Gaetz introduces 'Abolish the ATF Act' after ruling against stabilizing braces

[theotherwaldo]

The presumption is that laws are valid until declared invalid by the courts. Merely saying that something is an "infringement" carries no weight at all, unless you are a judge.

Ha.
The frickin' SUPREME COURT lays down a ruling and the anti-gunners either ignore it or pass more laws, rules and regulations that are worse than the ones that the court just ruled against.
Talk about carrying no weight!!

 

[230RN]

The presumption is that laws are valid until declared invalid by the courts. Merely saying that something is an "infringement" carries no weight at all, unless you are a judge.

I've discussed that with you before, noting I am well aware of that presumption and have condemned it before, several times in fact.

But that presumption provides an excuse for legislatures and executives to propose and pass any laws they want under the full knowledge that any challenge to them is a complicated and expensive process.

In a word (or two), taking advantage of the "checks and balances" system, knowing full well that the "check" doesn't work and the "balance" is nonexistent.

Sorry, but my command of the English language in reading the Constitution and the language of some of that chicanerous legislation (e.g., NFA, GCA, etc.) overrides any mere theoretical "presumption."

I'm sure you will lean on that presumption again, and I will point out its faults again, as well as the fact that I have often condemned it as one of the major faults in how our system has evolved to the present day.

Terry, 230RN

 

[JumboJVT]

There is no severability clause in the Constitution: You can't embrace the parts you agree with and disavow the parts - or the results thereof - you don't. You either believe in the document and the framework it creates or you don't, no ala carte, no gray area. Is it perfect so as to be impervious to interpretation (seemingly as most would prefer 2A be viewed) and the bad acts of man? No. But the Founders knew that such a perfect document, rigid and unyielding, could never have been ratified in the first place...and this country would never have been formed. You may not like how things are, but its the path the Constitution has taken us down.

 

[aaaaa]

The presumption is that laws are valid until declared invalid by the courts. Merely saying that something is an "infringement" carries no weight at all, unless you are a judge.

Seems that things are backward. Part of the process of legislation should be that every proposed piece of legislation should be vetted for Constitutionality before it can be passed. If it fails the Constitutionality test, then it goes in the shredder.

 

[dogtown tom]

Seems that things are backward. Part of the process of legislation should be that every proposed piece of legislation should be vetted for Constitutionality before it can be passed. If it fails the Constitutionality test, then it goes in the shredder.

Think about what you just wrote. Every Congressman has a staff, constituents, lobbyists for thousands of special interest groups who can all throw in their two cents worth of opinion on proposed legislation. Undoubtedly they know from the get go if a bill can pass any Constitutionality test.

What you and I might think "unconstitutional" isn't the same for others. What we see as freedom is lawlessness by others. What we see as an infringement is seen as lawfull restraint and regulation by others. That isn't going to stop a member of Congress from submitting a bill.

Think about how the legislative process would grind to a halt as proposed legislation....that's not yet a law, were to require a federal courts approval first. The number of bills filed is over 10,000 per session and less than 500 will become law.

OH HECK NO.

 

[aaaaa]

Think about how the legislative process would grind to a halt as proposed legislation....that's not yet a law, were to require a federal courts approval first. The number of bills filed is over 10,000 per session and less than 500 will become law.

Grind to a halt--I like it!

10,000 laws per session! No wonder we can't turn around with out breaking a law. This is the problem. The founding fathers never envisioned sending people to DC to make churn out law after law. We have enough laws. I think we should send people to DC to unmake laws.

 

[AlexanderA]

Seems that things are backward. Part of the process of legislation should be that every proposed piece of legislation should be vetted for Constitutionality before it can be passed. If it fails the Constitutionality test, then it goes in the shredder.

The problem with this is that U.S. courts don't issue advisory opinions. There must be a "case or controversy" before the constitutionality of a law can come before the courts. Therefore it must be enacted first.

 

[AlexanderA]

10,000 laws per session! No wonder we can't turn around with out breaking a law. This is the problem.

10,000 may be introduced, but only a handful are passed. In fact, the way the American system is set up, it almost guarantees gridlock. In a parliamentary system on the other hand, the legislative majority is the government. A party runs on a platform, and if elected, they are expected to pass it. If they don't, there's a motion of no confidence, and the government falls.

In our system, many of the bills introduced are just playing to the peanut gallery. Even the sponsors have no serious intention of seeing them passed into law. Such was the fate, for example, of the "Hearing Protection Act" and many other pro-gun proposals. Empty gestures like that are good for fundraising.

 

[dogtown tom]

Grind to a halt--I like it!

Yeah, that sounds awesome on its face.
Right up until Social Security checks stop coming, VA hospitals stop treating patients and airplanes stop flying.

10,000 laws per session!

Might want to reread what I wrote.
10,000 bills submitted. Less than 500 laws.

No wonder we can't turn around with out breaking a law. This is the problem. The founding fathers never envisioned sending people to DC to make churn out law after law. We have enough laws. I think we should send people to DC to unmake laws.

Well, that was a Donald Trump promise: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...federal-regulations-pre-1960-level/953072001/

 

[aaaaa]

We are getting way off track but SS checks should not need new legislation for an existing program (unconstitutional one at that). Maybe if they had to get those submitted bills vetted they would not submit so many. It is a circus with everyone working to see how much taxpayer money they can funnel back to their own constituents. Not what the founding fathers envisioned.

 

[TheHermit]

Seems that things are backward. Part of the process of legislation should be that every proposed piece of legislation should be vetted for Constitutionality before it can be passed. If it fails the Constitutionality test, then it goes in the shredder.

This is actually how some European parliaments (the Finnish parliament for example) operate - a proposed law is vetted by a Constitutional committee before it goes on the floor for a vote.

 

[BRatigan]

The process should be slow and deliberative. Every law should be read and understood before a vote. Clusters of bills should be eliminated so junk can't be shoved down our throats. Why waste everyone's time on bills that won't pass Constitutional muster.
Our government is a disaster, and the parties are a huge part of the problem. Then of course there is the corruption and the "bought and paid for representatives" that have rights we could only dream of; a notable example is being able to buy stocks on insider information. Another is a health care system for them and what they cobbled together for us. Clearly the laws are not applied equally across the broad spectrum of the citizenry. Getting rid of cabinet level depts. and returning that power to the states would also be a help. De-centralization of the federal government might help, and we could move Depts. to various states to kill the swamp bureaucracy. Low level, power hungry and angry career bureaucrats are brakes on freedom and the Republic. They should be culled as waste and shown the door.

 

[usaral63]

Well stated BR..........except you are far too kind relative to the disposition of those bureaucrats!

 

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

Yeah, that sounds awesome on its face.
Right up until Social Security checks stop coming, VA hospitals stop treating patients and airplanes stop flying.



Might want to reread what I wrote.
10,000 bills submitted. Less than 500 laws.



Well, that was a Donald Trump promise: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...federal-regulations-pre-1960-level/953072001/

The process for enacting laws as outlined in the Constitution, in part, was to minimize the rate at which new laws could be enacted. It was thought that this was a feature of the process to which would help reduce the power of a mob majority from using Democracy to implement their will upon a minority position. Legislation quickly bending to the wind of the latest, greatest, whim of the latest group to create momentum is very much a part of why our representative Republic was designed as it was. We shouldn't be using legislation to run the day to day operations of people lives and things like Social Security and other programs that rely upon legislative action to feed and cloth people on a day to day basis area misuse of the Federal government. The best possible thing for the American people would be to have the Administrative State grind to a halt.

 

[hso]

We've now moved beyond the scope of the original topic and THR.