[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse"

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Bush Says No National Right to Gun Ownership?
Source: The Shooters Log
URL Source: http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/jeb ... snonationalrighttogunownership
Published: Nov 15, 2015
Author: Dave Dolbee
Post Date: 2015-11-15 17:52:30 by Don
Keywords: None
Views: 30264
Comments: 205

Bush Says No National Right to Gun Ownership?

By Dave Dolbee published on November 10, 2015 in News

Jeb Bush recently made an appearance on the The Late Show with Stephen Colbert when the subject of whether there is a national right to gun ownership came up. Bush’s answer may be concerning to many, but let’s reserve judgment until we look at the entire story. However, whether his answer was his true opinion or a gaff, is concerning.

During the interview, Colbert asked a written-in question regarding the Constitution and whether it implied a national right to gun ownership. Jeb Bush, a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, veered a bit off course when his answer drifted to the Tenth Amendment and a state’s right to legislate gun ownership.

The question was a bit of a gotcha and certainly anti-Second Amendment in its nature. Jeb handled it well talking about how Florida was a pro-Second Amendment state under his leadership and to keep the guns out of hands of criminals or the mentally ill, they had background checks. He went on to say the common root of mass shootings was almost always proven to be mental illness. However, it was in the follow-up question that Jeb might have taken a left turn.

Second Amendment

Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t the way that is also be applied be national?

Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily… There’s a Tenth Amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a Tenth Amendment that powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well.

On the face, that is pretty damning to the argument of whether the Second Amendment is a right or privilege. Jeb’s campaign quickly got out in front of the issue with a clarification. The clarification reiterated that Jeb is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Jeb’s argument was that states should be able to use the Tenth Amendment to pass laws that expand gun rights—but that is double-edged sword.

Governor Bush is a strong Second Amendment advocate and reiterated his view that the federal government should not be passing new gun control laws. He believes in states rights and as Governor of Florida, he used the Tenth Amendment to expand gun rights with a “Six Pack of Freedom” bill and received an A+ rating from the NRA.

A Double-Edged Sword…

While I like the federal government not being able to limit my rights, I do not favor a state being able to limit my rights. One of my degrees is in political science and I have taken more than a couple of classes on the Constitution and Constitutional law. That being said, I am far from a Constitutional scholar.

However, I believe I understand a bit of where Jeb was trying to get to. The states are supposed to have as much power as the federal government—this is the heart of the federal system. According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

So, how can using the Tenth Amendment to give states’ rights allow those same states to regulate the Second Amendment? Isn’t that the purpose of the Bill of Rights? Doesn’t the Bill of Rights grant you and me specific rights that shall not be infringed? Do states have the power to expand or limit freedom of speech or unlawful search or seizure? Both the federal government and the state must respect the Bill of Rights.

In hindsight, like I have already stated, I can see where he was trying to go with his argument. The court has allowed the states some latitude to pass and enforce certain laws regulating firearms. At that point, the common belief that the Second Amendment is an absolute right is moot. Perhaps the best way to expand our Second Amendment rights is through the states. It is not perfect, but there is less risk of an all out gun ban that way.

You’ll have to decide for yourself what Jeb really meant. In the end, we all wish Jeb had said the Second Amendment is a Constitutional right and neither a federal nor a state government has the power to limit that right. Whether or not he could have backed that up in front of the Supreme Court, is the attitude most, if not all, of us would like him to have taken.

I am sure most of you have already picked out your preferred candidate. I am not trying to sway your opinion toward or against any particular candidate or party. However, on the subject of the Second Amendment and gun rights, where does the state under the Tenth Amendment or the federal government’s authority end? Where should it end?

Share your answers or opinions regarding Jeb’s answer of the Tenth Amendment in the comment section.

Share This!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-144) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#145. To: sneakypete (#141)

You count on big government to spread your perversion.

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   9:57:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#146. To: Roscoe (#145)
(Edited)

You count on big government to spread your perversion.

Is that you,Yu-Tard?

Out of rehab again?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-18   10:08:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#147. To: sneakypete (#146)

You worship THE government.

A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   10:11:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#148. To: Roscoe (#147)

You worship THE government.

You just have to keep insisting over and over that you are a world-class fool,don't you?

YOU are the one saying cops can't be disarmed,*I* am the one saying they CAN be disarmed BECAUSE they are agents of the government,and the government is NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment or any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights,yet you keep insisting *I* am the one that loves Big Government.

You make Goober Gore and Barry Obomber look intelligent by comparison.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-18   13:14:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#149. To: misterwhite (#140)

Funny. (And what a great move by Kelley.)

