• 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!

D.C. grabs guns from soldier

Thunder said:
well, then it looks like we're at an impasse.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that the constitution specifically requires that every public official uphold the constitution and that the judges in every state are bound by the constitution. You haven't refuted those plain facts, other than with bluster about how you don't like the implications of this clear constitutional requirement.
 
Centinel said:
Except for the fact that the constitution specifically requires that every public official uphold the constitution.....
Click to expand...

and you provided NO evidence that the Constiution gives public officials the right to disobey & refuse to enforce those laws that they personally consider to be unConstitutional.

so like I said, we are at an impasse.
 
Thunder said:
and you provided NO evidence that the Constiution gives public officials the right to disobey & refuse to enforce those laws that they personally consider to be unConstitutional.

so like I said, we are at an impasse.
Click to expand...

The evidence is in the constitution itself. It clearly states that all public officials must uphold the constitution. If an unconstitutional law is passed, executive officers are required to disobey and refuse to enforce it, judges are required to declare it unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
you're just making things up.
Click to expand...

No, I am most certainly not. This is what the constitution says: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution"

Every public official is obligated to support this constitution. They may not obey or execute any law that is in violation of the constitution.

In addition, we have this: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Every judge, in every state, is bound by THIS constitution. That means that every judge is responsible for using his understanding of the constitution in making his decision.

I'm sorry you don't like it, but I'm not making any of this up. It's all plainly stated in the constitution. This is what makes us a society of laws, and not men, since every public official is oath bound not to do as others tell him, but to obey the law of the constitution.
 
Thunder said:
that's asking for anarchy.

you want govt. officials to not enforce or execute a law simply because its their personal belief that the law is unConstitutional?

you can't be serious. such a situation would be insane.
Click to expand...

If the law's constitutional, then the courts can force the executive to execute the law. They can have their day in court. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, yes?
 
Thunder said:
you're just making things up.
Click to expand...

No, he is not. The Executive can refuse to execute law. If there is proper legal standing for the law, the Legislature can go through the Courts to force execution. This is one of the reasons why we separated the branched of government in the first place.
 
Centinel said:
...Every public official is obligated to support this constitution. They may not obey or execute any law that is in violation of the constitution....
Click to expand...

and for the 6.022e23 time, the USC does NOT say that public officials have the right to disobey & refuse to enforce those laws that they consider to be unConstitutional.

do you know what happens if a police officer refuses to obey an order that he feels violates the Constitution? he gets written up.

and if he does it again, he can be charged with insubordination. and if he keeps doing it, he can be fired.

and if he refuses to arrest someone for breaking a law that he considers to be unConstitutional, he himself can be charged with a crime.

so no, public officials do NOT have the right to simply decide to not enforce or not abide by a law they don't consider Constitutional.

sorry.
 
Thunder said:
The President of the United States can refuse to enact official laws?

prove it.

and btw, you moved the goal posts from public officials to the POTUS.
Click to expand...

I didn't move anything, I responded directly to one of your posts. Please don't lie.

The President controls all the executive offices and personal. They follow his orders. He can not issue orders. He can order them NOT to do something. They can refuse if they want, and he can fire them. The Legislative branch through the Courts has a way to force the issue; but it takes that check and balance to enact.
 
Ikari said:
I didn't move anything, I responded directly to one of your posts. Please don't lie.

The President controls all the executive offices and personal. They follow his orders. He can not issue orders. He can order them NOT to do something. They can refuse if they want, and he can fire them. The Legislative branch through the Courts has a way to force the issue; but it takes that check and balance to enact.
Click to expand...

please show the part of the USC where it says Federal employees have the right to disobey & refuse to enforce those laws they consider to be unConstitutional.

thanks.
 
TurtleDude said:
its amazing when dealing with far lefties. They can find all sorts of reasons to hammer honest people who do something far lefties despise-own guns-but these same lefties spend all sorts of time whining about the rights of child molesters, bank robbers, and rapists

if its a no gun zone the cop who arrested him ought to be charged. There is NOTHING in the constitution that makes an exception for CIVILIAN police officers to have guns when other CIVILIANS Cannot.

a municipal government should be banned from preventing one group of civilians from not having the same weapons that the city issues other CIVILIANS
Click to expand...

You say sme of the most silly things I've ever read. You just make it up as you go along!

(chuckle)
 
Thunder said:
and for the 6.022e23 time, the USC does NOT say that public officials have the right to disobey & refuse to enforce those laws that they consider to be unConstitutional.

do you know what happens if a police officer refuses to obey an order that he feels violates the Constitution? he gets written up.

and if he does it again, he can be charged with insubordination. and if he keeps doing it, he can be fired.

and if he refuses to arrest someone for breaking a law that he considers to be unConstitutional, he himself can be charged with a crime.

so no, public officials do NOT have the right to simply decide to not enforce or not abide by a law they don't consider Constitutional.

sorry.
Click to expand...

It says they must take an oath to uphold the constitution, and once they have sworn this oath and taken office, they are duty bound to refuse to violate the constitution. You can read, can you not? What else could the language possibly mean?

If the federal government were to pass a law that was in blatant violation of the constitution, it would be the duty of judges, governors, and sheriffs in the several states to refuse to enforce it, and possibly prohibit federal agents from acting illegally against their citizens.

If the congress were to pass an illegal act, it would be the responsibility of the president to refuse to execute said illegal act.

The language is plain and direct. Every executive, legislative, and judicial officer must swear to uphold the constitution.
 
Centinel said:
It says they must take an oath to uphold the constitution, and once they have sworn this oath and taken office, they are duty bound to refuse to violate the constitution....
Click to expand...

and again, where does it say that they get to decide for themselves what is unConstitutional?
 
Thunder said:
and you provided NO evidence that the Constiution gives public officials the right to disobey & refuse to enforce those laws that they personally consider to be unConstitutional.

so like I said, we are at an impasse.
Click to expand...

They do not have the authority to disobey the Constitution. Period.

If obeying a lower law would, in their judgement, violate the Constitution, then their oath of office requires that they disobey that lower law. To do otherwise is to violate the Constitution, and to violate their oath to uphold the Constitution. Such a violation must never be considered acceptable under any circumstances.
 
Thunder said:
and again, where does it say that they get to decide for themselves what is unConstitutional?
Click to expand...

Where it requires them to uphold the constitution. To do so requires that they actually know what the constitution says. I imagine that's why it's written down.
 
Thunder said:
do you know what happens if a police officer refuses to obey an order that he feels violates the Constitution? he gets written up.

and if he does it again, he can be charged with insubordination. and if he keeps doing it, he can be fired.

and if he refuses to arrest someone for breaking a law that he considers to be unConstitutional, he himself can be charged with a crime.

so no, public officials do NOT have the right to simply decide to not enforce or not abide by a law they don't consider Constitutional.
Click to expand...

Not only do they have that right; they have that duty.

Do you know what the Fourth Nuremberg Principle is?
 
Thunder said:
and again, where does it say that they get to decide for themselves what is unConstitutional?
Click to expand...

By the way, you've stated before that the only people who can determine what is constitutional are federal judges. Where in the constitution does it say that federal judges get to decide for themselves what is unconstitutional?
 
Thunder said:
please show the part of the USC where it says Federal employees have the right to disobey & refuse to enforce those laws they consider to be unConstitutional.

thanks.
Click to expand...

You've been shown, several times, where the Constitution clearly requires all government officials to obey it. Pretending that you haven't only makes you look stupid and dishonest.
 
Thunder said:
yeah, I see we are going nowhere with this.
Click to expand...

mainly because you have a habit of dancing around the obvious. This law in DC is an abomination. you will spend hours trying to talk about when it can be declared unconstitutional without explaining why it is a good law (which you suggest it is)

I believe if Heller and McDonald are interpreted correctly, the DC gun laws are idiotic and will be struck down

of course, we never should have arrived at that point-if the SECOND AND NINTH AND TENTH amendments had been correctly interpreted rather than RAPED by the disgusting FDR administration, there would be NO federal gun laws (and DC laws are essentially federal)
 
TurtleDude said:
mainly because you have a habit of dancing around the obvious. This law in DC is an abomination. you will spend hours trying to talk about when it can be declared unconstitutional without explaining why it is a good law (which you suggest it is)

I believe if Heller and McDonald are interpreted correctly, the DC gun laws are idiotic and will be struck down

of course, we never should have arrived at that point-if the SECOND AND NINTH AND TENTH amendments had been correctly interpreted rather than RAPED by the disgusting FDR administration, there would be NO federal gun laws (and DC laws are essentially federal)
Click to expand...


So you argue that every government employee should be able to interpret Constitutional law while at the same time admitting that various jurists in the past have made interpretations you disagree with.


You know - maybe that "plain as day" language isn't all that clear when one needs to apply it to specific instances. It just might be the reason some folks spend years studying Constitutional Law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom