the law , part II

[darthlung]

i was told by preacherman that "The Supreme Court is the only - repeat, the ONLY - body authorized by the Constitution itself to decide whether a law is Constitutional or not. You and I may not like the laws, but it's not for us to say whether or not they pass the Constitutionality test." well this says otherwise .

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


As long as the population is filled with fence sitters unwilling to take a stand, and the government is rife with traitors unwilling to fulfill their lawful responsibilities, the best we can hope for is that there will be an incident that will result in the final resolve of the issue. That is what i work for .

 

[WeedWhacker]

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Programmers call that an "if statement". The action is only performed if the test criteria (in bold, above) is met. At this juncture, I believe it is safe to say that the test criteria has not yet been met.

When They come to drag your children away to the re-education camps, demand all weapons to be turned in (to keep this firearm-related), and burn churches to the ground with their congregations inside them, then, then it will have met the test criteria. ... Okay, so we're maybe only at one out of three?

 

[Derby FALs]

By then it is too late.

 

[WeedWhacker]

It depends on whom you talk to, but some are of the opinion that folks like Ted Kzinschi... Kuhzinschki... the 'Unabomber', Tim McVey, and others were early.

See how well things panned out for them?

 

[JohnBT]

"some are of the opinion that folks like Ted Kzinschi... Kuhzinschki... the 'Unabomber', Tim McVey, and others were early."

Some would be well advised to rethink their choice of role models.

John

 

[baz]

Don't feed the troll.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


Programmers call that an "if statement". The action is only performed if the test criteria (in bold, above) is met. At this juncture, I believe it is safe to say that the test criteria has not yet been met.

Are you kidding me? I guarantee that the Founders, were they alive today, would consider there to have been a long train of abuses and usurpations evincing a design to reduce the States and their citizens to absolute despotism? No question about it. Just about everything the Federal Government does is without Constitutional authority, and designed to rob us of our right to self government and government by the consent of the governed, the absence of which is, by the Founders' definition, nothing less than despotism. We enjoyed much more economic and personal liberty, and right of self governance, under King George. You need to step back and get yourself some perspective.

 

[Tory]

The Supreme Court is created by

Article III of the US Constitution. It is easy enough to look up and read.

It depends on whom you talk to, but some are of the opinion that folks like Ted Kzinschi... Kuhzinschki... the 'Unabomber', Tim McVey, and others were early.

Some are of the opinion you should learn to spell before posting.

 

[Lou629]

Another revolutionary wanna-be posting on a gun forum? Imagine that! The SCOTUS never saw such a collection of constitutional law scholars as exists on gun forums! We will now, no doubt, also hear from all the wild-eyed, paranoid militia types, checking in with their stories of governmental conspiracy, detention camps, black helicopters and the like. And they wonder why the anti-gun crowd is scared to death of us? Some of these guys would scare the crap out of a real-life John Wayne or a Charles Bronson for crying out loud!

 

[unixguy]

Examples (or in programmer speak, use cases)

I also frequently read the first part of the Declaration of Independence and can imagine someone getting in trouble with the law for using that kind of speech nowadays (although I know of no such examples), which in and of itself is troubling.

I recently reread the Declaration of Independence, and read through the litany of EXAMPLES of the behavior that led to the revolution. I think it's worth looking at them, because I'm not convinced that the government we have today is as bad as what the founders of our country had to put with.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.

 

[jamz]

there will be an incident that will result in the final resolve of the issue. That is what i work for .

Wait a sec.... are you working for the final resolve, or the incident?

 

[oldfart]

This subject always makes an interesting thread, what with a few wild-eyed revolutionaries and a bunch of law and order types. The would-be revolutionaries want to stir things up without having Big Brother come knock on their door at 0-dark thirty while the law and order guys want to make sure no one thinks ill of gun owners in general. Messers Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, et al, would probably fall somewhere in the former group and we seem to have a tough time remembering the names of those who wanted to simply maintain the status quo and avoid a lot of unpleasantness.

We will not have a revolution. There, I've said it. Certainly we'll never see one like that first one. Know why? Because there are too many people in that second group. People who have families, mortgages, cars, boats, etc., that they could lose if things got unpleasant.

But, while there won't be any liberating revolution, we will be conquered, so we'll still lose all our goodies anyway. Our government, regardless of how bad it is, won't go like that of George III or Louis XVI, it'll gradually strangle on it's own waste and ineptitude until some foreign group comes in to "save us." Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" is an almost perfect description of what is happening here and now.

Now then, who decides what is legal? Some say the SCOTUS is the only source for such momentous decisions. I'm sure the SS generals told their soldiers something similar, yet when the German army was defeated the allied powers said otherwise. Remember all those German soldiers who 'just followed orders' but got a second opinion punctuated with a long drop and a short rope?

For day to day decisions, those that don't have life and death outcomes, the SCOTUS is and should be the final arbiter of constitutionality. But on those rare occasions when ordinary citizens are faced with life and death decisions, they will have to decide the constitutionality of whatever law they have come afoul of. To sit back and wait for the government to tell us that we have that power will make for a very long wait. Of course, anyone who does assume that power must be prepared to answer for his decision.

And there's the rub. Answering for a wrong decision (even if it's right, the government will say it's wrong) will cost you all your goodies, won't it? So, let's be safe and make sure no one thinks badly of gunnies. If we're real carefull, they'll let us put our names on a list of gun owners and allow us to carry a concealed weapon-- except in bars, or Churches, or government buildings, or sports stadiums, or schools, or any other place that posts a sign. Kinda like pulling the teeth of an attack dog.

Until we get rid of this "let George do it" mentality and start making decisions ourselves our keepers will continue to do it for us and you can bet they won't tell us when it's time to start shooting the b******s!