United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Police Celebrate 4th Of July With Nationwide No Refusal Checkpoints and Forced Blood Draws
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/po ... ationwide-refusal-checkpoints/
Published: Jul 4, 2015
Author: John Vibes
Post Date: 2015-07-04 10:46:33 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 62663
Comments: 141
Happy 4th of July, the day where Americans celebrate imaginary freedom, and police departments nationwide make millions of dollars violating the rights of nonviolent individuals. Under the pretense of catching drunk drivers, police will be patrolling the streets and setting up checkpoints all over the country this weekend. In some cases they will arrest drunk drivers, in others they will search and arrest nonviolent drug offenders, while other people may get citations for problems with their vehicle or registration. Especially for people who haven’t even done anything wrong, these checkpoints are a gross violation of privacy and other natural born rights. Free people should not be stopped and searched or questioned in any way if they are attempting to travel freely. However, we sadly now live in a world where rights like traveling are seen as privileges, to be given and taken by government. As it stands right now, the way that the state deals with drunk driving is tyrannical and infringes upon everyone’s rights, even people like myself, who hardly ever drink. Economist Jeffrey Tucker wrote an article on this subject and discussed the problems with the status quo while offering some solutions as well. Laws against drunk driving have vastly expanded police power and done nothing to stop the practice. The best prevention against unsafe driving from drinking has been provided privately: friends, services offered by bars and restaurants, community interest groups, etc. This is the humane and rational way societies deal with social risks. The police have only messed up this process by adding a coercive element that targets liberty rather than crime. And we can see where this is heading. Texting is now illegal in most places. So is talking on the phone. Maybe talking itself should be illegal. Some communities are talking about banning eating. All of this is a distraction from the real issue. If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn’t matter if it’s caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage. Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the offense were reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway. Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn’t about making the roads safer. It’s about a lingering hostility toward demon rum. There is no doubt that drunk driving should be discouraged and that solutions to prevent people from driving drunk should be explored. However, it is entirely possible to do this without violating anyone’s rights in the process. Meanwhile, in police state USA, it is business as usual. John Vibes is an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture and the drug war. In addition to his writing and activist work he organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference, which features top caliber speakers and whistle-blowers from all over the world. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can find his 65 chapter Book entitled “Alchemy of the Timeless Renaissance” at bookpatch.com.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 106.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
I thought they were going to be saving/protecting us from terrorists and sharks this weekend.
Unlike your one trick pony, libtard anarchy routine, LE can actually multitask.
Is that so? Cop Kills Man with Patrol Car While Speeding & Looking at Laptop, Flexes Blue Privilege – No Charges Yeah - cops are above the law. Assholes! Oh - here's another one fascist-boy. Cop Drives 126mph While Texting, Kills Teen Girls Former Illinois State trooper Matt Mitchell was driving at 126 mph on Interstate 64 while emailing/texting his girlfriend on his phone. In his state, he crossed over the median and crashed head-on to another car, killing sisters Kelli and Jessica Uhl and injuring Kelly and Christine Marler, of Fayetteville. Mitchell sustained severe injuries to his leg. Mitchell was suspended with pay for two years on his $68,000 annual salary. After pleading guilty to criminal charges, Mitchell resigned from the state police. His guilty plea landed him 30 months probation. Now Mitchell is filing for worker's compensation, which could result in him receiving tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars, which are non-taxable.
Break that down... He: Drove Sped Typed on a laptop Killed And provided his own criminal defense... all at the same time. That's called multitasking.
Drove Sped Typed on a laptop Killed And provided his own criminal defense... all at the same time. That's called multitasking. Add to that the paid vacation and probation instead of jail time. And you defend this murdering POS cop.
More YELLA propaganda. I never defended anyone. Hell, I didn't even read your posted link. I don't willingly read your YELLA bullshit. For all I know, the officer should be wood chipped alive. All I said was, officers are able to multitask instead of your one trick cop blocking pony agenda.
It is as you say….more YELLA propaganda! Meanwhile, in the USA, there is no news in any media source that confirms a “4th Of July Nationwide No Refusal Checkpoints and Forced Blood Draws.” Only thing in the news are the routine checkpoints conducted each 4th of July. The locations and times of those are published in the local media….always have been. But wait, Deckard….you say we are supposed to believe a concocted story by this guy:
Routine crime is no more legal than spontaneous crime. "Checkpoints" are a 4th amendment violation. Crimes by government officials are no less of a crime either. You've achieved independence from the rule of law. Enjoy your 4th of July crime spree!
