- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
However, grim's argument was that the cop's warnings were law and had to be followed as law. A cop's word is not law, the precedents and laws that the cop follows are law, and those must be in pursuance of the Constitution to be lawful.
Interestingly though, you are arguing a philosophical position that all unconstitutional laws are lawful until they are found to be unconstitutional by the courts.
In that sense I disagree. While the courts are the final arbiter of the law, each individual citizen in this country is responsible for assessing whether laws are lawful or unlawful.
I would gladly go to jail in protest of a law that is unconstitutional in order to have it tossed out by the courts. However, I would have to be incredibly certain of it.
Conservatives seem to argue that it is not a legitimate action to stand in violation of a law in order to have it overturned by the courts.
"In Pursuance thereof"
Why is that phrase so easily overlooked? What do you think that means?
A cops warnings have the power of law, as a cop is essentially entrusted with power under the law to be the defacto abjudicator
on site in regards to the law. His words are not "law" in the binding sense, however his words are backed and empowered by law. If a cop gives you a warning, lets say theoritically, to move away from an area due to a violation of the law he is within his rights to do so and is doing so with the full power vested upon him by the law. You can't hold up your constituion and go "NUH UH! Because this says I don't have to" because you have zero power to interprit the constitution in a legal sense. IE, HIS interpritation of the law...at that given point...is more accurately the "law" than YOUR interpritation of the constitution at that point.
Sure, every citizen is entitled to assess whether or not a law is constitutional or unconstitutional. However, their assessment is worth about as much as their opinion on whether or not the new Britney Spears song is good. They're free to assess it. However, unless they are able to prove their assessment is correct to a judge their assessment has absolutely zero baring on the law or the legality of action taken against them.
The same thing I've said from the very beginning. The constitution is the foundation for which the LAWS of the country must be built upon; that laws must fall within the scope of allowance set down by the provisions of the constitution.
I'm not quite sure why you're chastising people for overlooking things when you're asking me a question about something you've obviously overlooked when reading my posts. From post one I've stated that very thing.
Sigh...you changed your position and now you are reverting back to a prior position you had in this thread.
My position has been the same throughout the thread.
In a generalized sense you could say its the "supreme law of the land" in so much that its the foundation of our laws. In the sense you were seemingly using it in the thread that spurred this one, then no it would not be.
Where has my argument veered from that generalized statement?
...the "Supreme Law of the Land" is the Constitution + Laws + Treaties.
I have every right to refuse to comply with an officer's warnings and he has every right to arrest me for doing so.
I have a duty as a responsible citizen not to comply with unlawful laws and he has the responsibility to enforce them until they are found unlawful by the courts.
We can be perfectly respectful of each other in the process.
Not choosing to comply with the law is not an act of disrespect to him, but an act of respect to the Constitution of this country.
If I am wrong, then I have to face the consequences.
An officer never has to face the consequences of enforcing an unlawful law.
Sigh...you changed your position and now you are reverting back to a prior position you had in this thread.
Absolutlely. Never said you HAD to comply with an officer's warnings. I'm just saying don't try and tell me that its some kind of fact that your refusal to comply was actually more constitutional and more in line with "the law".
Well, I disagree here. I don't think a citizen has a DUTY to not comply with unlawful laws. I just think its within their right to non-comply as long as their non-compliance does not violate the rights of another and with the understanding that taking such action is inviting and accepting the immediete negative actions that will come from it.
True, that is possible.
The act of choosing is not inherently disrespectful. That doesn't mean the means of expressing it and the actions taken after that point aren't.
Actually, regardless as to whether or not you're right or wrong, you have to face SOME consequences. For example, if your non-compliance leads to you being arrested, you have to face and accept the consequence that your action is landing you in jail temporarily even before you're proven wrong or right.
Correct, an officer doesn't face consequences for enforcing UNCONSTITUTIONAL law, unless in doing so he actually acted unlawfully in the process. For instance, if a "protest zone" was passed into law and he gave you an order not to protest outside of it and you resisted and he arrested you, and later the "protest zone" is found unconstitutional, he shouldn't face consequences for enforcing it. However, if he beat you repeatedly while you gave no physical resistance, he should face conseqeunces for that because HE was acting illegally rather than acting legally enforcing an unconstitutional law.
I was stating that seems to be what the Constitution itself states on the matter.
I still would argue, in a general sense, that stating the Constitution is the "SLOTL" (because I don't want to keep typing that) is still reasonable since its still the foundation for which our Laws are built. However, I was just pointing out that even the Constitution doesn't agree with this notion that its somehow a forgone unquestionable fact that the constitution and only the constitution is the SLOTL. It seems to imply that it simply is one part of it.
All you need to read is page 1 to understand this debate.
CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING...
This entire thread was based on a dispute between CT and I on another thread about a statement he made. I suggest you read Zyphlin's post on the first page to fully understand the flaw in CT's beliefs, and why myself and others dispute the premise "The US Constitution the Supreme Law of the United States".
