How should we respond to unConstitutional laws?

[ttwtt78640]

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, that means it has the utmost priority of being obeyed first and that lower laws can not contradict the Constitution. If a law is blatantly unconstitutional then that law is illegal.As such that illegal law should be ignored. Politcians who blantantly ignore the supreme law of the land should be severely punished.That punishment should be seven years in prison and them permanent exiled to the worst country. This lets create a blatantly unconstitutional law and see if it will be struck down in 30-40 years has got to stop. Politcians should actually be afraid to write a unconstitutional law.

OK, but HOW? Clearly the federal DOEd (entirely) is unconstitutional, as education is not a federal power granted by the constitution, yet it is the fastest growing, cabinet level, federal department - now supplying about 10% of state budget funding via federal "educaion aid". The states will not sue as they depend on this "free money" and, so far, they see the benefit as outweighing the "strings" attached. Once a federal law or program is in place it is VERY hard to get all of that toothpaste back into the tube. ;-)

 

[jet57]

No law should be passed unless it has been shown to be constitutional first.

 

[Thunder]

No law should be passed unless it has been shown to be constitutional first.

do you understand how long that might take?

do you understand how many laws exist in the USA?

 

[jet57]

do you understand how long that might take?

do you understand how many laws exist in the USA?

Of course; but that's not the point.

 

[Thunder]

Of course; but that's not the point.

well, it SHOULD be.

wanting to check the Constitutionality of ALL future laws in EVERY state before they are enforced, and retroactively checking the Constitutionality of ALL existing state, federal, and local laws.......is another word for complete & utter gridlock of society.

 

[jet57]

well, it SHOULD be.

wanting to check the Constitutionality of ALL future laws in EVERY state before they are enforced, and retroactively checking the Constitutionality of ALL existing state, federal, and local laws.......is another word for complete & utter gridlock of society.

Gridlock shouldn't enter into it: we put people on the moon, so this should be a snap.

 

[Thunder]

Gridlock shouldn't enter into it: we put people on the moon, so this should be a snap.

right...in a perfect utopia that doesn't exist.

 

[jet57]

right...in a perfect utopia that doesn't exist.

It does if we want it to.

 

[Ikari]

do you understand how long that might take?

That's good argument for doing so then.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Also, the Supreme Court can interpret an amendment any way it wants. Look what they've done to the first ten amendments. We only need one amendment, taking away the right of the Supreme Court to cancel laws made by the representatives elected by the people. So the only debate about a law should be whether it is good for the country, not whether it is Constitutional.

so the congress can blatently abuse the constitution instead? how would this be any better?

 

[jamesrage]

do you understand how long that might take?

do you understand how many laws exist in the USA?

It shouldn't matter how long it might take.Most elected officials when sworn into office must swear to support and defend the constitution. that means they have a duty to make sure a law they pass does not violate the constitution.

 

[ttwtt78640]

well, it SHOULD be.

wanting to check the Constitutionality of ALL future laws in EVERY state before they are enforced, and retroactively checking the Constitutionality of ALL existing state, federal, and local laws.......is another word for complete & utter gridlock of society.

What? Are you kidding me? So a law requiring taking a class, passing a test and paying a large fee for a "go to church permit" is a good idea? Oh wait, that is only for a "gun carrying permit", so it is OK. LOL

 

[rocket88]

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, that means it has the utmost priority of being obeyed first and that lower laws can not contradict the Constitution. If a law is blatantly unconstitutional then that law is illegal.As such that illegal law should be ignored. Politcians who blantantly ignore the supreme law of the land should be severely punished.That punishment should be seven years in prison and them permanent exiled to the worst country. This lets create a blatantly unconstitutional law and see if it will be struck down in 30-40 years has got to stop. Politcians should actually be afraid to write a unconstitutional law.

DOMA is unconstitutional. Should the entire GOP be exiled?

 

[American]

DOMA is unconstitutional. Should the entire GOP be exiled?

Should Bill Clinton be exiled?

 

[NAKED N00B]

Well, constitutionally, it's the job of the judicial branch to make the decision of its constitutionality. Not the job of the people, the legislators, the executive, or anyone else. By allowing individuals to not follow laws they interpret as unconstitutional, you're unconstitutionally taking power from all three branches of government. By holding legislators accountable for constitutionality, you're throwing off the balance of powers.

I don't really understand why this is a question.

 

[zstep18]

Also, the Supreme Court can interpret an amendment any way it wants.

No, the Supreme Court can't just interpret anyway it wants. There are things, such as precedent, which guide its decision making.

 

[Centinel]

How unconstitutional are we talking about? If it's death camps, then you react through violence and revolution. If it's improper law that doesn't necessarily rob the individual of life, liberty, or property then it can be a slower response either through the election of officials, petitioning the legislature, protest, etc.

I agree that the response should be in proportion to the infraction, as well as who is violating the constitution. If the federal government acts in an unconstitutional manner, it is up to the states to prevent the unwarranted acts. In Federalist 46 Madison proposes that the states themselves represent the final bulwark against encroachments by the federal government:

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other.

 

[American]

Well, constitutionally, it's the job of the judicial branch to make the decision of its constitutionality. Not the job of the people, the legislators, the executive, or anyone else. By allowing individuals to not follow laws they interpret as unconstitutional, you're unconstitutionally taking power from all three branches of government. By holding legislators accountable for constitutionality, you're throwing off the balance of powers.

I don't really understand why this is a question.

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

 

[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.

Show me how those laws aren't unconstitutional?

 

[Thunder]

Show me how those laws aren't unconstitutional?

actually, if you think they are unConstitutional, its your burden to prove it.

I don't have to prove a negative.

 

[YoungConserv]

actually, if you think they are unConstitutional, its your burden to prove it.

I don't have to prove a negative.

Actually supreme court demands that any law limiting freedom must be proved necessary and carried out in the least invasive means possible so your turn genius.

 

[Thunder]

Actually supreme court demands that any law limiting freedom must be proved necessary and carried out in the least invasive means possible so your turn genius.

either way, its your claim that they are unConstitutional, so its your burden to show how & why.

I await your argument.

 

[YoungConserv]

either way, its your claim that they are unConstitutional, so its your burden to show how & why.

I await your argument.

No it's the governments burden to show that they are not unconstitutional as they are the ones taking freedoms from me. I await your argument for why they are constitutional.

 

[Thunder]

No it's the governments burden to show that they are not unconstitutional as they are the ones taking freedoms from me. I await your argument for why they are constitutional.

I'm sorry, but this is YOUR claim...so its YOUR burden. Not mine.

Show me how those laws aren't unconstitutional?

Its a logical fallacy to demand someone prove a negative, and I won't do it.

 

[YoungConserv]

I'm sorry, but this is YOUR claim...so its YOUR burden. Not mine.



Its a logical fallacy to demand someone prove a negative, and I won't do it.

And you claimed that they where constitutional!