PROVE THAT! You can't. Whether we like it or not, we cannot make that decision, only SCOTUS can. The Supreme Court has determined that DUI checkpoints do not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.
Stone already proved it by quoting the 4th in post #30. Wake UP!
You can have an opinion….but your opinion is just that, your opinion. It is the Supreme Court’s ruling that is final on the matter. Excerpts From Supreme Court's Decision Upholding Sobriety Checkpoints ….is here Additional Information: Sobriety checkpoints or roadblocks involve law enforcement officials stopping every vehicle (or more typically, every nth vehicle) on a public roadway and investigating the possibility that the driver might be too impaired to drive. They are often set up late at night or in the very early morning hours and on weekends, at which time the proportion of impaired drivers tends to be the highest. Checkpoints are also often set near the exit points of public events, to prevent large numbers of drunk drivers from being released into traffic simultaneously from the event. With a portable and quick alcohol breath test, the police can test all drivers (if the law permits), and process the cars one by one as in a conveyor belt. When there is no quick test, a more complicated routine is necessary. Upon suspicion, the stopped driver is required to exit the vehicle and take a roadside sobriety test that requires the demonstration of both mental and balance skills. If the officer determines based on his observations during the tests, the driver is then required to take an alcohol breath test (referred to as a Breathalyzer test in the United States). It is important to note that you can not pass or fail a field sobriety test as they are not "pass-or-fail", they are only meant to aid the officer in determining if you are impaired based on observations of the subjects performance of these tests. Being subjected to perform this test is not prohibited by the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution if the law enforcement entity posts or announces in advance that these checkpoints will occur and at what location; law enforcement agencies often post a sign in a small road or street during the weekdays when it is only seen by local residents and not by those attending a special event or those that only travel in that area of the city during the weekend to patronize local bars and clubs. These announcements are also sometimes printed in news papers. Numerous websites host a database of check points that are to occur based on information found in news papers, the internet and tips from visitors of such sites. There are also some smartphone apps that include a function to report sobriety checkpoints, show them on a map and use the device's GPS to alert the driver when a sobriety checkpoint is nearby. Sobriety checkpoints regularly catch much more than just drunk drivers. [citation needed] The identity checks will catch individuals wanted by the police, and DUI often occurs together with other crimes, such as vehicle inspection and registration violations, vehicle tax avoidance or driving without a license.
Supreme court OPINIONS are NOT final. They've overruled themselves before, and presidents have also openly defied and refused to enforce their rulings. The supremes have zero enforcement powers for their edicts.
Ah, but the judgments by the Supreme Court are virtually final. Their decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. And when they interpret a statute, then new legislative action can be taken. If you are suggesting that they need not be obeyed, then you are entirely wrong.
The legislature does not require any sort of court action to do their job, which is to legislate. You'd better check in with Acorn HQ for the latest talking points bulletin, this stuff you're coming up with is WEAK.
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
I disagree. But I'd rather go this route. Don't they also have the option to limit the jurisdiction of the so called supreme court.
Jefferson also wrote that nullification — states’ ignoring of federal dictates — is the “rightful remedy” for all central-government usurpation of states’ powers. Of course, this includes plainly unconstitutional rulings by oligarchic federal courts. States have recourse to the “rightful remedy” of nullification because the Constitution reserves most powers to the states, and the states are not bound to follow unconstitutional federal edicts. In fact, in order to adhere to the Constitution, state are duty bound not to enforce such edicts, but to declare them null and void at the state border. nolu chan erroneously claims: -- Stone correctly disagrees. -- The fact is, ALL officials of Fed, State, and local govts are duty bound by their oaths of office to adhere to the Constitution and ONLY laws made "in pursuance thereof". All other (constitutionally questionable) edicts are null and void from enactment...
Stone correctly disagrees. -- The fact is, ALL officials of Fed, State, and local govts are duty bound by their oaths of office to adhere to the Constitution and ONLY laws made "in pursuance thereof". All other (constitutionally questionable) edicts are null and void from enactment... In the case of a Constitutional Amendment, it "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress." Fro the instant an Amendment is declared ratified, it is an integral part of the Constitution, equal with all other parts. The notion that Congress can legislate or SCOTUS can rule any part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional is absurd. When SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, their opinion prevails as to what the Constitution says. The Judicial Branch is not some superfluous body which issues irrelevant opinions for all to ignore.