I liked the faces Ciera was making. If the nine had organized and split their vote 6-3 or 5-4, they could have succeeded in taking out one of the target three, despite the idol.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   13:25:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#150. To: tpaine (#133)

SCOTUS makes a lot of stupid opinions. Too bad you aren't smart enough to understand that...

I'm smart enough to understand that their "stupid" opinions count and your stupid opinions do not.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   13:27:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#151. To: nolu chan (#149)

"If the nine had organized and split their vote 6-3 or 5-4"

I couldn't believe they didn't split the vote. What were they thinking?

I don't think Ciera is long for this world. Abi got smart and shut up.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-18   14:11:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#152. To: sneakypete, Roscoe (#148)

YOU are the one saying cops can't be disarmed,*I* am the one saying they CAN be disarmed BECAUSE they are agents of the government,and the government is NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment or any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights,yet you keep insisting *I* am the one that loves Big Government.

Roscoe is right, you are wrong. The Second Amendment applies to government employees and active duty military. The entire Bill of Rights applies to government agents and employees. The First Amendment right to free speech. The Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful search and seizure. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The First Amentment starts, "Congress shall make no law...." It explicitly applies to the government and its agents.

Heck, a better example of an RKBA exception is prison inmates. We would not want them packing heat.

The RKBA may not be infringed.

The RKBA is not a right to keep and bear arms under any and all circumstances. It was not such a right under English common law for the colonists, and it was not such a right when brought into the states by the former colonists.

The RKBA has exceptions as provided by law since before there was a United States. It has never protected a right for prison inmates to keep and bear arms.

If you are an employee, your employer can prohibit the bearing of arms while acting as an employee. If Wal*Mart prohibits its employees from carrying at work, it would not infer the 2nd Amendment does not apply to them. It would mean that the RKBA does not provide the right under the circumstances. It is not an infringement of the RKBA, when the right does not exist under the circumstances.

The RKBA in Federal facilities is restricted by Federal law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 930

18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—

(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;

(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

[snip]

During the administration of G.H.W. Bush:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf

DOD Directive 5210-56 (25 Feb 1992) Use of Deadly Force and the Carrying of Firearms by DoD Personnel Engaged in Law Enforcement and Security Duties

D. POLICY

It is DoD Policy:

1. To limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel. The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm shall be made considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. DoD personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be armed. Procedures on authorization to carry and the carrying of firearms are in enclosure 1.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   14:24:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#153. To: nolu chan (#150)

SCOTUS makes a lot of stupid opinions. Too bad you aren't smart enough to understand that...

I'm smart enough to understand that their "stupid" opinions count and your stupid opinions do not.

Below is an opinion that I agree with, --- do you?

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that; ----

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

- See more at: caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- court/5/137.html#sthash.xshj4p5F.dpuf

tpaine  posted on  2015-11-18   14:29:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#154. To: sneakypete (#148)

YOU are the one saying cops can't be disarmed,*I* am the one saying they CAN be disarmed BECAUSE they are agents of the government

There you go with that "the government" tell again.

In Federalist No. 45, Madison wrote: "The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

Why are you so obsessed with wanting to abolish our nation's system of multiple governments? Is it that you hate the framers? Is it that nobody ever took the time to explain the United States' Constitution to you and now you're too embarrassed to admit it? Please, explain yourself.

A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   15:48:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#155. To: nolu chan (#152)

Roscoe is right, you are wrong. The Second Amendment applies to government employees and active duty military.

You are as full of shit as a Christmas goose.

Government employees,including cops and military members only have rights when they are off-duty and out of uniform.

I PERSONALLY know of a senior NCO at Fort Bragg that had his company commander (a LTC) confiscate his privately-owned guns from his off-base house after he was arrested for drunk driving off base.

This same company commander put the word out that he would court-martial any man in his company that was caught on Bragg with a privately owned weapon in his possession,even if it was in a car,and even if they had a NC CCW permit.

Piece of shit reserve SF Colonel from Mass that used his political connections to get on AD. Last I heard he got transferred from Bragg to Thailand to avoid the stink of him breaking and entering the MSG's house off base to seize his privately-owned weapons and ammunition,and them dump them all in Lott Lake.

I heard later that the MSG got a civilian lawyer to represent him because the LTC was trying to get him reduced in rank,and the MSG's lawyer was trying to get the Fayetteville PD to arrest the LTC for felony theft and breaking and entering.

The compromise they reached was the MSG was allowed to retire with his rank and was paid damages for the financial losses he had suffered,and the LTC went to Thailand,where he was promoted to Full Colonel.

Last I heard a few years ago was he had been transferred to the Pentagram and was going to be promoted to General.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-18   18:17:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#156. To: Roscoe (#154)

What the HELL are you ranting about? You make no sense because you have no sense.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-18   18:19:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#157. To: sneakypete (#155)

Government employees,including cops and military members only have rights when they are off-duty and out of uniform.