If that were the context in which I was arguing, then I would agree.
However, grim's argument was that the cop's warnings were law and had to be followed as law. A cop's word is not law, the precedents and laws that the cop follows are law, and those must be in pursuance of the Constitution to be lawful.
Interestingly though, you are arguing a philosophical position that all unconstitutional laws are lawful until they are found to be unconstitutional by the courts. In that sense I disagree. While the courts are the final arbiter of the law, each individual citizen in this country is responsible for assessing whether laws are lawful or unlawful. I would gladly go to jail in protest of a law that is unconstitutional in order to have it tossed out by the courts. However, I would have to be incredibly certain of it.
This seems to be the sticking point between conservatives and libertarians on this issue. Conservatives seem to argue that it is not a legitimate action to stand in violation of a law in order to have it overturned by the courts.
You are wrong. The police officially represent the law to the people and are fully authorized to do so. Society has agreed that right or wrong, people are obligated/required to respect and abide by the interpretation and enforcement of the law by police at point of contact (within reason of course). Disputing police interpretation and enforcement of the law at point of contact, is in of itself, against the law.
You are wrong. The police officially represent the law to the people and are fully authorized to do so. Society has agreed that right or wrong, people are obligated/required to respect and abide by the interpretation and enforcement of the law by police at point of contact (within reason of course). Disputing police interpretation and enforcement of the law at point of contact, is in of itself, against the law.
The legality and Constitutionality of the law, or the interpretation or enforcement by police at the point of contact of the law, is strictly a judicial matter.
That doesn't change the fact that a persons individual interpretation of the law, does not change the fact that the law exists, and that police are not only authorized, but duty-bound to enforce those laws... Nor does it change the fact that citizens are still obligated to respect and abide by police enforcement of the law.
Here's an example... Let's say you disagree with a law and refuse to comply with police. That leads to a physical confrontation with police when they attempt to enforce that law and you are arrested and charged with assault on a police officer. Even if you challenge the law in court, and the judge agrees with you and the law is repealed, you will still be tried and held accountable for assaulting a police officer. The ends do not justify the means my friend, and that's because whether a law is right or wrong... Constitutional or unconstitutional... you must abide by police and law enforcement.
Not true, but that isn't the issue here... Those kids weren't protesting to have the law they were violating overturned, they were protesting the actions of the university. Don't convolute things or attempt to turn this into something it's not.
dispute all you want.....
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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Nothing like ignoring context to score political points... I guess dishonesty is one of those "the ends justifies the means" things with the left that they are perfectly willing to engage in. That's not how I choose to be, but to each his own I guess.
You are wrong. The police officially represent the law to the people and are fully authorized to do so. Society has agreed that right or wrong, people are obligated/required to respect and abide by the interpretation and enforcement of the law by police at point of contact (within reason of course). Disputing police interpretation and enforcement of the law at point of contact, is in of itself, against the law.
The legality and Constitutionality of the law, or the interpretation or enforcement by police at the point of contact of the law, is strictly a judicial matter.
if the ends don't justify the means, why do you believe it was fine to use pepper spray? removing the protestors (ends) in no way justifies the means.
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...
/end thread
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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Yes, with the following understanding:
When the Supreme Court takes up a case, it does so in an attempt to determine the "constitutionality" of said law, not whether or not such a law was violated. However, as has already been pointed out our laws and ordiances are based on constitutional principles. Therefore, in that sense the root of all U.S. laws - federal, state or local - are derived from the guiding priciples of the Constitution. But yes, the Constitution is our nation's supreme law of the land because it lays the foundation for all other laws written by Congress, soverign states and local municipalities.
dispute all you want.....
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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Um, Liblady...
If you're going by this as proof, then the ansewr would be no to both Grim AND to the OP.
According to what you quoted, the Constitution is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land.
The Constitution AND the laws of the united states AND all the treaties of the United States are the Supreme Law of the Land.
Did you miss this "and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof" meaning laws made IN ACCORDANCE with the constitution, thus subjugating them to the constitution.
If that is the way you wish to define it then I question the constitutionality of police pepper spraying nonviolent protesters.
Technically though, the Constitution is the "law of the land" as is stated in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. All laws must be "pursuant thereof" the Constitution. If you wish to define that as a "guideline" rather than Constitutional law, then that is simply the semantic game of the day.
"The law of the land", as you put it, is a list of rules regarding what the government may or may not do. There are no laws in the Constitution.
If the Constitution forms the framework for all Government within the US, in fact if it is the framework upon which the nation was built, and all laws written and enforced by any level of government subject to that framework must comply with the strictures of the Constitution, how is it not the supreme/final word for all other laws? Failure to comply with the strictures of the Constitution makes any inferior law null and void, ergo the Constitution is supreme.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?