Laws Be Damned

NewsMax ^ | 17 February 2004 | Al Rantel

[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The second example is the newest move in California only weeks after a similar law was repealed due to huge public opposition to allow those people in this country illegally to obtain California drivers licenses.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.

[45Auto]

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.

[thoughtomator]

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.

[Political Junkie Too]

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

[tpaine]

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..

[inquest]

By comparing it to the law?

[Eala]

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.

[Libertina]

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.

[Modernman]

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.

[PISANO]

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.

[inquest]

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.

[tpaine]

inquest:
Failure to ignore plainly illegal court orders is what has caused the system to dissolve into the anarchy we have now.
-34-
______________________________________



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

---

You use your own judgment, and pray that a jury of your peers will see it your way..

When you enter the military, you get a quick class on 'illegal orders'.

Essentially you are told that you ~may~ be damned if you don't follow them, but most assuredly you will damn yourself if you do.

[Modernman]

Essentially you are told that you ~may~ be damned if you don't follow them, but most assuredly you will damn yourself if you do

Legally-speaking, even if a court order is later found to be illegal or unconstitutional, you can legally be punished for violating it. Contempt of court is independent of whether or not the court order was valid.

[tpaine]

Legally speaking, lawyers & judges see themselves as gods..

All I want is a jury, fully informed as to the facts, and of the constitutionality, of the case at hand.

[inquest]

Legally-speaking, even if a court order is later found to be illegal or unconstitutional, you can legally be punished for violating it.

Practically speaking, maybe. But legally speaking, any punishment inflicted for failure to comply with an illegal order would be just as illegal as the order itself.

[45Auto]

The problem is that the judiciary is no longer independent, and perhaps it never was. Judges are just humans - they are subject to prejudice, personal opinion, political bias, criminal intent, bribery, blackmail and just plain insanity. The problem is the lack of honor and integrity and intellectual honesty when it comes to basic Constitutional issues. The 2nd amendment is a case in point, but we needn't go into that here.

While I agree that there is a lot of room for interpretation of case law, certain basic Constitutional provisions should be far less fluid, in my opinion.

[tuesday afternoon]

Bump.

[Don Joe]

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.

This sort of thing has happened before. The last time, it pretty much tore the nation in half, and it took Lincoln several years to put it back together. It was a very costly affair no matter how you look a it.

[Don Joe]

I have no desire to see this country end up like Brazil.

But it already has.

Oh, oops, mea culpa. You were talking about the country, not the movie, weren't you.

[Don Joe]

Rule over us is the biggest business there is.

Bingo. We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule. Hmmm, I think I'll update my tagline.

[the invisib1e hand]

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.

The problem is complicated by double-standards. Did anyone notice that, before the queer movement began flouting laws directly, they spent years passing laws making themselves a special class, protected even from criticism? "Hate Crimes" legislation must be undone.