How should we respond to unConstitutional laws?

[Thunder]

And you claimed that they where constitutional!

please quote me where I specifically said that "these laws are Constitutional".

 

[ttwtt78640]

Because you believe that nine unelected officials should have more power than 536 elected ones.

Not MORE power but equal power, as granted by the constitution. When we get things like DOEd, the fastest growing, cabinet level, federal dept. that are completely beyond the bounds of the constitutionally granted federal powers, it is ONLY up to a 5/4 majority of our nine robed umpires to make that call. The states will not, since they are paid handsomely (via education aid to the states) to stay quiet, the 536 DC morons will not, since it is they that got this super-constitutional power by simply taking it. Other than the SCOTUS there is NO limit to federal power, so long as the states see a "cut of the action" or some benefit that outweighs the CURRENT federal strings attached to it.

 

[YoungConserv]

The fact is, many Americans consider ALL gun laws to be unConstitutional.

Many Americans consider ALL Federal income taxes to be unConstitutional.

Many Americans consider most protest & demonstration laws to be unConstitutional.

Many Americans consider all anti-discrimination laws to be unConstitutional.

so what do all these millions of people do? Simply not follow those laws?

attack a policeman who attempts to enforce such laws?

attack the politicians who voted for such laws?

clearly not.

Are you not arguing that here?

 

[Thunder]

Are you not arguing that here?

I made no argument regarding the Constitutionality of those laws.

 

[YoungConserv]

I made no argument regarding the Constitutionality of those laws.

You put yourself outside those who believe that they are unconstitutional so u must think are constitutional.

 

[Thunder]

You put yourself outside those who believe that they are unconstitutional so u must think are constitutional.

I have made NO claims as to the Constitutionality of the laws in the OP.

But you have, without any evidence.

 

[Longshot]

How should we respond to laws that we consider to be unConstitutional?

How should we respond to those who authored laws and voted for laws, that end up being deemed unConstitutional by a Federal court?

An act that is repugnant to the constitution is no law. The people should resist such acts by any means necessary.

 

[Thunder]

An act that is repugnant to the constitution is no law....

and who makes that decision?

the courts..or the mob?

 

[ttwtt78640]

and who makes that decision?

the courts..or the mob?

The quickest path to justice is to break the law. It seems that the president is NOW free to pick and choose which laws that he will enforce, does that not signal an opportunity for the citizens to pick and choose which laws that they will obey? It was cheered (by many) when blacks broke the unconstitutional segregation laws, perhaps some will choose to break the unconstituional "CCW permit" laws as well; do you think that they will be cheered as well?

 

[Longshot]

and who makes that decision?

the courts..or the mob?

The people.

 

[Thunder]

The people.

that sounds pretty vague, please elaborate.

 

[Longshot]

that sounds pretty vague, please elaborate.

The people of the states wrote, ratified, and therefore established the constitution between their respective states.

Ultimately, the people of the states are sovereign, and it is they who must decide whether the federal government is acting in accordance with their instructions.

 

[Thunder]

The people of the states wrote, ratified, and therefore established the constitution between their respective states.

Ultimately, the people of the states are sovereign, and it is they who must decide whether the federal government is acting in accordance with their instructions.

how many people?

 

[Longshot]

how many people?

Enough to make their decision matter, I suppose.

 

[Thunder]

Enough to make their decision matter, I suppose.

our nation has 330 million people.

how many of those folks are require to decide that a law violates the Constitution, and the rest of us are supposed to respect that decision?

 

[Longshot]

our nation has 330 million people.

how many of those folks are require to decide that a law violates the Constitution, and the rest of us are supposed to respect that decision?

I have no idea. Enough to make it matter, that's all I can say.

If, for example, the people in 45 of the states said, "You know, the federal government is not doing what we want, we're outta here." And they all declared that they are no longer in the union, I think the people in the rest of states would simply be left with a much smaller union. There wouldn't be much they could do about it.

It all depends on what the people decide to do and how many of them decide to do it. The people are sovereign. The federal government exists only because they want it to.

 

[Thunder]

I have no idea. Enough to make it matter, that's all I can say.....

that means nothing.

unless you are saying you want a small minority to be able to dictate to the much larger majority, which is what we had in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

 

[Longshot]

that means nothing.

unless you are saying you want a small minority to be able to dictate to the much larger majority, which is what we had in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

No, I'm saying that it was the people of the several states that established the constitution between their respective states, and they are ultimately the final judge of whether the federal government is acting in accordance with the constitution they ratified.

For example, the federal government passed the real id act, and the people of the states essentially said, "Um no." And the real id act for all intents and purposes was nullified by the people of the states.

The government can only act with the consent of the governed. If the governed remove their consent, then it doesn't matter what some government employee says; he will simply be ignored.