Chan and I recently had a discussion on just that point, and I came away with the opposite impression: -- that for some reason, he wants the SCOTUS to have the final say on what is constitutional.. Chan claims: --- -- The fact is, ALL officials of Fed, State, and local govts are duty bound by their oaths of office to adhere to the Constitution and ONLY laws made "in pursuance thereof". All other (constitutionally questionable) edicts are, and can be declared, null and void from enactment... Yep, that's what that part of the constitution says.. In Article VI it says that only laws made "in pursuance thereof", (of the constitution), -"shall be the supreme law of the land." It's absurd to you, granted. But you can't refute the fact of the supremacy clause. Not true. -And your opinion is not supported within the constitution itself. I've never claimed it was..
Nor would I try. Under the supremacy clause, the first listed is the Constitution, and it is the paramount law, the expression of the will of the people by which they created the government in all its branches, and it is superior to any other law in the land. The Executive must obey it, the Legislature can only legislate pursuant to it, and the Judicial cannot overrule it or strike it down, in whole or in part—the concept is an absurdity. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Steven F. Gifis Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 176-77 (1803) Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. 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. Certainly all 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. This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject. As far as I know, the court of tpaine does not hold appellate jurisdiction over SCOTUS, nor does any government authority. The Constitution is our "superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means." Misconstruing the supremacy clause does not overturn 2+ centuries of legal precedent.
Not true. -And your opinion is not supported within the constitution itself. And nothing you just posted refutes my position. -- As usual you are posting long winded opinions I have no problem with, as if they proved your position. -- They don't.
Mr Chan I believe you should concede that point. Nolu Chans argument in my view is that there needs to be some check on the President and congress from making laws that are contrary to the constitution. Which is reasonable. But since we are imperfect people and liars and thieves and on the take. Since that is the case we are going to get incorrect and even evil decisions. We are then stuck with these decisions. That people with common sense know are lies and incorrect. The evil among us are fine to lie and say that yes that is what the Constitution says. They know they are lying but will not admit it. Then there are the ignorant which are on both sides. Tpaine doesn't like this. He recognizes that the Supreme Court and its functions aren't prescribed in the constitution. Nolu Chan on the other hand wants the same thing as you. He wants them to follow the constitution. So he sees it as a court has to make a determination. A court ruled in the Marberry vs Madisoin case. He accepts this as he sees that there is a need for there to be some authority to check the laws and strike them down if they are contrary to the constitution. So Chan sees it as the courts are set up by the constitution and ruled and that is that. Even if it is not directly mentioned in the constitution. You see it as they ruled incorrectly and when the Supreme Court gets it wrong you legitimately get pissed and point out that the Supreme Court doesn't have that authority. I'm sure Tpaine also thinks that there should be some check. But he thinks they should just follow it. He knows what it is, what it says and they better do it. If the Supreme Court gets it wrong the President has the right to ignore it and do what the constitution says. That is fine and I kind of agree with it. But the problem with that is the President could lie and just ignore the constitution also. So maybe as men we can't make a perfect system, and since we have liars and pieces of crap because our values have broken down. Also because people were always corrupt. So maybe that's is what who was it Benjamin Franklin said it was a system made for morale and religious people. You know people that are honest and do what the constitution said and didn't lie to subvert it for whatever purpose.
No. The assertion that a constitutional amendment, or any part of the Constitution, can be struck down by the judiciary, or that anyone is free to legally ignore any part of the Constitution, continues to be an unsupportable legal absurdity.
Then you should be able to quote from the constitution to make your point. But you can't.
If that were true, the Constitution would not be a very short framework, it would be a very lengthy legal code. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority...." The judicial power is given to the Courts, not the Executive or Legislature. As explicitly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1792, “by the Constitution, neither the Secretary at War nor any other Executive officer, nor even the legislature, is authorized to sit as a court of errors on the judicial acts or opinions of this court.” Hayburn’s Case, 2 US 409, 414 (1792)
No they would only need a line or two if that was the intention. Something like this. There shall be a Supreme Court. It shall be the final arbitrator of the meaning of the constituon when disputes arise. Cases shall be tried in lower courts first that are set up by the congress. Then someone smarter then me a few more words. That's it. It isn't there. But thanks for admitting that it isn't there (indirectly). I think even if you don't agree you should understand why some people disagree with you on this. For that reason that that power isn't directly mentioned in the constitution.
