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

To: tpaine
Why do you advocate that these institutions have such powers to abridge your own liberty? It violates self interest & common sense.

Far from it. Tell the court, any court, that John Marshall says that any law you don't like you can violate with impunity by declaring that it does not fit your view of the Constitution. That question has been settled even for folks who deny it. We have a chosen system for defining what the Constitution means, and we'll defend it with the majesty of the law against those whose unlawful conduct declares that the Constitution means whatever they, as individuals, say it means.

96 posted on 11/07/2002 8:15:49 AM PST by Whilom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]


To: Whilom
"Which institution is the final arbiter on what any constitutional provision means?"

Answered by Justice Marshall:
-- "The people have an original right to establish, for their future govern-ment, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent."

IE - The people have established that their right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

-- No 'institution' is authorised to 'arbite', - judge, - that such a fundamental inalienable right can be prohibited or amended.

Why do you advocate that these institutions have such powers to abridge your own liberty? It violates self interest & common sense. - 95

Far from it. Tell the court, any court, that John Marshall says that any law you don't like you can violate with impunity by declaring that it does not fit your view of the Constitution.

Marshall doesn't say that, nor do I. That's not the issue here.
You claim that courts can establish principles. They can not, as is outlined by Marshall.

That question has been settled even for folks who deny it. We have a chosen system for defining what the Constitution means, and we'll defend it with the majesty of the law against those whose unlawful conduct declares that the Constitution means whatever they, as individuals, say it means.

The 2nd amendment is a basic, fundamental principle. It cannot be infringed upon by USSC decisions, or by amendments. It is a permanent liberty, an inseparable part of our free republic. If it is substantially violated, our constitutional contract will be broken.

Your insistence that the 2nd can be amended is against all reason.

97 posted on 11/07/2002 11:24:28 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | 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