>You are incredibly naive. There is no law. The law they make up on the fly applies to us. NO LAW applies to them. Useful idiots. You have NO standing serf. You are playing their game like a good little sheep.
No kidding.
The supreme court *spit* is the most lawless of ALL the governmental branches — for they have the audacity to claim that the Constitution is EXACTLY what they say it is (i.e. their decisions are superior to the Constitution).
There are actual examples of the high-court altering the Constitution (insofar as “legal interpretation” goes) such as:
1 — Roe v. Wade; this is perhaps the least-subtle declaration that the Supreme Court’s ‘law’ [declarations] trump the Constitution. The Constitution says, in Amendment 10, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Yet, despite this, the Court declared that the Constitution had “penumbras” & “emanations” which which prohibited the States from having law in effect to consider abortion as murder [of their own unborn Citizens, no less].
2 — Kelo v. New London; In this decision the court declared that larceny was perfectly acceptable so long as it had the government-stamp-of-approval “eminent domain.” The 5th Amendment prohibits the taking of private property FOR PUBLIC USE without just compensation — yet the court declared that the PROJECTED increase in tax revenue by some other tenant qualified as “public use.” Using such logic on gun laws would yield that all people are prohibited persons because “it may be projected that they could, at some point, commit a felony;” using it on vehicles would mean that every person that drives could be convicted of ‘vehicular manslaughter’ because it could be ‘projected’ that such driver might one day drink-and-drive and kill somebody. IOW it justifies government action on supposition rather than on fact.
And the sad thing about it is that most Americans BELIEVE it.
They believe that the Constitution says what the supreme court says that it says!
I can prove, undeniably, that the Constitution is NOT what the Supreme Court says that it is.
In 1798 the Supreme Court declared, in the case of Caulder v. Bull, that the Constitution’s prohibition against Ex Post Facto Law applied ONLY to criminal law or “that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.” [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull ] The Congress, taking advantage of this pronouncement, passes ex post facto tax laws claiming that they are “regulatory” or “administrative” in nature and not criminal; however, when violations of these same laws are tried they are tried in CRIMINAL court.
Since something cannot be both true and false simultaneously the question must be asked: are tax-laws part of criminal-law?
If they are then Congress’s retroactive laws MUST be considered invalid by the Supreme Court’s ruling; if they are not then ALL criminal tax-law convictions MUST be null and void.
This dilemma does not exist at all if, when the Constitution says “no ex post facto law,” it really DOES mean NO such law.
Don't you think the Supreme Court in 1798-- less than 10 years after the Constitution was ratified and when the Supreme Court included at least one Justice who had signed the Constitution--might have had some idea of what the Constitution meant?
The Congress, taking advantage of this pronouncement, passes ex post facto tax laws claiming that they are “regulatory” or “administrative” in nature and not criminal; however, when violations of these same laws are tried they are tried in CRIMINAL court. Since something cannot be both true and false simultaneously the question must be asked: are tax-laws part of criminal-law? If they are then Congress’s retroactive laws MUST be considered invalid by the Supreme Court’s ruling; if they are not then ALL criminal tax-law convictions MUST be null and void.
Most tax laws are not criminal. There are a few criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. (I used to defend people against such charges.) All of the criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code require proof that the defendant not only violated the tax law but also that the defendant knew that was he was doing was illegal (see, for example, Cheek v. United States), so no, no one can be criminally prosecuted for violating a tax law change that was passed after he did the act he was prosecuted for.
This dilemma does not exist at all if, when the Constitution says “no ex post facto law,” it really DOES mean NO such law.
It doesn't say "no law that is retroactive in effect"; it says "no ex post facto law." "Ex post facto law" was a technical term which had a specific meaning under British common law, and the authors of the Constitution used that technical term because they wanted to adopt that well-known meaning. (Much as they used the words "Natural Born Citizen" because they wanted to adopt the meaning of the British common law term "natural born subject.")