Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Laws Be Damned
NewsMax ^ | 17 February 2004 | Al Rantel

Posted on 02/17/2004 10:35:30 AM PST by 45Auto

There is a new political development in America that should frighten every law abiding citizen in this country. That is the growing disregard for people who follow the law and play by the rules, and the rewarding of those who do not.

Where I live in California we have two concurrent stories going on that demonstrate clearly what is at issue. The first one involves the Mayor of San Francisco who, though sworn to uphold the laws and the Constitution of California in his just taken oath of office, now allows and instructs city government to break those laws.

Under California’s penal code, he might very well be committing a felony. Mayor Newsome has decided that he doesn’t like California’s law that says marriage is only between one man and one woman and so he orders marriage licenses to be issued to hundreds of gay couples waiting in line at city hall.

The public and the law be damned, the Mayor will do what he wants. Meantime, Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger has a “no comment” for the media when asked about it, and the State’s Attorney General musters a statement that no one has asked him to issue a legal opinion. Are they serious?

Imagine for a moment if some local public official starting giving out gun licenses en masse because he did not like California’s oppressive anti-gun laws? The entire weight of the media elite and the state would be down upon his head. The irony is there is in fact a right to bear arms as stated in the now ignored second amendment to the Unites States Constitution. There is no right to get married.

The second example is the newest move in California only weeks after a similar law was repealed due to huge public opposition to allow those people in this country illegally to obtain California drivers licenses. The Governor now says he is close to a deal with the state’s liberal Democrats that run the legislature to bring back the idea with a few new safeguards like background checks.

Yes, background checks for people who are already living outside the law and who as illegals are notorious for having more false documents than Saddam Hussein’s weapons manufacturers. Those who have chosen to ignore and outright violate the nation’s laws on how one enters into this country would be rewarded with the most important piece of state documentation, the drivers license. As we all know, this photo identification in a country that does not have a national ID card is used even to enter the country when you come from places like Mexico or Canada, but is also used as ID to board commercial aircraft.

So here we are living in a country that stands for the rule of law and not the rule of a single individual or group of individuals, and those who choose to break the law are not only allowed to keep on doing so but in the case of the drivers license controversy, they are given a reward for thumbing their noses at the rest of us.

What will happen to our society when people begin to ask what law they can break that they don’t like? What will happen to our society when it finally becomes clear to law abiding citizens that those who do not obey the laws are not only not worse off than they, but in some ways are better off?

Just think, in the nation’s most populous state today, you can get an illegal marriage license and soon be illegal and get a drivers license. Not only will public officials not stop you, but they will even help you to break the rules. Even the tough guy Governor will not be able to muster a comment when he used to talk for living.

America has never been on such a morally ambiguous path, but no intelligent person can really believe all of this can make our country better, safer, or stronger as a nation. And we embark on this road at our own peril.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; US: California
KEYWORDS: alrantel; law; lawbreakers; samesexmarriage; sf; stunt; theruleoflaw
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-115 next last

1 posted on 02/17/2004 10:35:32 AM PST by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Imagine for a moment if some local public official starting giving out gun licenses en masse because he did not like California’s oppressive anti-gun laws?

Good analogy. And Rantel is obviously right, the state and liberal media would descend on this "lawbreaker" like a guillotine.

2 posted on 02/17/2004 10:43:19 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
I caught him on O'reilly last night.

When they 1st started talking about this analogy I thought great he's going to say what if the gov't came out and said "you can't own guns" NOT "everyone line up for a conceal carry permit"

As a resident of FL I think that it is WRONG for CA to tell it's people they can't carry!

3 posted on 02/17/2004 10:48:15 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
This all started years ago. People have been breaking traffic laws with total disregard for the law. The police ignored the very minor traffic violations and now look at the roads today. Almost everybody does as they please on the roads. You may laugh and scoff at me but the gradual erosion of respect for laws has been going on for some time. People are no longer afraid to break "minor" laws and it has escalated into what we have today.
4 posted on 02/17/2004 10:48:17 AM PST by raybbr (My 1.4 cents - It used to be 2 cents, but after taxes - you get the idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
There would be a court ruling stopping the distribution of these gun licenses in about 5 minutes.