No right to life? Only you and BLM think so.

A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   18:20:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#158. To: Roscoe (#157)

No right to life?

No.

How well do you think the US invasion of Europe in 1944 would have gone if soldiers had refused to get on the ships because "I might lose my life or be injured!"?

Cops swear a oath to defend the citizens,which means they are also obligated to run into gunfire if necessary to protect the public.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-18   18:48:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#159. To: sneakypete (#158)

No.

You and BLM.

A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   18:56:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#160. To: redleghunter (#137)

So basically she is running for her life now.

It appears Clinton fatigue may be setting in.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/politics/colorado-quinnipiac-poll-clinton-trails-rubio-carson/

Poll: Clinton trails GOP rivals in Colorado

By Eric Bradner, CNN
Updated 3:56 PM ET,
Wed November 18, 2015

Washington (CNN)

Colorado could be big trouble for Hillary Clinton.

The Democratic front-runner in the 2016 presidential race trails all the leading Republican contenders by 11 percentage points or more in the key swing state, a new Quinnipiac University poll shows.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio bests Clinton 52% to 36%, the biggest gap. Ben Carson wins a potential head-to-head matchup as well, with a 52% to 38% advantage. And Donald Trump leads 48% to 37%.

Tim Malloy, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, described it as a "chilly if not frigid reception" in Colorado for Clinton.

[snip]

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   20:35:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#161. To: sneakypete (#155)

You are as full of shit as a Christmas goose.

Government employees,including cops and military members only have rights when they are off-duty and out of uniform.

I pity the subordinates who relied on you to counsel them about their rights.

David A. Schlueter, Military Criminal Justice, Fifth Edition, 1999, page 7:

The Constitution, which sets in motion a system of military criminal justice, also contains specified limitations on government infrincement of individual rights. Military due process, as it is applied today, recognizes that the protections of the Constitution generally apply with equal force to servicemembers and that the U.C.M.J., the Manual for Courts-Martial, and service regulations may provide greater protection than the Constitution.

Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) 2012 Ed.,

Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.)

Military Rules of Evidence (R.M.E.)

M.C.M. page II-55:

R.C.M. 604(B):

(b) Referral of withdrawn charges. Charges which have been withdrawn from a court-martial may be referred to another court-martial unless the withdrawal was for an improper reason. Charges withdrawn after the introduction of evidence on the general issue of guilt may be referred to another court-martial only if the withdrawal was necessitated by urgent and unforeseen military necessity.

Discussion

See also R.C.M. 915 (Mistrial).

When charges which have been withdrawn from a courtmartial are referred to another court-martial, the reasons for the withdrawal and later referral should be included in the record of the later court-martial, if the later referral is more onerous to the accused. Therefore, if further prosecution is contemplated at the time of the withdrawal, the reasons for the withdrawal should be included in or attached to the record of the earlier proceeding. Improper reasons for withdrawal include an intent to interfere with the free exercise by the accused of constitutional rights or rights provided under the code, or with the impartiality of a court-martial. A withdrawal is improper if it was not directed personally and independently by the convening authority or by a superior competent authority.

Those are constitutional rights you claim do not exist.

M.C.M. page II-81:

R.C.M. 806(d)

The military judge is responsible for protecting both the accused’s right to, and the public’s interest in, a public trial. A court-martial session is “closed” when no member of the public is permitted to attend. A court-martial is not “closed” merely because the exclusion of certain individuals results in there being no spectators present, as long as the exclusion is not so broad as to effectively bar everyone who might attend the sessions and is put into place for a proper purpose.

A session may be closed over the objection of the accused or the public upon meeting the constitutional standard set forth in this Rule. See also Mil. R. Evid. 412(c), 505(i), and 513(e)(2).

Those are constitutional rights you claim do not exist.

M.C.M. page III-1:

M.R.E. 103

Once the military judge makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal. The standard provided in this subdivision does not apply to errors involving requirements imposed by the Constitution of the United States as applied to members of the armed forces except insofar as the error arises under these rules and this subdivision provides a standard that is more advantageous to the accused than the constitutional standard.

Whatever is that talking about with regard to "requirements imposed by the Constitution of the United States as applied to members of the armed forces?"

M.C.M. page III-3:

M.R.E. 301:

Rule 301. Privilege concerning compulsory self-incrimination

(a) General rule. The privileges against self-incrimination provided by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article 31 are applicable only to evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature. The privilege most beneficial to the individual asserting the privilege shall be applied.

Damn, the 5th Amendment too.

