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

To: justshutupandtakeit
justshutupandtakeit wrote:

Officials do not get to decide for themselves which laws are constitutional or not.

They are bound to support the supreme 'Law of the Land'. -- Laws repugnant to the supreme law are null & void, and not to be supported [or enforced].

They may petition the Court to declare them so. [and, they may refuse to support them while awaiting that declaration]
George Wallace had no authority to argue that integrating the University is "unconstitutional". These quaint ideas are no longer respectible.

Quaint point.. Wallace had every authority possible. He was sworn to preserve, protect & defend the Constitution of the USA, as well as of his State.

The idea that the officials could "defend" the constitution from the legislature is just as laughable. That was never the Founders intention since they divided power among the Executive, legislative and judicial.

The laughs on you. The division of powers was intended to foster 'checks & balances' on those very powers. You have some very quaint authoritarian ideas.

But in addition to all that there is no oath "to defend against constitutional infringements" rather it is to "support this constitution".

"-- preserve, protect an defend --" is in the Presidential oath. -- Quibble about that.

It is the Supreme Court which has final say on WHAT that constitution is.

Belied by the repeal of prohibition. The people prevailed, the Courts opinion was rejected.

56 posted on 05/16/2006 3:48:41 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine

The Constitution in question is the one defined by the Court not State officials or federal officials or the local dogcatcher.

They have no capacity for judgment on what the Constitution says but must follow the Court's judgment as the Founders stipulated.

The rest of your post is more confusion and mistake.

The checks and balances established were not that state authorities had any say over decisions over constitutionality outside the right to take a law before the Court for a ruling. The checks by the states took other forms not by unilateral decisions on which laws to obey. Anarchy would be the result. Jefferson's theories were completely whacky.


57 posted on 05/16/2006 8:32:51 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

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