I have a simpler solution. Ah-Nold should just call a press conference (indoors) and light up a cigar.

The brazen violation of State Law by the dishonorable Mayor of San Francisco is no small matter. It's more important than the whole gay marriage question -- it is a threat to the nation on a very basic level. If elected officials find it perfectly OK to openly ignore laws, then the survivalist nuts in the Rockies might have the right idea after all.
5 posted on 02/17/2004 10:51:04 AM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Excellent post, thanks. For those of us that see this happening, it seems we must just stand by helplessly and watch it continue. We are getting fewer avenues to object with any results. The same people whom we elect now turn their backs on us and view us as the "trouble makers". It's a sad time indeed. How can you obey the rules when they change every time you turn around?
6 posted on 02/17/2004 10:51:05 AM PST by Thisiswhoweare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
This scenario has already played out with Roy Moore. In both cases, government officials flouted the law and spit on the rule of law. I didn't like Moore's action and and Newsom's is certainly criminal.
7 posted on 02/17/2004 10:51:36 AM PST by GulliverSwift (Keep the <a href="http://www.johnkerry.com/">gigolo</a> out of the White House!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift
Good point. The only real difference between the two cases is the political positions of the two gentlemen. Scary.
8 posted on 02/17/2004 10:53:00 AM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
Good post. It's also worth pointing out that Newsome was being touted repeatedly by Laura Ingraham. I don't listen to her show any more but I hope she's been honest enough to apologize for lending her support to a lawbreaker.
9 posted on 02/17/2004 10:55:01 AM PST by GulliverSwift (Keep the <a href="http://www.johnkerry.com/">gigolo</a> out of the White House!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift
Big difference: Moore has the law of the land - the Constitution - on his side. Congress shall make no law infringing freedom of religion or freedom of speech, according to the law of our land. There's no similar injunction against what Congress, or any other legislature, may do with regards to marriage licenses.

It is very sloppy thinking, and entirely too PC and morally-equivocating, to say Newsom and Moore are similar cases.
10 posted on 02/17/2004 10:57:13 AM PST by thoughtomator ("What do I know? I'm just the President." - George W. Bush, Superbowl XXXVIII halftime statement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Or, how about a Police Chief announcing that they're not going to enforce the laws against blocking abortion clinics. Think THAT act of "civil disobedience" would be applauded by the mayor of San Fran?
11 posted on 02/17/2004 11:00:09 AM PST by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
I need to revise that. SOME people can't carry guns.


12 posted on 02/17/2004 11:00:17 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
"There is no right to get married."

Yes there is - to those who QUALIFY. Phaggots don't qualify for marriage any more than a jackass does for a college degree.

13 posted on 02/17/2004 11:03:04 AM PST by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Nice try.

Amendment I - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... "

The Judge acted in his official governmental capacity to place monuments relating to a specific religious belief. It has been determined in the courts that this is a violation of the establishment clause above. By refusing to respect the lawful rulings in this matter, Judge Moore placed himself outside the law and deservedly lost his job.

The fact that the First Amendment can be argued to support Judge Moore's position doesn't matter. He lost the argument. Either follow the case law or stop being a judge.

The same with Newsom. He may believe the California law is unconstitutional, but that is not for him to decide a Mayor. His job is to enforce the law, which means telling same-sex couples they cannot marry.

If we have every government official in the country deciding they can interpret any law as they personally see fit, it won't be long before they also feel the same way about making and enforcing laws. Total anarchy.

Moore and Newsom are both wrong.

Dubya and the Republicans need to stand up and demand respect for the law in this country. I have no desire to see this country end up like Brazil.
14 posted on 02/17/2004 11:08:35 AM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Demonstrated worldwide during the 20th Century, criminally corrupt socialism is fascism. The SF mayor's orders to violate state laws are the same as Clinton's executive orders made to bypass proper and legal legislation, such as the Mexican's peso bailout when Congress would go not along, to name but one. The stroke of a pen...

Fascism is erupting across this once Constitutional Republic, by E.O., court orders, and petty mayors. All eagerly violate our federal and state Ratified Constitutions, rendering the Rule of Law pathetic myth.

Rule over us is the biggest business there is. Party politics is The Mother of special interest. It now costs hundreds of millions to capture effective control over our $2+ trillion and $45 trillion on and off budget national debt.

Wether by civil war, as in Russia and China, or by normal elective processes in Italy and Germany, fascism is the form of politics which richly financially rewards those in power as if heads of great corporations while the people are but sheep to be shorn to fund their masters. The UN is now but a gangland forum.

Tens of millions of American citizens are sworn before God to protect and defend our Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. How many fascists and wannabees embrace that honor while feeding at the public trough and living under the rulers of law?

American fascism is on display.
15 posted on 02/17/2004 11:13:23 AM PST by SevenDaysInMay (Federal judges and justices serve for periods of good behavior, not life. Article III sec. 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
What will happen to our society when people begin to ask what law they can break that they don’t like?

Relax, Al. As always, our society can depend on the lawyers to have all this nonsense straightened in no time. Soon, things will be just as good as new, Al. LOL.

Thank God for lawyers!

16 posted on 02/17/2004 11:20:33 AM PST by Scenic Sounds (Sí, estamos libres sonreír otra vez - ahora y siempre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GulliverSwift
Judge Roy Moore lost his job because of his resistance to misinterpretation, but on Constitutional grounds, he has a right to resist. There is no law that clearly defines a line between seperation of religious belief from government ideology because they are truely entwined, but the judge defied a court order pending further court action. The SF mayor has a law on the books clearly defining marriage, yet it is ignored. The Mayor should also lose the job because there should be a court order stopping the so called marriages, and an arrest warrant issued. Lawlessness is becoming the standard of those in power because they think they are above the law.
17 posted on 02/17/2004 11:21:54 AM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Imagine for a moment if some local public official starting giving out gun licenses en masse because he did not like California’s oppressive anti-gun laws?

That's a great idea. And then the recipients should go to Massachusetts and demand that that state respect their licenses under the "full faith and credit" clause.

18 posted on 02/17/2004 11:21:59 AM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
It's more than just a "nice try", it's the law. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... "

In order to argue that Moore violated the law, one must assert that he is establishing religion (I'm assuming no one is going to argue that Moore's actions prohibited anyone's free exercise of religion).

But the plain fact of the matter is that there is no establishment of religion created or implied by Moore's actions. The Supreme Court has, engraved into the building, the same Ten Commandments that Moore put into his courtroom. It is not consistent to say that it is okay for the US Supreme Court to display them but not for the Alabama Supreme Court to do so.

The federal injunction against Moore is the only Constitutional violation here - it is a prohibition on the free exercise of religion.

The First Amendment does not mandate abhorrence of religion, to drive religion from the public sphere. This is a false interpretation, and a study of the Founders' comments on the subject makes it clear that it was never intended to be used as a tool to drive religion from public life.
19 posted on 02/17/2004 11:31:17 AM PST by thoughtomator ("What do I know? I'm just the President." - George W. Bush, Superbowl XXXVIII halftime statement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
...the State’s Attorney General musters a statement that no one has asked him to issue a legal opinion

Oh, sure! That's rich! the state AG, one Bill (I Hate Your Guns) Lockyear has taken it upon himself to set up a DOJ goon squad that now culls records of gun sales to see if maybe, someone, somewhere might have bought a gun even thought they once were subject to a domestic violence restraining order - looking for a needle in a haystack. Well, no one "asked him to render a legal opinion" on that issue, he just thought it up and did it. The man is a liar, a miscreant, a criminal, and a commie. He should be jailed along with that jerk-off Mayor of Sodom By The Bay. Instead, they will probably find a commie judge and have the whole phaggot marriage issue made legal against the wishes of the majority of Californians. Wait and see.