M.C.M. page III-4:

M.R.E. 301(g)

(3) Pretrial. The fact that the accused during official questioning and in exercise of rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States or Article 31, remained silent, refused to answer a certain question, requested counsel, or requested that the questioning be terminated is inadmissible against the accused.

And the list goes on and on and on.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   21:18:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#162. To: tpaine (#153)

By your wingnut proclamation, Marbury v. Madison only applies to William Marbury.

I believe in the Supremacy Clause, not in your bullshit.

U.S. Constitution, Article 6, The Supremacy Clause

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.

Also U.S. Constitution, Article 6,

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution....

Read a law book. See Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, Second Edition, 2000, page 33:

Read narrowly, the supremacy clause binds only state judges. But other provisions of the Constitution, most notably the fourteenth amendment, directly constrain the action of all state officials, often without regard to whether state courts have ruled on the validity of officials' acts; moreover, article VI declares that "the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers . . . of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. . . ." Accordingly, the Court has not limited to state judges its demand for compliance with the federal Constitution. In Cooper v. Aaron, a school desegregation case decided against the background of Governor Faubus's resistance to the desegregation of public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, the Supreme Court asserted what is probably its broadest definition of its power: "Marbury v. Madison . . . declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciat­ed by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land. . . . Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath . . . 'to support this Constitution.'"

The Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land.

Laws or treaties which have been judicially determined to be repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Laws and treaties which have not been so found are of equal status, with the one most recently adopted taking precedent over the other in case of conflict.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   21:49:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#163. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#162)

I believe in the Supremacy Clause, not in your bullshit.

What Supremacy Clause? The one that clearly shows the blackrobed cretins selected to make an opinion are simple politically, charged charlatins that lie to the American People?

buckeroo  posted on  2015-11-18   21:57:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#164. To: nolu chan (#161)

Quoted bullshit is still bullshit.

Why not enlist and then tell them you don't want to go to the Muddle East and forcing you to go would violate your rights?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-18   22:06:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#165. To: sneakypete, nolu chan (#164)

Mr. chan seems to have crossed dressed with some of the more government loving crowd while showing his ass in publick.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-11-18   22:10:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#166. To: sneakypete (#164)

Why not enlist and then tell them you don't want to go to the Muddle East and forcing you to go would violate your rights?

Because I already did my 20 years active duty and 10 years inactive reserve.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   22:36:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#167. To: sneakypete (#164)

Quoted bullshit is still bullshit.

You lack of argument on the merits is noteworthy but understandable.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   22:37:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#168. To: buckeroo (#163)

What Supremacy Clause?

There is only one.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   22:37:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#169. To: nolu chan (#162)

Below is an opinion that I agree with, --- do you?

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that; ----

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

- See more at: caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- court/5/137.html#sthash.xshj4p5F.dpuf

As usual, your long winded legalistic BULLSHIT does NOT answer the question of whether you agree with Justice Marshall's opinion "that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

You can't agree because you're convinced that ANY laws upheld by a SCOTUS opinion are valid.. ---- This position is held by socialists and prohibitionists who support the war on drugs, guns, and the individual freedoms outlined in our Constitution.

You've been outed.. Learn to live with your anti-constitutionalism..

tpaine  posted on  2015-11-18   22:43:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#170. To: nolu chan, harrowup, Y'ALL, sneakypete (#166)

sneakypete (#164) --- Why not enlist and then tell them you don't want to go to the Muddle East and forcing you to go would violate your rights?

Because I already did my 20 years active duty and 10 years inactive reserve. --- nolu chan

It's impossible for me to believe that an individual as anti-constitutional as nolu served with honor.

I smell a harrowup.

tpaine  posted on  2015-11-18   22:54:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#171. To: sneakypete (#164)

Quoted bullshit is still bullshit.

"Quoted bullshit is still bullshit."

A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   23:15:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#172. To: All (#0)

Trump has said that all Concealed Carry Permit holders have a duty to carry.

Psalm 37 PRAY FOR PARIS

Don  posted on  2015-11-18   23:31:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#173. To: nolu chan (#166) (Edited)

Why not enlist and then tell them you don't want to go to the Muddle East and forcing you to go would violate your rights?

Because I already did my 20 years active duty and 10 years inactive reserve.

And apparently you never learned a thing the whole time.

I know you were in the Navy. Did you ever have sea duty or a troop command (personnel management in the Navy) position?

I'm guessing you were some sort of clerical type staff weenie. Nobody else could be that ignorant to reality.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-19   9:43:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#174. To: nolu chan (#167)

Quoted bullshit is still bullshit.

You lack of argument on the merits is noteworthy but understandable.

The fact that all you have is arguments that were cherry picked and posed by others is also understandable. You have have make a decision on your own and have no actual experience.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-19   9:48:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#175. To: tpaine (#169)

As usual, your long winded legalistic BULLSHIT does NOT answer the question of whether you agree with Justice Marshall's opinion "that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

He never expresses an opinion of his own,only opinions of others that allow him to argue points he doesn't even understand.

Had to be some sort of staff weenie/clerk that is a frustrated lawyer. Maybe a clerk for a Navy lawyer.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-19   9:50:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#176. To: tpaine (#170)

Because I already did my 20 years active duty and 10 years inactive reserve. --- nolu chan

It's impossible for me to believe that an individual as anti-constitutional as nolu served with honor.

I believe him. There are all sorts of jobs/positions in all branches of the military that are clerical in nature that never involve troop command or the requirement to make decisions on your own.

That dofus Sy on the tv show about people making duck calls spent 20+ years in the army and never left the motor pool. As a NCO in the motor pool he had SOME command contact with troops,but damn little. At MOST a small platoon of people too scared to cause trouble because they didn't want to get sent to the infantry.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-19   9:55:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#177. To: Roscoe (#171)

Quoted bullshit is still bullshit.

"Quoted bullshit is still bullshit."

A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."

ROFLMAO!

Thanks for proving my point.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-19   9:56:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#178. To: sneakypete (#177)

ROFLMAO!

"ROFLMAO!" --sneakypete

A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-19   10:03:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#179. To: nolu chan (#166)

I already did my 20 years active duty and 10 years inactive reserve.

Thank you for your service. You realize that by revealing your service you've given the lowlifes an opportunity to denigrate it.

It's their nature.

A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-19   10:06:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#180. To: Roscoe, nolu chan, Y'ALL, sneakypete (#179)

nolu chan (#166) --- I already did my 20 years active duty and 10 years inactive reserve.

Thank you for your service. You realize that by revealing your service you've given the lowlifes an opportunity to denigrate it. It's their nature. --- Roscoe

I still smell a harrowup.

Nolu 'revealed' his navy service long ago, -- but now claims 20 years active. -- Next, like h'rup, he'll be claiming an equivalent rank to a kelvinator.

Maybe, like Pete says, he was a clerk to a navy shyster. --- BFD. --- In at case, he is NOW an anti-constitutional apologist.

tpaine  posted on  2015-11-19   11:32:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#181. To: tpaine (#169)

As usual, your long winded legalistic BULLSHIT does NOT answer the question of whether you agree with Justice Marshall's opinion "that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

You can't agree because you're convinced that ANY laws upheld by a SCOTUS opinion are valid.. ---- This position is held by socialists and prohibitionists who support the war on drugs, guns, and the individual freedoms outlined in our Constitution.

You've been outed.. Learn to live with your anti-constitutionalism..

tpaine, the Law God™. Empowered to deem constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Empowered to limit the effect of U.S. Supreme Court opinions to the parties involved. Empowered to strike down U.S. Supreme Court opinions by a declaration of his superior knowledge. tpaine, Ct. Imag., 1 tpaine 401, August Term (1791).

Meanwhile, back in the real world....

A law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void. The ultimate arbiter of whether a law is unconstitutional is the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not the Law God.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
U.S. Const. Art. 6, Sec. 2

Luther Martin and the Supremacy Clause

3 Farrand 220 [Luther Martin who introduced the Supremacy Clause]

[83] By the third article, the judicial power of the United States is vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts, as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. These courts, and these only, will have a right to decide upon the laws of the United States, and all questions arising upon their construction, and in a judicial manner to carry those laws into execution; to which the courts, both superior and inferior, of the respective States, and their judges and other magistrates, are rendered incompetent. To the courts of the general government are also confined all cases in law or equity, arising under the proposed constitution, and treaties made under the authority of the United States; all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; all controversies to which the United States are a party; all controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or subjects. Whether therefore, any laws or regulations of the Congress, or any acts of its President or other officers, are contrary to, or not warranted by the constitution, rests only with the judges, who are appointed by Congress to determine; by whose determinations every State must be bound.

2 Farrand 28-29: [Madison]

(Mr. Luther Martin moved the following resolution “that the Legislative acts of the U. S. made by virtue & in pursuance of the articles of Union, and all treaties made & ratified under the authority of the U. S. shall be the supreme law of the respective States, as far as those acts or treaties shall relate to the said States, or their Citizens and inhabitants & that the Judiciaries of the several States shall be bound thereby in their decisions, any thing in the respective laws of the individual States to the contrary notwithstanding” which was agreed to nem: con:.)

Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes,Constitutional Law, 6 Ed., Black Letter Series, West Group, 2003, p. 68.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court held § 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. The Act was read by Justice Marshall, perhaps erroneously, to enlarge the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond the limits defined in Art. III of the Constitution. Since the constitution prescribes the powers delegated by the people to the national govenrment, a congressional act contrary to the Constitution is invalid. The Constitution is supreme over ordinary federal or state law under the Supremacy Clause of Art. VI.

Ibid at 156:

Art. VI provides that all treaties which are made "under the authority of the United States" are the supreme law of the land. They prevail, as do Executive Agreements, over inconsistent state law. Treaties and Executive Agreements are subject to constitutional limitations. Reid v. Covert (1957). Treaties and Acts of Congress are on a par, i.e., the last in time controls. The Chinese Exclusion Case (1889).

John E. Nowak and Ronald D. Rotunda, Constitutional Law, 4 Ed., West Publishing Co., 1991, p. 2:

On February 24, 1803, Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. In the opinion the court held that Marbury had a right to his judicial commission. In so doing the Court found that the executive was subject to certain legal and constitutional restraints that could be enforced by the judiciary.

Yet the Court found that it could not grant the remedy in an original action because it was not within the jurisdiction fixed for the Court by Article III. The opinion interpreted a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 as placing this action within its jurisdiction but found that this law conflicted with the Constitution. Marshall concluded by holding that the Supreme Court had the power to declare such a law to be invalid as a violation of the Constitution.

Ibid at 210
Quoting Mr. Justice Field of the Supreme Court in De Geofroy v. Riggs.:

This clause [The Supremacy Clause] at one time had been interpreted by legal authorities to suggest that treaties were equal to the Constitution. As a consequence the theory developed that said that treaties were not subject to any constitutional limitations.....

That the treaty power of the United States extends to all proper subjects of negotiation between our government and the governments of other nations, is clear.... The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments.... It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government or in that of one of the states, or a cession or any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent....

Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 3 ed., Vol. I, West Publishing Co., p. 647:

If there were any remaining doubt on the issue whether there is any outer limit to the treaty-making power, that question was closed resoundingly in Reid v. Covert, where a plurality of the Supreme Court, in holding American civilian dependents of overseas military personnel entitled to civilian trial, stated that neither a treaty nor an executive agreement "can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of government, which is free fom the restraints of the Constitution."

Ibid at 647:

Footnote 18
see also The Cherokee tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 616, 620-21 (1871)(dictum) ("a treaty cannot change the constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument").

Ibid at 210
Quoting from Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. at 177:

"[A]ll those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."

Thomas H. Odom, Federal Constitutional Law. Vol. 3, Introduction to the Federal Legislative Power, Lexis-Nexis, 2009, pp. 100-01:

A NOTE REGARDING PREEMPTION DOCTRINE

In Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 712-13 (1985), the Court summarized its jurisprudence regarding federal preemption of state law.

It is a familiar and well-established principle that the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, invalidates state laws that "interfere with, or are contrary to," federal law. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 211 (1824) (Marshall, C.J.). Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law may supersede state law in several different ways. First, when acting within constitutional limits, Congress is empowered to pre-empt state law by so stating in express terms. Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525 (1977). In the absence of express pre-emptive language, Congress' intent to pre-empt all state law in a particular area may be inferred where the scheme of federal regulation is sufficiently comprehensive to make reasonable the inference that Congress "left no room" for supplementary state regulation. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218,230 (1947). Pre-emption of a whole field also will be inferred where the field is one in which "the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject." Id.; see Uines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941).

Even where Congress has not completely displaced state regulation in a specific area, state law is nullified to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law. Such a conflict arises when "compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility," Florida Lime & Avocado Growers,, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or when state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress," Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. at 67, 61.

We have held repeatedly that state laws can be pre-empted by federal regulations as well as by federal statutes. See, e.g., Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 699 (1984); United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 381-383 (1961). Also, for the purposes of the Supremacy Clause, the constitutionality of local ordinances is analyzed in the same way as that of statewide laws. See, e.g., City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U.S. 624 (1973).

Lee J. Strang, Federal Constitutional Law, Vol. 4, Federalism Limitations on State and Federal Power: The Contracts Clause, Supremacy Clause, "Dormant" Commerce Clause, and the Tenth Amendment, Lexis-Nexis, 2011, p, 79

The Supremacy Clause creates a hierarchy of law. Whenever two legal norms in the hierarchy come into conflict — when they attempt to regulate the same person or activity in incompatible manners — the legal norm higher on the hierarchy "preempts" the other norm. See Gade v. National Sold Waste Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88,108 (1992) ("But under the Supremacy Clause, from which our pre-emption doctrine is derived, any state law, however clearly within a State's acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.") (internal quotations omitted). Preemption is different from the Contracts Clause and dormant Commerce Clause contexts because, for federal law to preempt — void — state law, Congress must affirmatively act.

Louis Fisher and Katy J. Harriger, American Constitutional Law, 10th Ed., Vol .1, Constitutional Structures, Separater Powers and Federalism, Carolina Adacemic Press, 2013, p. 315:

The Supremacy Clause

National powers are further reinforced by the Supremacy Clause in Article IV, Section 2: "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." Early in its history, the Supreme Court decided that in cases of conflict between state law and a treaty, the latter prevails. Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 198 (1796).

In 2000, the Supreme Court applied the Supremacy Clause to a Massachusetts law that barred state entities from buying goods or services from companies doing business with Burma (Myanmar). Con­gress later imposed sanctions on the country, but delegated to the President substantial discretion to lift the sanctions if the regime made progress in human rights and democracy. A nonprofit corpora­tion, representing several companies affected by the state law, sued on the basis that Massachusetts infringed on the federal foreign affairs power, violated the Foreign Commerce Clause, and was pre­empted by the federal statute. The Supreme Court held that the state law was invalid under the Su­premacy Clause. Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000).

Otis H. Stephens, Jr. and John M. Sheb II, American Constitutional Law, 5th Ed., Vol 1, Sources of Power and Restraint, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012, p. 320:

The Preemption Doctrine

The classic statement of the federal preemption doctrine is found in Pennsylvania v. Nelson (1956), in which the Court struck down a state law criminalizing sedition against the national government. As the Court made clear in Nelson, a state law may be struck down, even where there is no explicit conflict with federal law, if the Court finds that Congress has legitimately occupied the field. Thus, in Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal (1973), the Supreme Court held that a local aircraft noise-abatement ordinance was pre­empted by the federal Noise Control Act of 1972, even though the latter contained no specific preemptive language and there was no evidence that the ordinance placed a heavy burden on interstate commerce. Writing for the Court, Justice William O. Douglas emphasized the potential safety hazard that could result if a "significant number of mu­nicipalities" adopted similar ordinances. Similarly, in Nantahala Power and Light Com­pany v. Thornburg (1986), the Court invoked the preemption doctrine to prohibit states from deviating from federal standards in setting intrastate rates for the sale of electrical power. Likewise, in California v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1990), the Su­preme Court held that state regulations imposing minimum flow rates on rivers used to generate hydroelectric power were preempted by the Federal Power Act.

Recent decisions indicate that the preemption doctrine continues to stand as a major limitation on state regulatory authority. During the 2000 term, for example, the Supreme Court handed down no fewer than three decisions reinforcing the preemption doctrine (see Buckman Company v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee [2001], Egelhoff v. Egelhoff [2001], and Lorillard Tobacco Company v. Reilly [2001]). In the most prominent of these cases, the Rehnquist Court was unwilling to accommodate the states in the area of cigarette advertising; in the Lorillard case, the Court held that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) preempted Massachusetts regulations governing the sale and advertisement of tobacco products.

The Constitution designates the judiciary to decide whether the laws were made in pursuance thereof, and the judiciary declares null and void the laws it finds unconstitutional. When the Constitution is amended to delegate the authority to tpaine, you will be expounding something other than bullshit.

2 Farrand 93: [James Madison]

A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.

- - - - -

2 Elliott 131: [Samuel Adams]

[I]f any law made by the federal government shall be extended beyond the power granted by the proposed Constitution, and inconsistent with the constitution of this state, it will be an error, and adjudged by the courts of law to be void.

- - - - -

2 Elliott 196: [Oliver Elsworth]

If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void.

- - - - -

2 Elliott 445: [James Wilson]

I say, under this Constitution, the legislature may be restrained, and kept within its prescribed bounds, by the interposition of the judicial department.

- - - - -

4 Elliott 553: [John Marshall]

Can they go beyond the delegated powers? If they were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard. They would not consider such a law as coming under their jurisdiction. They would declare it void.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution, 1825, Chapter 20, of the Judicial Power, p. 188:

CHAPTER XX.

Of the Judicial Power.

[...]

Its construction of the acts of the legislature is received as binding and conclusive, although it does not prevent the legislature from repairing its own defects, or clearing up its own ambiguities by subsequent laws, operating on subsequent cases. A high function also appertains to the judiciary in the exclusive right to expound the constitution, and thereby to test the validity of all the acts of the legislature.

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 3, 1833, page 703:

§ 1836. From this supremacy of the constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, within their constitutional scope, arises the duty of courts of justice to declare any unconstitutional law passed by congress or by a state legislature void.

Dickerson v United States, 530 US 428, 437 (2000):

But Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution.

United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809):

This was the original case on State Nulification. No Supreme Court decision has ever upheld State Nullification. It is currently only upheld by the tpaine Court of the imagination.

If the legislatures of the several States may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery, and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals. So fatal a result must be deprecated by all, and the people of Pennsylvania, not less than the citizens of every other State, must feel a deep interest in resisting principles so destructive of the union, and in averting consequences so fatal to themselves.

Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958):

1. This Court cannot countenance a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court’s considered interpretation of the United States Constitution in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. P. 4.

[...]

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.”

The duty to abstain from resistance to “the supreme Law of the Land,” U.S. Const., Art. VI § 2, as declared by the organ of our Government for ascertaining it, does not require immediate approval of it nor does it deny the right of dissent. Criticism need not be stilled. Active obstruction or defiance is barred. Our kind of society cannot endure if the controlling authority of the Law as derived from the Constitution is not to be the tribunal specially charged with the duty of ascertaining and declaring what is “the supreme Law of the Land.”

Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 211 (1962) the Court stated:

Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-19   15:01:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#182. To: nolu chan (#181)

Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 211 (1962) the Court stated:

Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.

That "responsibility" is subject to Congressional control.

Article III, Section 2: "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. "

And that "ultimate interpreter" power is also subject to nullification and noncompliance, once the public has had enough of the Court's misconduct.

Justice Frankfurter cautioned in his dissent that, "It may well impair the Court's position as the ultimate organ of "the supreme Law of the Land" in that vast range of legal problems, often strongly entangled in popular feeling, on which this Court must pronounce. The Court's authority - possessed of neither the purse nor the sword - ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction."

A K A Stone to sneakypete, "You count on big government to spread your perversion."

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-19   16:22:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#183. To: tpaine (#180) (Edited)

Nolu 'revealed' his navy service long ago, -- but now claims 20 years active. --

I may be wrong,but I think he has always claimed he served 20 years on active duty in the Navy.

I see no reason to disbelieve him.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-19   16:39:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#184. To: nolu chan (#181)

As usual, your long winded legalistic BULLSHIT does NOT answer the question of whether you agree with Justice Marshall's opinion "that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

You can't agree because you're convinced that ANY laws upheld by a SCOTUS opinion are valid.. ---- This position is held by socialists and prohibitionists who support the war on drugs, guns, and the individual freedoms outlined in our Constitution.

You've been outed.. Learn to live with your anti-constitutionalism..

tpaine, the Law God™. Empowered to deem constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Empowered to limit the effect of U.S. Supreme Court opinions to the parties involved. Empowered to strike down U.S. Supreme Court opinions by a declaration of his superior knowledge. tpaine, Ct. Imag., 1 tpaine 401, August Term (1791). --- Meanwhile, back in the real world.... A law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.

Good, I've finally forced you to a bit of rationality… --- We agree with Justice Marshall's opinion "that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

The ultimate arbiter of whether a law is unconstitutional is the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not the Law God.

There you go again, getting weird about SCOTUS. -- They are NOT the ultimate arbiters of our constitutional laws. --- They issue opinions that can be (and are) ignored by other branches and levels of gov't, -- and by we the people..

tpaine  posted on  2015-11-19   17:17:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#185. To: tpaine, Roscoe, sneakypete (#180)

I still smell a harrowup.

Nolu 'revealed' his navy service long ago, -- but now claims 20 years active. -- Next, like h'rup, he'll be claiming an equivalent rank to a kelvinator.

Maybe, like Pete says, he was a clerk to a navy shyster. --- BFD.

Or as pete actually said at #183, " I may be wrong,but I think he has always claimed he served 20 years on active duty in the Navy. I see no reason to disbelieve him."

Yes it is not a reccently revealed secret. It's just that tpaine is full of shit as usual, the senile old bastard. This is yet one more example of his typical research or fact finding, i.e., just make some shit up. No doubt, that is what he smells.

Just a few examples, from three different sites.

Free Republic 2004

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1302649/posts?page=318#318

nolu chan, USN, (ret).

318 posted on 12/29/2004, 8:27:21 AM by nolu chan

Liberty Post 2005

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=92079&Disp=57#C57

nolu chan, USN, (Ret).

nolu chan posted on 2005-04-17 14:27:49 ET

Liberty's Flame 2011

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=24188&Disp=117

#97. To: Mad Dog (#87)

Mad Dog #87

And bitch, I don't have a Fleet Reserve Certificate, I earned a HONORABLE RE-R1 Discharge, (form DD256N (Rev.5-50)); I did ALL of my time active except for my 3 months delayed entry before going to boot WOG.

Wow, I am impressed. I only did twenty years active duty, you miserable stolen valor pissant.

nolu chan, USN (Ret.)

I can't think of anything that could possibly be more impressive than your talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, about your alleged DD-214.

nolu chan posted on 2011-09-26 0:04:32 ET

I don't walk around talking about it all the time.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-19   18:43:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (186 - 205) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com