Washington CPL against Washington's constitution?

Status
Not open for further replies.
SwatCashJeremy writes............

yes you've made your opinion 3 times now..we get it

Somehow, I tend to doubt that, since I still see many people post messages where they seem to be confused over what is their opinion and what is revealed truth.
 
Who else would you have do it?

Me? At least I can read and understand a simple sentence. :D

Or maybe some sort of "grand jury" type system...???
Or a combination of judges and citizen jurors?

I'm not sure whether the "founding fathers" overlooked this little detail or just didn't care. Anyway, we now have a more tyrannical government than the British overlords that we overthrew, and apparently there is nothing to be done about it. :(
 
I'm not sure whether the "founding fathers" overlooked this little detail or just didn't care. Anyway, we now have a more tyrannical government than the British overlords that we overthrew, and apparently there is nothing to be done about it.

If you beleive that, I invite you to try open carrying a loaded handgun down the streets of London and see what happens to you!
 
Tallpine writes............

Or maybe some sort of "grand jury" type system...???
Or a combination of judges and citizen jurors?

Look up Marbury v Madison. That is the ruling that forms the basis for judicial review of the constitutionality of statutes.

I'm not sure whether the "founding fathers" overlooked this little detail or just didn't care.

I happen to agree with the premise of Marbury v Madison. And note that the people responsible for that ruling were contemporaries of the Founders, so it is a pretty good bet that they had insight to what they had intended.

Absent some type of review, the Executive and Legislative branches could, and would ignore the Constitution. (They do a pretty good job of that as it is!!!)

Using something like a grand jury to review laws would be chaotic, IMO. Think OJ, spilled coffee at McDonalds, or Oprah.

Especially complex are cases involving conflicts among rights. Some right or rights have to be limited in such cases. (My right to scream on the sidewalk vs. your right to peaceful enjoyment of your property, for instance.) Deciding where and how to draw the line is no trivial matter. We're better off with the smartest people we can find working on things like that.

Anyway, we now have a more tyrannical government than the British overlords that we overthrew, and apparently there is nothing to be done about it.

As another has pointed out, contrast our government with that of the UK with its "unwritten" (i.e. meaningless & non-existent) "constitution" that can be trampled by a majority of the Parliment almost any time they choose.

And as for what can be "done about it", remember that in an 8 year term a president appoints roughly half of the federal judiciary at the district and circuit court levels.

So don't throw your vote away voting for Elmer Fudd, the standardbearer of the "Slow Wheet" party, just because he makes you feel good when he talks about guns. Don't vote for Hillary/Obama who would appoint "living constitution" judges who believe the constitution means whatever they want it to mean.

And DO vote for whoever ends up as the major party opponent of Hillary/Obama.
 
The 3 liberal commie counties have anti-assult gun open carry laws. (King-Pierce-Sohomish)

I carried two dummy AKs 2 blocks and was met by 3 cars full of County Mounties. I was in uniform, and on the way to give some weekend warriors a lession in soviet small arms.

I was the one that got the lession.

The cops would have **** if they saw what was in my trunk :-D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top