20 posted on 02/17/2004 11:32:53 AM PST by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
The problem with amendment I is, when Congress crosses the line, everyone says"hey, thays illegal, you congress can't do that, someone do something, nobodys doing anything, damn."
21 posted on 02/17/2004 11:35:47 AM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Imagine for a moment if some local public official starting giving out gun licenses en masse because he did not like California’s oppressive anti-gun laws?

He undermines his own point by pointing out one of the many instances in which it would be right to break the so-called "law."

22 posted on 02/17/2004 11:36:09 AM PST by Sloth (We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Dr Savage is that you?

I agree with your post though.

23 posted on 02/17/2004 11:37:06 AM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: thoughtomator
Big difference: Moore has the law of the land - the Constitution - on his side.

Not according to the branch of government that has the power to interpret the Constitution. You don't get to make independent decisions as to what court orders need to be followed.

25 posted on 02/17/2004 11:46:58 AM PST by Modernman ("When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." -Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: webwizard
Right back at you:

Moore specifically prohibited some other religious group who wanted to put up an equivalent statue to his.

Moore had administrative discretion as to what was placed in the courtroom. He is not compelled by any law to place something there. This does not qualify as a prohibition on the free exercise of religion; there is no religion which requires their symbols in a court of law in order to be freely exercised. Free speech does not compel anyone else to provide a platform; nor does the free exercise of religion.

No, the Supreme Court has a frieze of Moses holding a tablet with the numbers I thru X on it. No Ten Commandments per se.

If you are asserting that there is a substantive difference between the two, then you implictly admit that it is the religious content that distinguishes them. Where in the Constitution do you find the authority for any branch of the Federal government to prohibit or censor religious content?

26 posted on 02/17/2004 11:48:13 AM PST by thoughtomator ("What do I know? I'm just the President." - George W. Bush, Superbowl XXXVIII halftime statement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Two words: Dred Scott

History is not on the side of your argument. The notion that the Supreme Court's dictates are infallible and unarguable is historically very recent. The Court is only one of three branches of our government and was specifically designed to be the weakest of the three, for the express purpose of avoiding the conception of the judicial branch in the terms you expressed here.
27 posted on 02/17/2004 11:50:22 AM PST by thoughtomator ("What do I know? I'm just the President." - George W. Bush, Superbowl XXXVIII halftime statement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
I'm not interested in debating the substantive points raised by Moore and Newsom. My objection is to government officials in responsible positions overriding their oaths to uphold the law and acting like cowboys.
28 posted on 02/17/2004 11:52:13 AM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Our elected officials are by their pacifist cowardly ways responsible for this strange tyranny and disregard for the rule of law going on - we elect them and expect them to do as people have asked them, and they are not doing it. Like parents who are God ordained to discipline and manage their children, but don't, they ignore their children's bad behavior, make excuses for it, pretend not to see it,argue among themselves over who gets the hard job of playing the "bad guy", instead of one of them, anyone of them, just saying stop and controling it. The mob rules is beginning to have new meaning!! I wish I could say I am hopeful but who has been able to change Roe vs Wade after all these years. The only question is what should we do. Can anyone come up with an answer - no politician is going to do anything! This is so big - and I really can't imagine anyone putting their foot down. The ball IS in our court, and we cannot seem to agree whether it is even within our right to stop these behaviors. Do we put it to a vote? and if we did who knows what the outcome would be. Lets put every darn thing up for a vote and we could possibly see a vote to burn all conservative at the stake by the end of the year. Maybe a democracy is not an option anymore - we will have to have a theocracy to keep from all being eliminated. But first we will spend a little more time arguing w dems about Ws hours in the guard. Well, don't send me mail telling me to go to some kook site and post instead. I'm just into bottom lines! What is it! What to do!
29 posted on 02/17/2004 11:54:14 AM PST by Esther Ruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
My objection is precisely the same. Only in the Moore case, I view the Federal judges who are overriding their oaths in the illegal suppression of religious expression. According to the law itself, Moore was obeying both the letter and the spirit of the law in his actions. (If you don't like the law, move to have it amended - but the fact of the law as it stands supports Moore.)
30 posted on 02/17/2004 11:55:13 AM PST by thoughtomator ("What do I know? I'm just the President." - George W. Bush, Superbowl XXXVIII halftime statement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
People are no longer afraid to break "minor" laws and it has escalated into what we have today.

That was the biggest tragedy of the first prohibition. A nation of scoff laws were spawned. Now the second prohibition. Now the traffic violations, and on and on,,,,,,

31 posted on 02/17/2004 11:56:58 AM PST by Protagoras (When they asked me what I thought of freedom in America,,, I said I thought it would be a good idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Two words: Dred Scott

What kind of rule do you propose when it comes to picking and choosing which court orders to follow? Under what circumstances can a government official or private citizen decide to ignore a court order?

I would say that there is no way that you could come up with a system where court orders could be ignored without the entire system dissolving into anarchy.

32 posted on 02/17/2004 11:57:36 AM PST by Modernman ("When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." -Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Once the courts choose themselves to ignore the law, the system has already become anarchy. Blaming those who would keep their fundamental rights as human beings for the situation is misplaced. A court order must be ignored if it itself violates the law.
33 posted on 02/17/2004 12:00:11 PM PST by thoughtomator ("What do I know? I'm just the President." - George W. Bush, Superbowl XXXVIII halftime statement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
I would say that there is no way that you could come up with a system where court orders could be ignored without the entire system dissolving into anarchy.

You have it backwards. Failure to ignore plainly illegal court orders is what has caused the system to dissolve into the anarchy we have now.

34 posted on 02/17/2004 12:02:29 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
America has never been on such a morally ambiguous path

this is what happens when there are liberals in charge and running the government. But I'm sure everyone here knows this
35 posted on 02/17/2004 12:03:00 PM PST by ezoeni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Citizens arrest with about 200 freepers arm and arm marching this idiot to the Jail. Then get the America Center for Law and Justice to file a suit.

Ops4 God BLess America!
36 posted on 02/17/2004 12:05:48 PM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
A court order must be ignored if it itself violates the law.

So, every American has the right to determine exactly which court orders do and do not violate the law? Why even bother with a judiciary then, if we're all free to ignore court orders as we see fit?

37 posted on 02/17/2004 12:13:12 PM PST by Modernman ("When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." -Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Failure to ignore plainly illegal court orders is what has caused the system to dissolve into the anarchy we have now

How do you determine whether a court order is "plainly illegal?"

38 posted on 02/17/2004 12:14:42 PM PST by Modernman ("When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." -Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Every human being has fundamental rights that cannot be justly infringed. This is the founding philosophy of our republic.

Why even bother with a judiciary then, if we're all free to ignore court orders as we see fit?

The question to ask is, why even bother with a judiciary if it will not itself follow the law?

The onus needs to be on the judges to follow the law, not on citizens to surrender their inalienable rights to perpetuate the illegal usurpation of legislative power by the judiciary.

39 posted on 02/17/2004 12:16:45 PM PST by thoughtomator ("What do I know? I'm just the President." - George W. Bush, Superbowl XXXVIII halftime statement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Every human being has fundamental rights that cannot be justly infringed. This is the founding philosophy of our republic.

I have to ask the question again: How do you propose that we go about determining when fundamental rights have been unlawfully infringed upon? (and remember, no right, not even fundamental rights, are absolute) There needs to be a mechanism that is better than "everyone gets to decide for themselves." If you can think of any system other than an independent judiciary (which, granted, makes mistakes sometimes)which balances all of the competing factors.....

40 posted on 02/17/2004 12:24:33 PM PST by Modernman ("When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." -Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Esther Ruth
Its becoming clearer every day; we have elected people who are not interested in the Rule of Law unless it benefits their particular group of campaign contributors. The mayor of San Francisco was helped into office by the gay crowd and their money. This is just "pay off" time in the City. To the RATs, the law is merely a nuisance in their drive to create a Marxist paradise in which the Vermin rule and the Law is whatever THEY say it is at any given moment.