To repeat, the above is the point of contention. It is a fact. The Constitution need not address every absurd idea of the human imagination in order to be applicable. While it does not directly express the absurdity of a judiciary, by the express soveign will of the people created to serve the people, striking down the express sovereign will of the people — it is not necessary to do so. The Court created by the sovereign, was granted limited power by the sovereign. The expressed sovereign will of the people is not subservient to the government they created. It can never have a case, under the Constitution, to abolish a part of the Constitution. So, you may claim all you want that the court can strike down part of the Constitution, but it has never been done, and the Court has never claimed the power to do so. It was argued almost a century ago against the 18th amendment, and failed resoundingly. From the instant an amendment is declared ratified, it binds all courts and legislative bodies. It is the organic, paramount law, and prevails over all other laws. It is an expression of the sovereign will of the people and can be changed only by another expression of the sovereign will of the people. Only the people can do that, not the government. As the Supreme Court held, the "Amendment, by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution, and must be respected and given effect the same as other provisions of that instrument. Would you believe that SCOTUS could strike down the Bill of Rights? https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/253/350/case.html National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (1920) [...] Syllabus The adoption by both houses of Congress, each by a two-thirds vote, of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution sufficiently shows that the proposal was deemed necessary by all who voted for it. An express declaration that they regarded it as necessary is not essential. P. 253 U. S. 386. The two-thirds vote in each house which is required in proposing an amendment is a vote of two-thirds of the members present -- assuming the presence of a quorum -- and not a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership, present and absent. Id. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 248 U. S. 276. The referendum provisions of state constitutions and statutes cannot be applied, consistently with the Constitution of the United States, in the ratification or rejection of amendments to it. Id. Hawke v. Smith, ante, 253 U. S. 221. The prohibition of the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation and exportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, as embodied in the Eighteenth Amendment, is within the power to amend reserved by Article V of the Constitution. Id. That Amendment, by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution, and must be respected and given effect the same as other provisions of that instrument. Id. The first section of the Amendment -- the one embodying the prohibition -- is operative throughout the entire territorial limits of the United States, binds all legislative bodies, courts, public officers, and individuals within those limits, and, of its own force, invalidates every legislative act -- whether by Congress, by a state legislature, or by a territorial assembly -- which authorizes or sanctions what the section prohibits. Id. The second section of the Amendment -- the one declaring "[t]he Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" -- does not enable Congress or the several states to defeat or thwart the prohibition, but only to enforce it by appropriate means. P. 253 U. S. 387.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.... It can never have a case, under the Constitution, to abolish a part of the Constitution. --- chan Nevertheless, the case was heard, making the scotus of the day 'absurd', according to Chan...
I am not the one citing the losing argument of attorney in a futile legal case as authority. The argument that you forgot to read is, indeed, absurd. Charles Evans Hughes demonstrated that it was absurd. Root for plaintiff argued that the ratified amendment was a piece of ordinary legislation and did not fall under the authority granted by Article V. Root's absurdity was nicely covered in the Yale Law Journal in 1921 which I have shown you before but which beares repeating if you are to make believe that the massacred argument of Elihu Root makes your babble any less absurd. As noted in W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, Vl XXX, No. 4, February 1921, p. 322. If a millionaire was willing to pay to get an argument presented, a lawyer was willing to take his money. Mr. Elihu Root for the plaintiff argued, with a straight face, the 18th amendment was an ordinary piece of legislation, and therefore not within the power granted by the 5th Amendment. While a noted lawyer, Root's problem was a meritless argument combined with facing the legal legend. Charles Evans Hughes on the other side. Feigenspan v. Bodine, et al., (U. S. Dist. Court, Dist. of New Jersey, March 9, 1920). W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, V1 XXX, No. 4, February 1921, pp. 332-334. The point under contention is made perhaps even clearer by another statement in this brief: “In this respect a constitutional amendment granting to the government power to prohibit intoxicants would be quite different from an 34 At p. 16. [333] attempted amendment itself directly declaring the prohibition of intoxicants. The former would merely add to the powers of government and would, therefore, in this regard at least, be a proper form of constitutional amendment; while the latter in its essence neither would add nor withdraw powers of government, but would be direct legislation. The Eighteenth Amendment is, therefore, in substance and effect a statute, not a constitutional provision akin to any in the federal Constitution.” It is sought to bolster up this argument by the provision of the Constitution vesting all legislative power in Congress; and to sustain it further by the purely political argument that legislation thus embodied in the Constitution becomes permanent and beyond the control of the majority, because of the fact that change may be prevented by fourteen states containing only a very small minority of the population of the country.35 A similar argument will be found in an article which recently appeared in the Harvard Law Review.36 This argument might be termed somewhat ridiculous, had it not appeared under the distinguished name of Mr. Elihu Root. The Solicitor General’s brief in the Feigenspan Case reviews a number of provisions of the original Constitution and of amendments thereto before the Eighteenth Amendment, and properly says: “That the provisions referred to are acts of legislation in the sense that they establish rules of law can not be doubted. They and other provisions constitute a body of laws which the framers of the. Constitution deemed of such importance that they should be enacted and placed beyond the control of any branch of the government.”37 Mr. Hughes’ brief in the Kentucky Distilleries Case presents the situation even more vigorously: “And what is ‘legislation’ which is thus said to lie outside the scope of the amending power according to the theory presented? Is it that the amendment must not be self-executing? But the obvious answer is that the Thirteenth Amendment is self-executing and it has been so adjudged by this court.... “Is it that the amendment must not directly affect the rights of persons without the intervention of legislation? The Thirteenth Amendment did that, for it made free men out of slaves. “Is it that the amendment must not directly disturb without further legislation vested rights of property? But the Thirteenth Amendment destroyed property in slaves. “The attempt is made to explain in some way that the Thirteenth 35 pp. 11, 14 et seq., 48. 36 William L. Marbury, The Limitations upon the Amending Power (1919) 33 Harv. L. Rev. 223. See a reply to this article by William L. Frierson, Amending the Constitution of the United States: A Reply to Mr. Marbury (1920) 33 Harv. L. Rev. 659. Mr. Frierson’s name will also be found signed to the brief for the appellees in the case of Feigenspan v. Bodine. 37 At p. 37. [334] Amendment, which did all these things, was not legislation. It is impossible then to understand in what sense the term “legislation” is used. For that which establishes a rule of law which, being self-executing, determines without further legislation the rights and status of persons and rights of property manifestly has the direct operation and effect of legislation.”38 38 At pp. 51-52.
There are no replies to Comment # 106. End Trace Mode for Comment # 106.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestUnder the pretense of catching drunk drivers, police will be patrolling the streets and setting up checkpoints all over the country this weekend.
#3. To: Fred Mertz (#2)
I thought they were going to be saving/protecting us from terrorists and sharks this weekend.
#4. To: GrandIsland, Fred Mertz (#3)
(Edited)
Unlike your one trick pony, libtard anarchy routine, LE can actually multitask.
#8. To: Deckard (#4)
Cop Kills Man with Patrol Car While Speeding & Looking at Laptop, – No Charges
#13. To: GrandIsland (#8)
Break that down... He:
#18. To: Deckard (#13)
And you defend this murdering POS cop.
#28. To: GrandIsland, Deckard (#18)
More YELLA propaganda…
Meanwhile, in police state USA, it is business as usual.
Punk Rock Libertarians
No way Jose!!!
#32. To: Gatlin, organized, routine scheduled crime, OK? (#28)
Only thing in the news are the routine checkpoints conducted each 4th of July.
#33. To: hondo68 (#32)
(Edited)
"Checkpoints" are a 4th amendment violation.
#35. To: Gatlin, routine lawlessness, A K A Stone (#33)
PROVE THAT!
#39. To: hondo68 (#35)
PROVE THAT!
Quoting the Fourth Amendment does not prove: "Checkpoints are a 4th amendment violation."
Stone already proved it by quoting the 4th in post #30. Wake UP!
#42. To: Gatlin (#39)
(Edited)
It is the Supreme Court’s ruling that is final on the matter.
#57. To: hondo68 (#42)
Supreme court OPINIONS are NOT final.
#58. To: Gatlin, needs Acorn update memo (#57)
And when they interpret a statute, then new legislative action can be taken.
#62. To: hondo68, Gatlin (#58)
The legislature does not require any sort of court action to do their job, which is to legislate.
#63. To: nolu chan (#62)
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
#68. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#63)
(Edited)
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...gi?ArtNum=40617&Disp=2#C2
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
#71. To: tpaine (#68)
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
#72. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#71)
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
In the case of a Constitutional Amendment, it "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress."
Fro the instant an Amendment is declared ratified, it is an integral part of the Constitution, equal with all other parts. The notion that Congress can legislate or SCOTUS can rule any part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional is absurd.
When SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, their opinion prevails as to what the Constitution says.
The Judicial Branch is not some superfluous body which issues irrelevant opinions for all to ignore
#73. To: tpaine (#72)
Fro[m] the instant an Amendment is declared ratified, it is an integral part of the Constitution, equal with all other parts. The notion that Congress can legislate or SCOTUS can rule any part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional is absurd.
It's absurd to you, granted. But you can't refute the fact of the supremacy clause.
The clause of Art. VI of the U.S. Constitution which declares that all laws made in pursuance of the Constitution and all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the "supreme law of the land" and shall enjoy legal superiority over any conflicting provision of a State constitution or law.
SUPREMACY CLAUSE popular title for Article VI, Section [2] of the United States Constitution, which is the main foundation of the federal government's power over the states, providing in effect that the "acts of the Federal Government are operative as supreme law throughout the Union. They are self-executing, since they prescribe rules enforceable in all courts of the land. The states have no power to impede, burden, or in any manner control the operation of the laws enacted by the Government of the nation. . . . [T]he full import of the Supremacy Clause was made clear after John Marshall became Chief Justice. In the Marshall interpretation, the clause meant essentially two things: (1) the states may not interfere in any manner with the functioning of the Federal Government; and (2) federal action (whether in the form of a statute, a treaty, a court decision, or an administrative act), if itself constitutional, must prevail over state action inconsistent therewith." Schwarz, Constitutional Law 48 (2d ed. 1979).
The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
#74. To: nolu chan, y'all (#73)
When SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, their opinion prevails as to what the Constitution says.
#76. To: tpaine (#74)
Not true. -And your opinion is not supported within the constitution itself.
#78. To: A K A Stone (#76)
Mr Chan I believe you should concede that point.
#86. To: nolu chan (#78)
Mr Chan I believe you should concede that point. No. T
#90. To: A K A Stone (#86)
Then you should be able to quote from the constitution to make your point.
#101. To: nolu chan (#90)
If that were true, the Constitution would not be a very short framework, it would be a very lengthy legal code.
#103. To: A K A Stone (#101)
[nc #78] The assertion that a constitutional amendment, or any part of the Constitution, can be struck down by the judiciary, or that anyone is free to legally ignore any part of the Constitution, continues to be an unsupportable legal absurdity.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority....
U.S. Supreme Court
#105. To: nolu chan, aka stone, Y'ALL (#103)
The constitutionality of the new law and the amendment itself were challenged in a series of legal cases that were brought before the US Supreme Court as the National Prohibition Cases (1920).
#106. To: tpaine (#105)
Nevertheless, the case was heard, making the scotus of the day 'absurd', according to Chan...
The briefs presented against the validity of the Eighteenth Amendment are addressed more to what the opposing interests thought ought to be, than to any issues which may properly be termed legal in character. When read, these briefs in many cases seem to be arguments of counsel who were employed to find arguments, and must, therefore, do so, even though they knew the arguments to be untenable. The most effective statements presented to the Court were those submitted in behalf of a number of states as amici curiae, in the cases of Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Co. v. Gregory and Rhode Island v. Palmer. These briefs bear the name of Mr. Charles E. Hughes.
By the Thirteenth Amendment the right of an individual to buy, sell, possess, transport and use another human being was absolutely prohibited. By substituting “slavery” of the Thirteenth Amendment, for “intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes” of the Eighteenth Amendment, we have in legal effect the same kind of mandatory prohibition. Every argument advanced here to deny the power to incorporate the Eighteenth Amendment into the Constitution could be applied equally against the power to ordain the Thirteenth Amendment.
Another argument based upon the word "amendment" is that presented by the appellant's brief in the Feigenspan Case. Here counsel argued that the Eighteenth Amendment is in effect legislation, in that it lays down a rule operative upon the states and upon individuals without the necessity for congressional legislation, and that such an amendment, being legislation, is not within the express power conferred upon Congress by Article 5 of the Constitution. It will be well to quote the language of the brief, which bears Mr. Root's name:
“Our contention is not for a further exception to the power granted; it is that the grant itself does not include the power of ordinary legislation. This is no more affected by the fact that there are express exceptions to the power which was granted than would be the proposition that the grant of the Fifth Article does not include the judicial power or power to command the army and navy.”34
Replies to Comment # 106.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]