• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biden rails against access to assault weapons after recent spate of shootings

rahl said:
Ok. There is no enumerated power granted to the federal government to require a registration to exercise a constitutionally protected right of the citizenry.

See above.

It's basis is the constitution.

If you can show me the enumerated power in the constitution that grants the federal government the power to require a registry to exercise a constitutionally protected right, then you'd have a point. But alas, there is no such power granted to the govn't.

But again, it's irrelevant. Even if they did have the power, its entirely unenforceable and impossible to implement. The 5th amendment stands in your way, if a citizen decides to NOT register their firearm.
Click to expand...
So if it isn't in the Constitution it is based on federal law. Federal laws can be repealed or amended.
 
mrjurrs said:
So if it isn't in the Constitution it is based on federal law. Federal laws can be repealed or amended.
Click to expand...
Federal law must comply with the constitution. The federal govn't has zero constitutional authority to do it, which is why they haven't and can't. It is unconstitutional.
 
rahl said:
Federal law must comply with the constitution. The federal govn't has zero constitutional authority to do it, which is why they haven't and can't. It is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
All federal law is constitutional until it is found unconstitutional. Prior restraint would only occur to laws passed that are blatantly unconstitutional, like a national religion.
 
mrjurrs said:
All federal law is constitutional until it is found unconstitutional. Prior restraint would only occur to laws passed that are blatantly unconstitutional, like a national religion.
Click to expand...
Or a ban on a class of weapons in common use for lawful purposes.
 
rahl said:
lol, no it isn't.

As well as this.
Click to expand...
Ok, when does the law become constitutional? Is there another secret process that has been obscured since the beginning of the country?
 
mrjurrs said:
Ok, when does the law become constitutional?
Click to expand...
The moment a law that complies with the constitution is passed. If a law that violates the constitution is passed, it is null and void from inception.
mrjurrs said:
Is there another secret process that has been obscured since the beginning of the country?
Click to expand...
No
 
rahl said:
The moment a law that complies with the constitution is passed. If a law that violates the constitution is passed, it is null and void from inception.

No
Click to expand...
You are overly broad in your interpretation. If it was so, we'd never have any laws reach SCOTUS for review.
 
rahl said:
The moment a law that complies with the constitution is passed. If a law that violates the constitution is passed, it is null and void from inception.

No
Click to expand...
You are incorrect. Laws are in force immediately upon effective date. They need an Article 3 decision to be declared unconstitutional. There's a limited exception for clearly unconstitutional laws, nothing that would apply here
 
rahl said:
It's not an interpretation. It's constitutional law.

Of course we would.
Click to expand...
A constitutional law? What's the penalty for breaking it?
 
Anthony60 said:
The funniest part is the "(DEMS) do virtually nothing to advance a progressive agenda..."
What planet are you living on?
Click to expand...
This one.

Biden promised 15 Dollar minimum wage...

You know who blocked IT?

Two senators from Delaware...His Allies...

I can give many more examples...

But that should suffice
 
Anthony60 said:
The funniest part is the "(DEMS) do virtually nothing to advance a progressive agenda..."
What planet are you living on?
Click to expand...
But also screwing workers on the rail situation, not protecting abortion, Not advancing any meaningful legislation to advance racial equity...


And so much more
 
rahl said:
Provided they comply with the constitution.

They do not.

It very much applies applies here.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is noted, and considered, as an opinion. It lacks context in some areas and is incorrect in others.

Let's start here. If laws don't require an Article 3 decision to be declared unconstitutional, which branch do you see making that call?
 
mrjurrs said:
Your opinion is noted, and considered, as an opinion.
Click to expand...
I didn't offer an opinion.
mrjurrs said:
It lacks context in some areas and is incorrect in others.
Click to expand...
I've given you the context, and nothing I have stated in this thread has been incorrect.
mrjurrs said:
Let's start here. If laws don't require an Article 3 decision to be declared unconstitutional, which branch do you see making that call?
Click to expand...
They can rule a law unconstitutional. But a law that is unconstitutional is null and void at inception.
 
mrjurrs said:
You are incorrect. Laws are in force immediately upon effective date. They need an Article 3 decision to be declared unconstitutional. There's a limited exception for clearly unconstitutional laws, nothing that would apply here
Click to expand...
I hear what you are saying. And I know this administration has used that tactic several times - put something into effect by EO and press forward until it's shot down. But that's not good governance.

Keep in mind that the 2nd amendment isn't like a rarely used provision put in place for an 'emergency', or a vague regulation. It has a long history in the courts at the federal and state level. Many of the things being proposed have already been litigated. If they try to put in place something unconstitutional, it will get tagged with an injunction before it ever goes into effect.
 
george48 said:
But also screwing workers on the rail situation, not protecting abortion, Not advancing any meaningful legislation to advance racial equity...


And so much more
Click to expand...
$5,000,000,000,000 in debt in two years? What's the plan? $10, 000,000,000,000 in 4 years? Who's getting screwed?
 
Ha? Why obfuscate? What the f are you on about?
Anthony60 said:
$5,000,000,000,000 in debt in two years? What's the plan? $10, 000,000,000,000 in 4 years? Who's getting screwed
Click to expand...
 
Anthony60 said:
$5,000,000,000,000 in debt in two years? What's the plan? $10, 000,000,000,000 in 4 years? Who's getting screwed?
Click to expand...
And how is the debt on us?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom