the forcefeeding of bills and acts, laws, mandates, regulations

[sKiTzo]

I'm so sick of hearing that such and such law was just signed and it violates the constitution, etc.
First of all, most, if not all of these laws that they churn out are serving some private interest. Here is my question: Since when did the constitution become negotiable? As far as I know, any legislation that attempts to alter your rights, as per the US constitution , would be totally INVALID. Am I wrong to think this?

 

[Kal'Stang]

I'm so sick of hearing that such and such law was just signed and it violates the constitution, etc.
First of all, most, if not all of these laws that they churn out are serving some private interest. Here is my question: Since when did the constitution become negotiable? As far as I know, any legislation that attempts to alter your rights, as per the US constitution , would be totally INVALID. Am I wrong to think this?

Bold: No you are not. But here is the problem. Our legislative body is not required to make sure that any law it passes is Constitutional. Nor does the President have to make sure that it is Constitutional. They leave that entirely up to the courts. Which ironically they only deal with it IF someone has standing and brings it before them. (and even then SCOTUS can decline to hear a case)

Personally I wonder just how many laws are on the books that if was ever heard before SCOTUS would be deemed un-constitutional. Unfortenately that is impossible to know for two reasons.

1: No one knows just how many laws are on the books. We also don't know how many laws our Legislative branch churns out...but it is estimated to be over a thousand per year last I heard.

2: Due to the shear number of laws in the US it is likely that SCOTUS won't hear a good majority of them until long after such laws have become useless.....if at all.

 

[sKiTzo]

Our legislative body is not required to make sure that any law it passes is Constitutional. Nor does the President have to make sure that it is Constitutional.

I have to point out here that the president is very much under oath to do his best to uphold the constitution, and signing such a bill is a clear display that he is not doing his best. He is, in effect, guilty of perjury. We should consider making an example of him.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I have to point out here that the president is very much under oath to do his best to uphold the constitution, and signing such a bill is a clear display that he is not doing his best. He is, in effect, guilty of perjury. We should consider making an example of him.

I agree. But the problem here is that no bill is legally considered unconstitutional until SCOTUS rules that it is. So in the President's case, by defending any bill which has not been deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, he is "upholding" the constitution by defending that bill. The Letter of the Law is being followed...but the Spirit of the Law is not.

 

[Centinel]

I'm so sick of hearing that such and such law was just signed and it violates the constitution, etc.
First of all, most, if not all of these laws that they churn out are serving some private interest. Here is my question: Since when did the constitution become negotiable? As far as I know, any legislation that attempts to alter your rights, as per the US constitution , would be totally INVALID. Am I wrong to think this?

Yes, only federal legislation that is made pursuant to the constitution is legitimate law.

The states created the federal government when they established the constitution between themselves. They have been very lax in ensuring that it only performs the duties for which it was created, and have generally done a very poor job of protecting their own citizens from unwarranted acts by the very agent they themselves created.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Bold: No you are not. But here is the problem. Our legislative body is not required to make sure that any law it passes is Constitutional. Nor does the President have to make sure that it is Constitutional. They leave that entirely up to the courts. Which ironically they only deal with it IF someone has standing and brings it before them. (and even then SCOTUS can decline to hear a case)

Personally I wonder just how many laws are on the books that if was ever heard before SCOTUS would be deemed un-constitutional. Unfortenately that is impossible to know for two reasons.

1: No one knows just how many laws are on the books. We also don't know how many laws our Legislative branch churns out...but it is estimated to be over a thousand per year last I heard.

2: Due to the shear number of laws in the US it is likely that SCOTUS won't hear a good majority of them until long after such laws have become useless.....if at all.

I take exception to that argument, since ALL federal officials swear an "oath of office" to respect the constitution and to uphold it. We have many laws that are clearly in direct violation of the constitution; my prime example is DOEd, the fastest growing, cabinet level, federal dept., yet education is NOT a federal power granted by the constitution, and many federal office candidates now even run as being the "education" candidate.

As you note, the SCOTUS must have cause (and time) to revue these statutes. What we need, IMHO, is a "fast track" to the SCOTUS so that any citizen may object directly to the SCOTUS, based on constitutional grounds, to any such law, rule or mandate made by the federal or state gov't in a timely manner.

We now simply accept state "gun control" or "CCW permits" as not being any "infringement" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is insane. That same thing (taking a class, passing a test and paying a large fee) was declared unconstitutional for the right to vote and should take about 30 minutes of SCOTUS time to plead the case, and perhaps a day to get a ruling. Yet it has not happened.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I have to point out here that the president is very much under oath to do his best to uphold the constitution, and signing such a bill is a clear display that he is not doing his best. He is, in effect, guilty of perjury. We should consider making an example of him.

The problem is in the mechanics. Only congress can bring these charges, and since a law must be passed by a majority of these morons to even get to the president, the odds of him being charged with (much less being found guilty of) an impeachable offense are near zero. We the sheeple are basically left only with slogging through the quagmire of the federal justice sysytem to get any chance of objection, eventually appealing it to the SCOTUS.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, only federal legislation that is made pursuant to the constitution is legitimate law.

The states created the federal government when they established the constitution between themselves. They have been very lax in ensuring that it only performs the duties for which it was created, and have generally done a very poor job of protecting their own citizens from unwarranted acts by the very agent they themselves created.

Not to metion stepping all over our constitution with state laws, e.g. "CCW permits".

 

[PirateMk1]

Not to metion stepping all over our constitution with state laws, e.g. "CCW permits".

The most direct way to change things is to get on a jury.

 

[specklebang]

We long ago abandoned the original constitution in favor of an Orwell lite Nanny State. We wanted "Law and Order" and "Cradle To Grave Security". Proof positive that you should be careful what you wish for.

Even at this minute, right and left, Repugnantcan or Democrap, Liberal or Conservative, we cry out for new laws to remake America in our own images.

Just wait, in another 10 years these days will seem like a time of freedom.

 

[Paschendale]

I'm so sick of hearing that such and such law was just signed and it violates the constitution, etc.
First of all, most, if not all of these laws that they churn out are serving some private interest. Here is my question: Since when did the constitution become negotiable? As far as I know, any legislation that attempts to alter your rights, as per the US constitution , would be totally INVALID. Am I wrong to think this?

You are wrong. Every single right outlined in the constitution can be infringed, so long as certain criteria are met. In many cases, these criteria are very difficult to meet, so infringement can only occur in the most stringent circumstances. But no right is absolute. Especially when one considers the maxim "my rights end where yours begin". I'm not really sure what specific issues you're talking about, but I wouldn't count on a lot of lay sources to actually understand what is and is not a constitutional right. Yeah, there are some laws that have been passed that are truly unconstitutional. The laws about detaining people without due process would be one such example.

But sweeping statements like this aren't particularly useful.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I take exception to that argument, since ALL federal officials swear an "oath of office" to respect the constitution and to uphold it. We have many laws that are clearly in direct violation of the constitution; my prime example is DOEd, the fastest growing, cabinet level, federal dept., yet education is NOT a federal power granted by the constitution, and many federal office candidates now even run as being the "education" candidate.

I agree that AFAIK there's nothing in the constitution for the federal government to have the DOED. But I do think that is the ONE thing which is a must. Education is too important to leave to just the States. And I do believe that we need it uniform through out the country as a whole. Knowledge is power and should be freely available to anyone and everyone. I do not wish to go back to the days when only the elite could get schooling.

I would fully support any amendment if, in the end, we must make one to support schools.

As you note, the SCOTUS must have cause (and time) to revue these statutes. What we need, IMHO, is a "fast track" to the SCOTUS so that any citizen may object directly to the SCOTUS, based on constitutional grounds, to any such law, rule or mandate made by the federal or state gov't in a timely manner.

I don't think a "fast track" is possible. Due to its very nature SCOTUS must remain the only one, so we can't institute more to relieve the pressure on them. And with so many laws it is impossible for them to hear every case fully in just one year. That's the main reason that they are able to decline to hear cases.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The most direct way to change things is to get on a jury.

