Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Joe Boucher

“The BATF is Ruby Ridge and WACO.
Murdering gestapo thugs.”

Tell them we care as much of their judgment of their “right” to break the laws of our state as we do for any other criminal.

Tell them we will not recognized their status as Federal agents, nor their clam to be acting in present to unconstitutional Federal law be treated as relevant.

The Federal government will NOT be permitted to be the judge of the extent of their own authority. Only the people and their states are of authority to judge the extent of the authority they ceded to the Federal government.

This is a truism established in our founding in the republican printable that all rights are derived by government form the consent of the governed! NOT the consent of the government!


112 posted on 02/22/2010 1:37:52 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Monorprise
Tell them we will not recognized their status as Federal agents, nor their clam to be acting in present to unconstitutional Federal law be treated as relevant.

Unconstitutional statutes, regulations, and other rules are, by definition, not laws. I would like to see people stop using the term "laws" to refer to them, since such linguistic usage suggests that they are legitimate unless or until a court strikes them down. It is certainly true that they may be enforced, but that doesn't make them legitimate.

BTW, I would also like to see a few more things declared in these state laws:

  1. Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court has any authority to declare an unconstitutional statute to be valid. If a statute contradicts the Constitution, it's unconstitutional, regardless of anything any court might say.
  2. Persons associated with the federal government who commit crimes for the purpose of enforcing illegitimate rules should be presumed to be a high flight risk and denied bail on that basis.
  3. Even if the federal government has a legitimate interest in restricting individual actions which affect interstate commerce, there is no reason this interest would require restricting actions which do not materially affect interstate commerce. The interest could be met by forbid people from doing certain actions in such a way as to materially affect interstate commerce. The effect on interstate commerce would be a required element of the crime which the federal government would have to prove. Given that such a statute would be sufficient for the federal government to meet its legitimate interests, a broader statute is not "necessary" (except, perhaps, to achieve illegitimate interests).
The Constitution was written to be understandable by ordinary people. The only reason "Constitutional Law" is complicated is that judges have to pretend the Constitution bends and twists in such a way as to render their rulings legitimate.
119 posted on 02/22/2010 3:51:53 PM PST by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson