Posted on 03/28/2002 10:00:21 PM PST by antidemocommie
When government breaks the rules, what are you entitled to do about it? Are you bound by unconstitutional laws forced on you by those who live by their own rules?
Consider the following famous Americans, and the Rule of Law:
Excerpt from the Bill of Rights, Amendment I:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Please observe that this does not contain any exceptions
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference
and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly
void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the
date of the decision so branding it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it."
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged:
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well,
when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to
live without breaking laws."
Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow
it."
Nope. You were closer with majoritarian as long as the majority agrees with him.
The Bill of Rights, as well as certain portions of the Constitution were written *specifically* to prevent the Majority from bringing tyranny. However, it was understood that over time, the majority would eventually get its way. The Founding Fathers, knowing this, admitted they were taking a risk by *trusting* the People be able to handle wisely the power the Constitution made manifest (as the People have always had it.)
I leave it to the reader to decide how well we've managed the power made manifest by the Constitution.
Tuor
He is actually _Jim's evil twin.
Regards
J.R.
That's his point, idjit. The Constitution says you can, the Supreme Court says you cannot. That's his question: Is this a nation of laws or of men? And if not laws, what is to be done? Thanks for explicitly coming down on the side of a government of men, not of laws.
I'm sure you would want the SCOTUS to declare his asking the question unconstitutional.
Sure. And, if 9-11 hadn't happened, you would say, "After OKC . . .". And you would be correct; however, if you were truly honest, you would say, "After Waco . . .".
J.R.
BS
ONe does have a right to commit insurrection against a lawful government, if that government does not meet the desires of the insurrectionist, however, I recommend to that person that he try to incorporate a few million of his closest friends. The solitary insurrectionist is doomed to failure.
On the flip side, since you cowardly chose "lawful" govt, (not the topic of this thread), when one is confronted by unlawful government, one has a moral DUTY to throw off such government, and to disobey unlawful statutes.
Laws which protect society or the "collective", such as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre, are inconsistent with the American system. Rather, one who yells "Fire" should subsequently be punished for any damage or injury caused by him, rather than society attempting to outlaw said activity before the fact.
That approach is inconsistent with indivdual liberty.
It is clear that you value the needs of society above the needs of the individual. As such, you are both a statist and a socialist.
Your cultural Jihad leads to a society of slaves at the mercy of Federal power.
And getting the majority to agree with him -- why, that's just a simple matter of applying prison sentences and death penalties to enough of the Non-Jihadists to reduce the sample size down to a comfortably Jihadist majority. ;-)
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.