Posted on 10/09/2004 3:06:08 PM PDT by Ed Current
Cowardice and ignorance coupled with the incessant shrill demand to correct the Constitution via amendment, when the federal courts are the problem.
14 Ed Current
______________________________________
Congress cannot just make up a 'rule' regarding our fundamental rights to life liberty & property, any more than can States.
All legislative bodies must use due process in framing law..
As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . ."
27 tpaine
______________________________________
The federal courts were not given veto power over state and local laws not subject to their jurisdiction.
31 Ed C
______________________________________
I've never claimed the feds had 'veto power'.
Are you saying States have the power to ignore our BOR's?
One thing that I think needs to happen is to form a balance between having a court which can make decisions with neither regard for earlier precedent nor regard for the precedent the decision will make, and a court which is so bound by the concept of precedent that either it cannot deal with exceptional cases or else it gets "stuck" by them.
At minimum, the court needs to be able to make explicit in a decision that the facts of the extant case make it unique, and thus it should not be used for guidance in how to decide more general cases.
Further, I would like to see the Court be able to issue a decision in such a way as to explicitly create "anti-precedent". For example, if the court found that a statute as worded forbade an activity but also found that a reasonable person reading the statute might well conclude otherwise, I would like for the Court to issue a ruling which would forbid prosecution under the state's reading of the statute of any action performed before the second business day following the Court's ruling, but would allow prosecution for actions performed after that time.
To be sure, if there were nothing to discourage a court from doing that on every case, a court could decide cases at whim without rhyme or reason creating a judicial tyranny at least as bad as what exists now. But if it could be made clear that decisions claiming "exceptional facts" were to be regarded as inferior to decisions which did not claim such, except when such claim was in fact materially necessary, such things might be kept in check.
What is case law ?
The Calif. Legislature banned "assault weapons." ---The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said it was okay. ---The 9th Circuit Court (as I recall ) said that the USSC would have to overturn Cruikshank (and Presser ) before the Second Amendment could restrict the Calif. legislature.
This is the enforced law in California.
Did the courts not already violate this when they did not hear the defense of those unborn?
And in the case in question, CA has rejected the 2nd Amendment? -- Please advise.
It does appear that we live in a UNITED STATE, rather than the United States. The federal government wasn't created to enforce the BOR. The BOR were added to RESTRAIN the federal government.
Work to change the CA law! Folk in other states should not allow same to occur in their own state and donate resources to CA folk who are trying to repeal this law!
Citizens should have access to weapons that pose a serious deterrent to the federal government. This would include personal possession of any firearm in use by the military or federal police. WMD aren't needed to deter fed gov from imposing martial law, if the citizenry are appropriately armed and sufficient numbers in the military and fed police support Constitutional government. The worst case would be civil war, vs the annihilation of large segments of the unarmed populace, as happened in various places last century.
Significantly prior to the BOR - The Avalon Project : Virginia Declaration of RightsXIII
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
All legislative bodies must use due process in framing law..
As the second Justice Harlan
recognized:
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . ."
But where was due process when the lives of unborn persons were summarily rendered subservient to the will of others?
Roe was decided because States were attempting to decree that early term abortion is murder. -- Due process tells us that juries get to decide that question in the USA.
Did the courts not already violate this when they did not hear the defense of those unborn?
The court was defending a womens right not to be convicted of murder by unconstitutional decree, a "Malum Prohibitum" - An act which is deemed illegal because it is seen [by some] as immoral.
I recommend the 'The Revolutionary Second Amendment'
That site seems to agree with you that guns can be banned by States. -- Correct me if I'm wrong.
with the following in mind: Hot Topics - visionforum.org Black's Law Dictionary:
Interposition "The doctrine that a state, in the exercise of its sovereignty, may reject a mandate of the federal government deemed to be unconstitutional or to exceed the powers delegated to the federal government.
And in the case in question, CA has rejected the 2nd Amendment?
-- Please advise.
It does appear that we live in a UNITED STATE, rather than the United States. The federal government wasn't created to enforce the BOR.
Read the Preamble Ed. -- Establishing a Union and Securing the Blessings of constitutional Liberties pretty well says it all.
The BOR were added to RESTRAIN the federal government.
You deny that it also restrains the States? Read the 10th again about prohibited powers. One prohibited from State infringement is our RKBA's.
Work to change the CA law! Folk in other states should not allow same to occur in their own state and donate resources to CA folk who are trying to repeal this law! Citizens should have access to weapons that pose a serious deterrent to the federal government. This would include personal possession of any firearm in use by the military or federal police. WMD aren't needed to deter fed gov from imposing martial law, if the citizenry are appropriately armed and sufficient numbers in the military and fed police support Constitutional government. The worst case would be civil war, vs the annihilation of large segments of the unarmed populace, as happened in various places last century.
You are preaching to the choir, Ed.
Significantly prior to the BOR - The Avalon Project : Virginia Declaration of Rights XIII
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
Again, -- we can all agree that the miltary is controled by civil power. --- Are you trying to say that a State should have the power to control/prohibit military 'type' arms, as does CA?
If Congress criminalized the actions of Parents who leave their children to die in their cars so that they could go off to the salon, then the supreme court could abrogate that by saying that those parents are not responsible for the murder of their children?
Due process also says a person has the "Right to be heard in one's own defense."
But are you saying that the supreme court found a way to say who is as good as dead without a trial?
If congress passed a criminal law saying that all the doctors, and all the nurses of a hospital can just walk out one single morning without giving reasonable warning, they would be held responsible for the resulting deaths of their patients.
No such 'law' could be passed.
If that occurred, the Supreme court would then say this would violate a persons right to leave work? What about the precedent? What about the lives of those and other patients who could be further harmed by this new trend of unreliability?
Why would the USSC 'say' that? Get a new example.
If Congress criminalized the actions of Parents who leave their children to die in their cars so that they could go off to the salon,
Such actions are, and always have been criminal.
then the supreme court could abrogate that by saying that those parents are not responsible for the murder of their children?
Rest assured, Space. They wouldn't.
Due process also says a person has the "Right to be heard in one's own defense."
Good point. But are you saying that the supreme court found a way to say who is as good as dead without a trial?
It is still perfectly legal, anywhere in the USA, to find a prosecutor to file murder charges against a woman who has had an abortion, and bring her to trial. Let a jury decide the issue.
If congress passed a criminal law saying that all the doctors, and all the nurses of a hospital can just walk out one single morning without giving reasonable warning, they would be held responsible for the resulting deaths of their patients.
No such 'law' could be passed.
If that occurred, the Supreme court would then say this would violate a persons right to leave work? What about the precedent? What about the lives of those and other patients who could be further harmed by this new trend of unreliability?
Why would the USSC 'say' that? Get a new example.
If Congress criminalized the actions of Parents who leave their children to die in their cars so that they could go off to the salon,
Such actions are, and always have been criminal.
then the supreme court could abrogate that by saying that those parents are not responsible for the murder of their children?
Rest assured, Space. They wouldn't.
Due process also says a person has the "Right to be heard in one's own defense."
Good point.
But are you saying that the supreme court found a way to say who is as good as dead without a trial?
It is still perfectly legal, anywhere in the USA, to find a prosecutor to file murder charges against a woman who has had an abortion, and bring her to trial. Let a jury decide the issue. [Corrected]
Indeed! A most informative and compelling post from 'Ed'. There are several issues over which subpreme judges ought to have been and should be impeached, bud sadly each is faced by politicians with both eyes on their survival at the ballot box over their responsibility to the Republic. Our system is perhaps too corrupted now to reverse the damage, especially with one of the two major political parties using judicial activism to serve the perverse interests of their constituencies.
BUMP for read later
Folk have too much stress and too little time to "keep their Republic."
That, plus the fact that many people prefer the chilling effect of laws that may or may not be enforceable, but which nobody is willing to "test", to the actual effects of laws that are well-understood.
It seems to me that there should be a specific legal defense that the defendant reasonably understood allegedly-criminal actions taken to be legal, and such defense should not be mooted by court decisions which occur subsequent to the actions that find that they are, in fact, not legal. The effect of this would be to rule that the judicial decisions' effects can not criminalize an activity ex post facto any more than can legislation.
If courts could separate the issues of "what might a reasonable person believe the law says" and "what does the law actually say", and recognize that they may be different, that would probably help things a lot.
This would allow a court to issue a ruling that, while people may have reasonably believed that a particular activity was legal, it isn't. Because people could have reasonably believed it to be legal prior to the ruling, nobody may be prosecuted for performing that activity when they could reasonably have believed it to be legal. After the court's ruling, however, reasonable people would no longer be able to believe the activity to be legal, and thus people could be prosecuted for future offenses.
Is anyone aware of any courts having ruled in such a fashion?
bump for reference
marking
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.