I've concluded that trying to talk with you on this subject is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It annoys the pig, and it wastes your time.
Kindly don't reply in the future to anything I post. I will extend you the same courtesy.
John
Are you aware that Marshall refuted that authoritarian type argument back in 1803, Marbury v Madison?
No one in the USA is bond to obey 'laws' repugnant to the Constitution. In fact officers of the court, like you, are bound by oath to fight such repugnant laws.
I cannot make it any plainer than that. Have you got the point now?
John / Billybob
I think everyone, by now, gets your 'point'; - more than you realize. Thanks for helping to make it evident. You are really wasting my time. I've spent 35 years working with constitutional law, and you think I haven't read the cases or don't understand them?
You just made a point that: " -- ALL laws, on ALL subjects, in ALL jurisdictions remain on the books and are apparently valid -- ". This shows a complete lack of understanding basic constitutional law as outlined by Justice Marshall in 1803.
I've concluded that trying to talk with you on this subject is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It annoys the pig, and it wastes your time. Kindly don't reply in the future to anything I post. I will extend you the same courtesy. John
Sorry, but that pig don't fly.. Like you I've sworn an oath to defend our constitution. I'm defending it with these words, which refute yours.
Feel free to reply. -- Or not. -- No one forced you to make your last reply, which would have ended our present exchange.