'No-refusal' DUI checkpoint in place tonight

[Ikari]

Oh lord do I need to draw a flow chart for you.

The people... elect "representatives".

These "Representatives" write/vote upon/and create "laws".

These "laws" are then enforced by "law enforcement officers"

These "law enforcement officers" are given the authority to act upon a certain situation based upon whether or not a "law" exists allowing them to do so.


Are you keeping up?

The government, which cops are a part of, draws all power, authority and legitimacy from the People. Can you keep up with that? The government is only in power so long as the People are in power. Cops gain all their power and authority through the People. If the people remove their consent, the government looses all authority.

This is the problem with Statists, you don't remember where all power and sovereignty is actually rooted. When the authority begins to forget where power actually lies you have a real problem and have to start considering violent actions against the government.

 

[Caine]

...and there's never been a single law that was ruled unconstitutional, right?

Again, just because something has been voted into law, that doesn't make it right.

Are YOU keeping up?

No, unfortunately that doesn't make it "right". But that doesn't matter. A law enforcement officer's job is to enforce "laws". Thus they are given the authority to act upon a certain situation if the law is there.

Are you keeping up with the original purpose for this line of posting... you might want to go back and check where this all stemmed from, I think you are getting off track.

 

[Caine]

The government, which cops are a part of, draws all power, authority and legitimacy from the People. Can you keep up with that? The government is only in power so long as the People are in power. Cops gain all their power and authority through the People. If the people remove their consent, the government looses all authority.

This is the problem with Statists, you don't remember where all power and sovereignty is actually rooted. When the authority begins to forget where power actually lies you have a real problem and have to start considering violent actions against the government.

Yet our government is not, and has never been run the way you posted.

Can you point out the problem with my "flow chart" that you disagree with when it comes to reality?

 

[Ikari]

Yet our government is not, and has never been run the way you posted.

Can you point out the problem with my "flow chart" that you disagree with when it comes to reality?

Yet our government was founded exactly the way I posted it. Maybe history isn't your strong suit, or as a Statist maybe things like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution aren't your strong suit. But all government draws its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. All power granted to the government is granted to the government by the people. Including the power to make law and maintain a police force. In reality while government crafts law and law enforcement enforces it; they cannot have that power without the People.

Statists are very dangerous folk. They don't understand the concepts of freedom and liberty and define all "correct" action as action which is promoted by the State. Statists get shot from time to time for the necessity of maintaining freedom.

 

[AndrewC23]

The government, which cops are a part of, draws all power, authority and legitimacy from the People. Can you keep up with that? The government is only in power so long as the People are in power. Cops gain all their power and authority through the People. If the people remove their consent, the government looses all authority.

This is the problem with Statists, you don't remember where all power and sovereignty is actually rooted. When the authority begins to forget where power actually lies you have a real problem and have to start considering violent actions against the government.

Mmmm I wouldn't say that really the only part of government people have to do with is electing people to congress and the house of representatives after they're elected they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want and don't really have to listen to anything we tell them we want them to do.

 

[Ikari]

Mmmm I wouldn't say that really the only part of government people have to do with is electing people to congress and the house of representatives after they're elected they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want and don't really have to listen to anything we tell them we want them to do.

Well that's a problem. Should the government stop acting in our interests and against our rights and liberties; it is our right and duty to do away with that government. Government is not an entity which exists on its own. You don't find it wild in the forest or anything like that. Government is a creation of man, and man empowers it. It only exists as long as man lets it exist. The People of any particular country have that control. All government derives its legitimacy through the consent of the governed.

 

[AndrewC23]

I know and they have been doing this for a long time...Haha yes this this was exactly my point on the 2nd amendment thread

 

[Ikari]

I know and they have been doing this for a long time...Haha yes this this was exactly my point on the 2nd amendment thread

Is it broken? Do you think the People cannot exert control any longer over the government? If you say yes to these, you're only viable option is to revolt.

 

[AndrewC23]

What I am saying is that they can if the right to bear arms is unregluated as it was intended to be by the founding fathers the second amendment was written so that people would have protection from their government...

 

[Caine]

Yet our government was founded exactly the way I posted it. Maybe history isn't your strong suit, or as a Statist maybe things like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution aren't your strong suit. But all government draws its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. All power granted to the government is granted to the government by the people. Including the power to make law and maintain a police force. In reality while government crafts law and law enforcement enforces it; they cannot have that power without the People.

Statists are very dangerous folk. They don't understand the concepts of freedom and liberty and define all "correct" action as action which is promoted by the State. Statists get shot from time to time for the necessity of maintaining freedom.

Apparently you missed the part where I discussed the people electing their representatives......

 

[AndrewC23]

People elect representatives but once those representatives have that office they no longer have to do anything that the people say...

 

[Caine]

People elect representatives but once those representatives have that office they no longer have to do anything that the people say...

Of course they do, or they don't get re-elected.

If they do get re-elected, they are apparently doing what the majority of their constituents say.

 

[AndrewC23]

Of course they do, or they don't get re-elected.

If they do get re-elected, they are apparently doing what the majority of their constituents say.

Well the majority of their constituents could be the KKK or maybe they became a representative just for their own selfish reasons

 

[winston53660]

Of course they do, or they don't get re-elected.

If they do get re-elected, they are apparently doing what the majority of their constituents say.

And if the majority says nuke 'em. Should we?

 

[Caine]

And if the majority says nuke 'em. Should we?

If that isn't an extremely ignorant question I don't know what is.

 

[AndrewC23]

Well in southern states the majority might be racist...does that mean representatives should enact racist legislation?

 

[Caine]

Well in southern states the majority might be racist...does that mean representatives should enact racist legislation?

In northern states the majority might be racist...does that mean representatives should enact racist legislation?

 

[AndrewC23]

Well no but once again that is the point representatives can go their own way whether they want to get re-elected or not. Some people become representatives in order to enact legislation that is favorable to them or their own particular group...once again for their own selfish reasons.

 

[The_Patriot]

No, unfortunately that doesn't make it "right". But that doesn't matter. A law enforcement officer's job is to enforce "laws". Thus they are given the authority to act upon a certain situation if the law is there.

Are you keeping up with the original purpose for this line of posting... you might want to go back and check where this all stemmed from, I think you are getting off track.

Actually, police officers, like all government officials, must swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of their own state while bearing true faith to the same. Here's the one for Maryland.

“I swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland and support the Constitution and laws thereof; and that I will, to the best of my skill and judgment diligently and faithfully, without partiality or prejudice, execute the office of police officer according to the Constitution and laws of this State.”

If there is an unjust law on the books, the police are obligated to ignore it and not enforce it just like other government officials are to uphold their end of the bargain.

 

[Caine]

Actually, police officers, like all government officials, must swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of their own state while bearing true faith to the same. Here's the one for Maryland.



If there is an unjust law on the books, the police are obligated to ignore it and not enforce it just like other government officials are to uphold their end of the bargain.

Law Enforcement are not judicial officials, nor are they experts in constitutional law.
The best way to get a criminal law in front of a judicial official that can declare a law or procedure of law unconstitutional is by enforcing the laws and thereby putting it in the court for appeals to bring the constitutionality of the law into question.

 

[The_Patriot]

Law Enforcement are not judicial officials, nor are they experts in constitutional law.
The best way to get a criminal law in front of a judicial official that can declare a law or procedure of law unconstitutional is by enforcing the laws and thereby putting it in the court for appeals to bring the constitutionality of the law into question.

Judicial review is an appeal to authority and not a valid argument. Anyone can decide what is Constitutional or not. Police and all government officials are bound by oath to adhere to the Constitution and bear true faith to the same, so yes police and government officials must be well versed in what is a constitutional law. Their oath demands it. Also, judicial review was a power seized by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison and runs contrary to what the Constitution actually says since it is not an explicit power. The only Constitutional way for the Supreme Court to have that power is to have an amendment passed or to have Congress pass a law that allows it.

A final comment regarding stare decisis, it is not something to be relied upon since the court can and have changed its opinion regarding what is the law and what isn't. I'll give you the legal definition of stare decisis from the 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon.

To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports.

 

[OldDominionWhig]

Judicial review is an appeal to authority and not a valid argument. Anyone can decide what is Constitutional or not. Police and all government officials are bound by oath to adhere to the Constitution and bear true faith to the same, so yes police and government officials must be well versed in what is a constitutional law. Their oath demands it. Also, judicial review was a power seized by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison and runs contrary to what the Constitution actually says since it is not an explicit power. The only Constitutional way for the Supreme Court to have that power is to have an amendment passed or to have Congress pass a law that allows it.

Interesting that you would use Marbury v. Madison as an example of “a power seized by the Supreme Court… and runs contrary to what the Constitution actually says since it is not an explicit power.” I say it is interesting considering the Constitution explicitly established the Supreme Court to hear such cases as the one brought by William Marbury.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls , and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

Equally interesting is your statement to admonishing government officials to “adhere to the Constitution and bear true faith to the same…” and follow with a strongly worded critique of a case decided by the Supreme Court found James Madison, President Jefferson’s Secretary of State, did not adhere to the Constitution when he denied William Marbury his appointment by the previous Presidential administration (President Adams) to the office of Justice of the Peace for Washington County (D.C.).

Here is a link to the case ruling MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U. S. 137 :: Volume 5 :: 1803 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. In the ruling Chief Justice Marshall speaks to the oaths taken by judges to the Constitution and the supremacy of the Constitution.

The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable…
…it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? … Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government?...

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

Chief Justice Marshall closes the opinion with the following:

…a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

With all due respect, it is difficult to understanding how you could be at such odds with a decision which supports your very belief that public officials are bound by oath to adhere to the Constitution in the disposition of the official duties.

 

[deltabtry]

Actually, police officers, like all government officials, must swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of their own state while bearing true faith to the same. Here's the one for Maryland.

If there is an unjust law on the books, the police are obligated to ignore it and not enforce it just like other government officials are to uphold their end of the bargain

.

I totally agree and like the military when a officer or enlistee are issued a unlawful order these individuals are not obligated to follow it, they obligated to protest it to a higher authority. In our form of government the highest authority are the people.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

I heard that people who oppose drunk driving restrictions all have tiny penises.

Prove me wrong!

You want a close up or a panoramic view?

 

[The_Patriot]

Interesting that you would use Marbury v. Madison as an example of “a power seized by the Supreme Court… and runs contrary to what the Constitution actually says since it is not an explicit power.” I say it is interesting considering the Constitution explicitly established the Supreme Court to hear such cases as the one brought by William Marbury.

Equally interesting is your statement to admonishing government officials to “adhere to the Constitution and bear true faith to the same…” and follow with a strongly worded critique of a case decided by the Supreme Court found James Madison, President Jefferson’s Secretary of State, did not adhere to the Constitution when he denied William Marbury his appointment by the previous Presidential administration (President Adams) to the office of Justice of the Peace for Washington County (D.C.).

Here is a link to the case ruling MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U. S. 137 :: Volume 5 :: 1803 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. In the ruling Chief Justice Marshall speaks to the oaths taken by judges to the Constitution and the supremacy of the Constitution.


Chief Justice Marshall closes the opinion with the following:

With all due respect, it is difficult to understanding how you could be at such odds with a decision which supports your very belief that public officials are bound by oath to adhere to the Constitution in the disposition of the official duties.

The power of interpretation is the one that was seized by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. It is not listed as a power of the judiciary. This is what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the matter in a letter to Abigail Madison while he was president.

The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

You cannot argue against the facts presented about the seizure of power. Was Chief Justice Marshall upholding and bearing true faith to the Constitution of the United States when he seized the power of judicial review? No, since the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court or any court the power to determine what is Constitutional and what isn't. Court cases prior to the ruling were done to see if a suit was in violation of the law or not. It had nothing to do with judicial review.

Going further into the specifics of the case, Madison argued that Congress could add to the Supreme Court's power using Article III Section II Clause II as a basis.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Justice Marshall disagreed with the plain text of the Constitution and went with his opinion that is contrary to what is actually written. Congress has oversight of the Judicial Branch and can make any laws necessary for it to function. To add to this, Justice Marshall was in conflict of interest and should have recused himself from the case since when the commissions were issued he was still Secretary of State under President John Adams. He continued to act as Secretary of State while he was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court up until March of 1801.