or which has that effect through negligence.
An unconstitutional statute is not a law, no matter how vigorously it may be enforced. Enforcement does not make what is enforced the law. What is enforced is a regime. In a constitutional republic, the law and the regime should coincide. If they do not, the regime is not law but anti-law.
Whenever any person is confronted with a situation in which two or more official acts are in conflict, he has the duty to know which is the superior one, and to obey or help enforce the superior one, which, if one of them is the constitution, means to obey or help enforce the constitution. This duty cannot be delegated to another person: not to a superior, a court, or a legal advisor. It is not a defense that one was ignorant of the law or just doing one's job or following orders. This is sometimes called the Principle of Nuremberg.
The judgement of the consistency of an official act with the constitution is called constitutional review. When this duty is performed by a judge, it is called judicial review. It is not a power of government but the exercise of a duty of citizenship.
Each level and jurisdiction of government has been delegated the power to punish as crimes the deprivation of constitutional and civil rights of persons by agents of government, and some governments the power to punish deprivation of rights by individuals not agents of government.
Statutes to implement those powers have been enacted in almost every jurisdiction, and they cover almost every such deprivation.
Any act performed by an agent of government which is unconstitutional is illegal, and while performing that act the person ceases to be an agent of government or to have any official status, regardless of what trappings of office or color of law he may project. It is also almost certainly a deprivation of the civil rights of someone, and therefore also a violation of one or more of the constitutional criminal laws against doing so.
.
There are no "implied contracts" involving government as a party. A constitution is the entire agreement among the citizens, and no benefit received by any person from government legally obligates that person to make any payment therefor, except through constitutional taxes and fees, nor is any person legally obligated to account for any such benefits, or to be subject to penalties for perjury or fraud for misstating such benefits.
Conversely, neither is government legally obligated to provide some minimal level, quality, or distribution of benefits to persons, other than according to constitutional laws.
No level or branch of government has the power to impose criminal penalties, such as deprivation of life or liberty, for violations of civil laws. Only deprivations of property or privileges may be imposed for violations of civil laws. Persons may not be imprisoned for failure to pay a fine unless the offense is criminal and a criminal penalty is authorized for that offense.
No judge may imprison a person for contempt of court unless the constitution delegates the power to do so and a criminal statute authorizes it.
The jurisdiction of a criminal offense is determined by the location of the offender's head when the offense was committed, not by the location of the effects of the crime. The crime is the mental act, not the outcome.
No treaty or compact may contain effective provisions which would require agents of government to exercise powers not delegated to them under the constitution of their jurisdiction. As agents of the people, they may not make powers they do not have elements of any treaty or compact, and no such treaty or compact may confer on them any new powers within the territory of their jurisdiction.
Statutes passed with the intent that they not be enforced uniformly, but at the discretion of law enforcement agents, are unconstitutional.
They violate the Constitutional requirement for equal protection of the laws, and constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to executive officials.
The appropriate exercise of the powers delegated in the Constitution is not discretionary, but represent positive duties, and the failure to exercise such powers appropriately constitute violations of the Constitution.
This starts out with some good constitutional privileges, but then throws in a lot of unnecessary and extraneous things.
I suspect it may be one of Rolands earlier essays.. -- And I agree, it needs editing. -- Lots of good points though on principles..
'Fish or cut bait'...
;>)
You there? Since you seem to have trouble responding,
Nope, no trouble, its just that duty calls now & then.
here's an easier challenge for you - let's defend the content of our posts.
I always do just that. -- You seldom bother, preferring to nit pick apart everyone else's.
I'll defend Mr. Roland's comments regarding Marbury v. Madison, and you can defend (or not defend - proving yourself a complete weasel ;>)
Now now, thats not a friendly thing to accuse me of, and its quite absurd in any case. Get control of your emotions.
his 'Declaration of Constitutional Principles' (you know - the thread you started here ;>)...
Yes, I know the thread I started here. Do you have a point about it to make?
check later
Hello - are you willing to defend your post? Or not (you half-@ssed weasel ;>)? Your idiotic comment doesn't measure up. 'Fish or cut bait'... ;>)
Good grief, you have lost it.. -- Tell you what, calm down/sober up or whatever, & we'll continue this tomorrow. -- I have a dinner date.
"Not true." You seldom substantiate your posts - I regularly post historical documentation to substantiate mine.
;>)
WIJG: ...you can defend [your own posts] (or not defend [your own posts] - proving yourself a complete weasel ;>)
P_A_I: Now now, thats not a friendly thing to accuse me of, and its quite absurd in any case. Get control of your emotions.
Sorry, my friend, but emotions are not involved. Either you can defend your posts - or not. It's a simple matter of fact.
;>)
Yes, I know the thread I started here. Do you have a point about it to make?
First you posted:
"The jurisdiction of a criminal offense is determined by the location of the offender's head when the offense was committed, not by the location of the effects of the crime. The crime is the mental act, not the outcome."
Then you posted:
"I suspect it may be one of Rolands earlier essays.. -- And I agree, it needs editing."
Sounds like you're back-pedaling (at warp speed). What happened to "[w]hoever wrote it [anyone know?] has a very good grasp of our Constituions original principles, imo.." (your Post #1)?"
Got any back bone, sport?
;>)
Actually, you are the one who has "lost it" - when you can't even defend your own posts. (If you're not willing to defend them, why do you post? ;>)
Have a nice night out, my friend...