LOL. With my views on the subject that is highly unlikely. If you are refering to 'jury nulification' that is very unlikely, I do however stand a chance to end up in front of a jury some day for not having a CCW permit, as I refuse to pay any state rent for my constitutional rights.

 

[makmugens]

The most direct way to change things is to get on a jury.

New executive orders and legislation are basically rubbing this out also. Look up the executive orders of the last decade. Makes the judge them by their actions, not by their words thing strike home.

We long ago abandoned the original constitution in favor of an Orwell lite Nanny State. We wanted "Law and Order" and "Cradle To Grave Security". Proof positive that you should be careful what you wish for.

Even at this minute, right and left, Repugnantcan or Democrap, Liberal or Conservative, we cry out for new laws to remake America in our own images.

Just wait, in another 10 years these days will seem like a time of freedom.

I find it humorous in a George Carlin way. They've somehow convinced people that there is a difference between red and blue on the core issues. Gay Rights...Gun Control...sure. Banks...the War...Go rub yourselves.

 

[PirateMk1]

You are wrong. Every single right outlined in the constitution can be infringed, so long as certain criteria are met. In many cases, these criteria are very difficult to meet, so infringement can only occur in the most stringent circumstances. But no right is absolute. Especially when one considers the maxim "my rights end where yours begin". I'm not really sure what specific issues you're talking about, but I wouldn't count on a lot of lay sources to actually understand what is and is not a constitutional right. Yeah, there are some laws that have been passed that are truly unconstitutional. The laws about detaining people without due process would be one such example.

But sweeping statements like this aren't particularly useful.

While you may be right regarding the fact that legaly speaking rights are not absolute, they are in fact absolute otherwise they would NOT be rights. They are absolute in regards to procecution by government, not your fellow citzens. Freedom of speech is a prime example. It takes 2 to comminicate. I can say all I want, but only you have the choice to listen to me. Only if I directly harm someone should I then be held to account. Cheers.

 

[PirateMk1]

Then exercise your right to silence. Jury duty is THE most direct way to exercise your power, period. Voting is like the lottery, you may win. you may not.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I agree that AFAIK there's nothing in the constitution for the federal government to have the DOED. But I do think that is the ONE thing which is a must. Education is too important to leave to just the States. And I do believe that we need it uniform through out the country as a whole. Knowledge is power and should be freely available to anyone and everyone. I do not wish to go back to the days when only the elite could get schooling.

I would fully support any amendment if, in the end, we must make one to support schools.



I don't think a "fast track" is possible. Due to its very nature SCOTUS must remain the only one, so we can't institute more to relieve the pressure on them. And with so many laws it is impossible for them to hear every case fully in just one year. That's the main reason that they are able to decline to hear cases.

With ideas like yours I can see why we are in trouble. The constitution is trumped by "good" ideas, with no need to amend it. If something is deemed "important" then it instantly becomes a federal power. If the SCOTUS decides that it is "too busy" then unconstitutional laws, rules and mandates are A-OK and anyone locked up, fined or having their property taken for breaking them is just plain SOL. What a great system we have going on here. USA, USA, USA...

 

[Kal'Stang]

With ideas like yours I can see why we are in trouble. The constitution is trumped by "good" ideas, with no need to amend it. If something is deemed "important" then it instantly becomes a federal power. If the SCOTUS decides that it is "too busy" then unconstitutional laws, rules and mandates are A-OK and anyone locked up, fined or having their property taken for breaking them is just plain SOL. What a great system we have going on here. USA, USA, USA...

Education is the only thing that I would allow. And the reason is very simple. With an education anyone and everyone can tell whether the government is following the Constitution and not trying to screw us. It also applies to others also but the one I'm more concerned about is the government.

As for SCOTUS, there really isn't anything that can be done.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Education is the only thing that I would allow. And the reason is very simple. With an education anyone and everyone can tell whether the government is following the Constitution and not trying to screw us. It also applies to others also but the one I'm more concerned about is the government.

As for SCOTUS, there really isn't anything that can be done.

All states provide a free public K-12 education and had done so long before the federal DOEd popped into existance. The founding fathers wisely decided that local and state control of education is easier for the people to control. Education predated the constitution and thus was not unknown to its writers. We need to amend the constitution if you wish to make education a federal power, and respomsibility. BTW, are the states just "making nice" and raising their own taxes to support education? If education is a federal power, then it is also a federal responsibility to fund it ALL, so any state could then simply ignore funding it, like they now do for immigration and border control. Having 'super constitutional' powers gradually taken over by the federal gov't, like DOEd, is dangerous in that light, as they may rightly decide to cut federal education funding to any state that acts in a way that displeases the federal gov't (vouchers in LA?). Remember those moronic federal "drive 55" laws (in the 1970's) that denied federal highway funding to any state that did not lower their maximum speed limit to 55mph (and actually enforce it)? The higher the level of gov't the greater the separation from the voter to their elected representative is. You see federal education aid as "good", like many states now do, only because the benefits (free money) outweigh the control, yet also remember that may change in an instant, with NO legal recourse, since the constitution does not guarantee a state any federal education funding, it just "is", and thus may be legally ceased at any time.

 

[sKiTzo]

Is there any law against making a citizen's arrest on Obama? I'm charging him with perjury.

The problem is in the mechanics. Only congress can bring these charges, and since a law must be passed by a majority of these morons to even get to the president, the odds of him being charged with (much less being found guilty of) an impeachable offense are near zero. We the sheeple are basically left only with slogging through the quagmire of the federal justice sysytem to get any chance of objection, eventually appealing it to the SCOTUS.

 

[makmugens]

You are wrong. Every single right outlined in the constitution can be infringed, so long as certain criteria are met. In many cases, these criteria are very difficult to meet, so infringement can only occur in the most stringent circumstances. But no right is absolute. Especially when one considers the maxim "my rights end where yours begin". I'm not really sure what specific issues you're talking about, but I wouldn't count on a lot of lay sources to actually understand what is and is not a constitutional right. Yeah, there are some laws that have been passed that are truly unconstitutional. The laws about detaining people without due process would be one such example.

But sweeping statements like this aren't particularly useful.

To go further, every single right is a right only so long as it is successfully enforced which means they are not rights and they barely 'exist'. It is the force that exists and decides. Therefore, when the dominant force in your society decides that...say..you don't have a right to your kids, or you don't have a right to yor home, hire all the lawyers you want. They are going to take them. Why...because lawyers are also employees of the state justice system. In the end, they cannot conflict with their rule either.

Education is the only thing that I would allow. And the reason is very simple. With an education anyone and everyone can tell whether the government is following the Constitution and not trying to screw us. It also applies to others also but the one I'm more concerned about is the government.

Education, in that regard, is overrated. Consider today. Today, most people know the government is not following the Constitution. Most people know the government is doing bad things, that they lie and sneak. It's why it is a major theme in TV shows and books. Just because they know the government is doing wrong doesn't mean they revolt. In fact, people have lived under terribly oppressive regimes for very long periods of time and it is never really the public who revolt but a small group among the public that decide to do so. The reason...it's almost kind of psychological. The same way there can be group rage, their is this collective fear of charging the shield-wall regardless of your numbers. It's find to get all roused up about it from a distance, but the closer and closer you get the more and more fear builds up until you are just paralyzed and unable to proceed further. That shield wall is the government or whatever controls your society. Well-equipped, well-trained, and absolutely willing to break you to the man to re-establish order and control.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Is there any law against making a citizen's arrest on Obama? I'm charging him with perjury.

Yes, you may make a citizen's arrest only for violent felonies. It is kidnapping, for example, to attempt hold a driver, that has crashed into your car, at gunpoint to prevent them from leaving the scene of a traffic accident, without first giving you license, insurance and registration information, even though the law requires that the driver must do so.

 

[Tigger]

Here is my question: Since when did the constitution become negotiable?

You can thank a Mr. Lincoln of Illinois (R - Springfield) for that.

 

[makmugens]

You can thank a Mr. Lincoln of Illinois (R - Springfield) for that.

Old Abe? Why?

 

[Tigger]

Old Abe? Why?

He was really the first one to take the Constitution to the outhouse and use it like toilet paper. Especially when it came to the Spirit of the document beyond the Letter of its wording.