Please stop giving totally incorrect legal advice. It is very dangerous when people depend on it in important issues such as this
Your “heart and soul” paragraph is 180 degrees out of reality. Please stop this foolishness. It is so bad an interpretation it gives rise to thoughts of a troll trying to kill our rights!
Cite the case and show your reasoning.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
The authority, therefore, given to the Supreme Court by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States to issue writs of mandamus to public officers appears not to be warranted by the Constitution, and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be exercised. ...My remark was, "The heart and soul of Marbury is that a court, given a set of conflicting laws, has to choose which law will control. Between a constitution that granted limited powers to a court, and a challenge based on statutory law, SCOTUS had to find the constitution superior to the statute."Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable. ...
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. ...
You say that remark is 180 degrees out of phase with reality. Explain.
What legal advice have I given? Be precise in your answer. Quote my words, exactly, including the identity of the "FR handle" to whom I am giving this advice.
-- It is very dangerous when people depend on it in important issues such as this --
My opinion on the issue of violating federal firearms laws is that if caught, the violator is screwed. The constitution will not be a viable defense to the statutory violation. This is reality. The government does not adhere to the constitution, and the government will use force of violence to fine, incarcerate, or kill you, if it has to, to obtain compliance with its statutes. The courts will, by and large, find for the government. On firearms violations, the courts will almost certainly side with the government.
That is an unequivocal call to abide by the law, even if the law is morally wrong. It is the same ultimate advice that you give. The only difference between us is that you claim the government is faithful to the constitution, and can be persuaded with logic.
-- It is so bad an interpretation it gives rise to thoughts of a troll trying to kill our rights! --
LOL. ROTFL. I'm trying to kill individual rights?