;>)
Hello - are you willing to defend your post? Or not (you half-@ssed weasel ;>)? Your idiotic comment doesn't measure up. 'Fish or cut bait'... ;>)
I always defend the content of my posts. -- You seldom bother, preferring to nit pick apart everyone else's.
: ...you can defend [your own posts] (or not defend [your own posts] - proving yourself a complete weasel ;>)
Now now, thats not a friendly thing to accuse me of, and its quite absurd in any case. Get control of your emotions.
Sorry, my friend, but emotions are not involved. Either you can defend your posts - or not. It's a simple matter of fact. ;>)
Yep, -- my posts, & the facts, - show my defense.
I know the thread I started here. Do you have a point about it to make?
First you posted: "The jurisdiction of a criminal offense is determined by the location of the offender's head when the offense was committed, not by the location of the effects of the crime. The crime is the mental act, not the outcome."
Yep, that is a quote from Roland, initially posted here to me by someone else, -- that we were wondering about.
Then you posted:
"I suspect it may be one of Rolands earlier essays.. -- And I agree, it needs editing."
Sounds like you're back-pedaling (at warp speed).
Sounds to me like you are picking nits again.
What happened to "[w]hoever wrote it [anyone know?] has a very good grasp of our Constituions original principles, imo.." (your Post #1)?" Got any back bone, sport? ;>)
Good grief, you have lost it.. -- Tell you what, calm down/sober up or whatever, & we'll continue this tomorrow. -- I have a dinner date.
Actually, you are the one who has "lost it" - when you can't even defend your own posts. (If you're not willing to defend them, why do you post? ;>)
Why do you keep insisting that I'm not 'defending' my posts, -- when here I am, doing just that?
Actually, you more often than not post unsubstantiated opinion – and then attempt to defend your points by offering even more unsubstantiated opinion. I prefer to document my claims. For example, when you claimed that Utah (Deseret) was initially denied admission to the union on the basis of the “State religion” issue, I posted the relevant language from the proposed State constitution – a “State religion” was nowhere mentioned (just the opposite, in fact). In case you need a reminder:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1350168/posts?q=1&&page=201#223
;>)
Why do you keep insisting that I'm not 'defending' my posts, -- when here I am, doing just that?
LOL! What is obvious is that you posted this Declaration without knowing the author (listed as “unknown”), and without even having bothered to read the piece (Post #58: “Good catch.. I have no idea what Constitutional principle that line is supposed to illustrate”).
Now that's impressive...
;>)
Actually, you more often than not post unsubstantiated opinion – and then attempt to defend your points by offering even more unsubstantiated opinion.
And of course, you just made an unsubstantiated claim.
I prefer to document my claims. For example, when you claimed that Utah (Deseret) was initially denied admission to the union on the basis of the "State religion" issue, I posted the relevant language from the proposed State constitution – a "State religion" was nowhere mentioned (just the opposite, in fact). In case you need a reminder:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1350168/posts?q=1&&page=201#223 ;>)
Picking nits again I see. - Anyone can go to that thread and establish the facts of our exchange.. No one will because its only important to you. -- Your obsession with anyone that challenges your misconceptions about history is getting worse. Bringing up that thread is really reaching, you know..
Why do you keep insisting that I'm not 'defending' my posts, -- when here I am, doing just that?
LOL! What is obvious is that you posted this Declaration without knowing the author (listed as "unknown"),
That 'nit-pick' has been addressed ad nauseum. Get a life.
and without even having bothered to read the piece (Post #58: "Good catch.. I have no idea what Constitutional principle that line is supposed to illustrate"). Now that's impressive... ;>)
That one too... You are reduced to repeating your petty little points.. -- Please, find some new ploys, - you're boring everyone.
Wrong again – I provided a link to another thread that documents your preference for unsubstantiated, pseudo-historical claims.
;>)
Picking nits again I see. - Anyone can go to that thread and establish the facts of our exchange.. No one will because its only important to you. -- Your obsession with anyone that challenges your misconceptions about history is getting worse. Bringing up that thread is really reaching, you know..
LOL! Apparently to you, documented historical facts are “nits,” and historical documentation (including the proposed State constitution, and Jefferson's Declaration of 1825) represent “misconceptions about history!” But please, tell us again how Utah was refused admission to the union in 1850 on the basis of the (nonexistent) "State religion" issue, and its supposed conflict with the 1st Amendment...
;>)
That 'nit-pick' has been addressed ad nauseum. Get a life.
Obviously, to you the facts are “nits” – to most other people they are somewhat more important. I suggest that you “get a life” that’s a little more connected to reality.
;>)
You are reduced to repeating your petty little points.. -- Please, find some new ploys, - you're boring everyone.
It’s unfortunate that you consider documented facts to be “petty little points,” or “ploys,” or “boring.” That says a lot about you, my friend...
;>)
Yawn. -- We've argued those same points over & over again, and your obsession drives you to continue. -- How sad.
Why don't you find something else to do? - Someone else to pester?
Actually, you generally present unsubstantiated, pseudo-historical opinions, and I counter them with documented, historical fact.
;>)
... and your obsession drives you to continue. -- How sad.
Why don't you find something else to do? - Someone else to pester?
LOL! In reality, it was obviously your "obsession" with 'pestering' me that caused you to invite my comments here (see your Post #4 ;>). If you're unhappy with the results, you (as usual) have only yourself to blame...
;>)
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.