The Governator is "silent" on the issue; so is the state AG. The latter because he is part of the problem - he's another liberal commie/socialist, as is the majority of the Cal Legislature. They would vote FOR a gay marriage bill if they thought they could get away with it; this way, they do not have to go "on record" with this very "messy" issue. They will just "let the courts do it." In this they are no different than the national candidates in this election year. They do not want to talk about these "messy issues". The dominant press will not bring any of this up, either, except in the context that we all need to be "tolerant" and we all need to be treated "equally". Neither argument will hold up, but I expect the courts to render this a moot point. Certainly the Cal SC and the infamous 9th Circuit will rule that it is perfectly O.K. to endorse gay marriage. What can we do? The solution may not be at the ballot box.

41 posted on 02/17/2004 12:28:27 PM PST by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
I propose that the judiciary follow the law, as is the duty with which it is charged. This is the mechanism that our system was designed with, and it is to this that we must return. As a modest step in that direction, I propose that all court orders must include a direct reference to the law that grants the court the power to issue such an order.
42 posted on 02/17/2004 12:30:24 PM PST by thoughtomator ("What do I know? I'm just the President." - George W. Bush, Superbowl XXXVIII halftime statement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
It's not just that some protected groups get to flout the laws that they don't like, these same protected groups get to decide which laws others must be held to, as well.

-PJ

43 posted on 02/17/2004 12:37:49 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (It's not safe yet to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Imagine for a moment if some local public official starting giving out gun licenses en masse because he did not like California's oppressive anti-gun laws? The entire weight of the media elite and the state would be down upon his head.
-45Auto-


_______________________________________


It happened in Solano County, maybe ten years ago or so.. Rio Vista maybe?
The top cop was issuing concealed carry permits, and raking in a small [legal] fortune for the city before they stopped him with political/media pressure..

BIg flap at the time..


44 posted on 02/17/2004 12:40:37 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines conservatism; - not the GOP. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
By comparing it to the law?
45 posted on 02/17/2004 12:43:55 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
So here we are living in a country that stands for the rule of law and not the rule of a single individual or group of individuals

Um. Are we really? Let's back up a few sentences:

The irony is there is in fact a right to bear arms as stated in the now ignored second amendment to the Unites States Constitution.

Hm.

46 posted on 02/17/2004 12:44:26 PM PST by Eala (Sacrificing tagline fame for... TRAD ANGLICAN RESOURCE PAGE: http://eala.freeservers.com/anglican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
And now the "courts" have decided to wait until Friday to rule on this. Why? It's breaking the law and they must "mull it over?" This is how the rule of law is broken down, and a SMALL taste of what it is like in the PRC, that has a constitution with the similar freedoms granted to its citizens... ruled upon by judges so capricious that it is a little slice of hell. This is what chaos is really about - the darkness of insanity.
47 posted on 02/17/2004 12:44:41 PM PST by Libertina (A girl in the "hand" is worth 5 false guard stories pinned on Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest
By comparing it to the law?

The fact of the matter is, the average citizen is not qualified to make that determination. Legal scholars have been engaged in a 200+ year debate as to exactly what the 1st Amendment stands for and how far it reaches, for example. To say that the average layman is qualified to take a court order and compare it to the law plus 200 years of legal precedent is wishful thinking.

48 posted on 02/17/2004 12:48:06 PM PST by Modernman ("When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." -Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
All one has to do is EQUATE breaking a SPECIFIC law with the "slavery issue" and all reservations to breaking that law abate or disappear. There is a double standard and it is palpable. The LEFTISTS and their agendas are IN and the conservatives and their agendas are OUT. Hence 'homosexuality' is IN and GOD and the 10 Commandments are OUT.
49 posted on 02/17/2004 12:49:27 PM PST by PISANO (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Legal scholars have a way of making the law way more complicated than it ever needed to be. And despite the fact that there may be some legitimate controversies over the meaning of the law, there will be judges who simply make it up as it suits their purposes, in which case citizens have a duty to disobey them.
50 posted on 02/17/2004 12:56:07 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-115 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson