Posted on 06/18/2012 4:14:48 PM PDT by BCrago66
At 7 a.m. on January 20, 2007, DEA agents battered down the door to Thomas and Rosalie Avina’s mobile home in Seeley, California, in search of suspected drug trafficker Louis Alvarez. Thomas Avina met the agents in his living room and told them they were making a mistake. Shouting “Don’t you *ucking move,” the agents forced Thomas Avina to the floor at gunpoint, and handcuffed him and his wife, who had been lying on a couch in the living room. As the officers made their way to the back of the house, where the Avina’s 11-year-old and 14-year-old daughters were sleeping, Rosalie Avina screamed, “Don’t hurt my babies. Don’t hurt my babies.”
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
[...] my point is that no true conservative can voice support for unconstitutional laws.
When you come here and protest against those other laws, and put your full efforts into getting them repealed too,
I'm aware of no other issue where a significant portion of FReepers support clearly unconstitutional laws.
You love to throw around the 'clearly unconsititonal' term. In certain circumstances, I am inclined to agree with your assessment. Let's be truthful about it though. None of these laws have been taken to the SCOTUS and proven to be what you say they are.
No real conservative would imply that the SCOTUS, which has given us Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas, is a valid test for constitutionality.
I don't care in the slightest about my credibility with you - that's a transparent attempt to avoid addressing my points (as quoted at the beginning of this post).
If you don't care about your credibility with me, why are you still trying to beat this dead horse? Why would you even respond to my comments about your credibility if you didn't care about my take on your credibility?
To note that your raising that non-issue was a transparent attempt to avoid addressing my points.
Okay, lets address your comments at the beginning of this post.
Nothing you've written addresses my comments at the beginning of this post.
Look at what you posted above. Please point out to me even one SPECIFIC law that you disagree with. I don't think you can do it. You tossed out the complete Welfare State as an example of specific law. Thats about as precise as naming the Titanic when you're asked to provide a specific case of improper care of violyns.
If you're not willing to be specific, how can you sit there typing away saying you have already shown me what other laws you disagree with?
This is the first time you've shown any interest in specificity - you have made a number of vague references such as "a myriad of laws on the books that are similar to it’s drug laws", that's what you asked if I agreed with, and that's what I did voice agreement with. This "be specific" red herring is another of your transparent attempts to avoid addressing my points (as quoted at the beginning of this post).
Please link me to where you first admitted that other laws with the same status as our 'Drug' laws existed
This is factually incorrect. There's something called the 5th Amendment which states that one shall not be held to account for infamous crimes without a indictment or presentment, further it says that they will not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
Then there's something called the 6th Amendment which says that in all criminal prosecution the accused has the right to a jury trial.
Then there's the 8th Amendment which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments."
Oh, wait, I forgot, things like Constitutions don't constrain governments but are instead interments to bludgeon people with... carry on.
Just because they "don't think they are" doesn't mean that they aren't.
Ex: Patriot Act. (Though some saw it for what it was.)
Er, the states can also repel invasions. Most of their Constitutions have such wording.
Actually, it is factually correct.
While I agree with your cites, that does not mean that the jurists do not have unqualified immunity.
They do - and that is, unfortunately, a big reason that they act as they do.
What I think should be done would probably get me banned here.
Ok, I'll help them out.
The same section that allows the Supreme Court to make up new laws, as they did in Roe v. Wade, and to and the same section from whence they can justify the absence of a market that would be commerce if it existed (Raich) to impact, in some manner the supply or demand int the state which in turn impacts the national [interstate] market and therefore is a matter of interstate commerce (Wickarc).
The little known Article π, Section √e (otherwise known as the Black-Robed God-King Clause)
The supreme court shall have jurisdiction over all laws and the Constitution and may alter or abolish this document at will.
NOW BOW BEFORE US PEASANTS! BOW AND STAND IN AWE AT OUR BRILLIANCE!
No it is not. Just because they say it is and have brainwashed people into believing it does not make it any more valid than it would a 10 year-old scrawling Keep Out on the garden-shed and claiming that it legally protected him.
That is to say, either the Constitutions are the supreme laws of the land, and therefore these immunities are inferior and subject to them, or they are not, in which case those sitting as judges cannot be legitimate judges because that Constitution that was rejected is what creates and sustains the position. That is all laws passed persuant to a Constitution that is nonoperative are themselves inoperative and therefore cannot afford any protection to anyone.
What I think should be done would probably get me banned here.
LOL -- Same here.
"The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control."
J. Roberts
________________________________________________________________
"Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."
J. Scalia, concurring in Raich
And I reject the notion that case law is superior to Constitutional law. In fact case law is doomed to failure more oft than Constitutional law because it depends on rulings which cannot themselves be guaranteed correct.
The two are now mutually exclusive as the case law now has the exact opposite of what the Constitution says as "constitutional."
The commerce clause is embedded in "with Indian tribes" and "with foreign nations", to hold that intrastate commerce is sufficient impactful of interstate commerce to allow its regulation is to say that a foreign country's internal commerce may likewise be regulated by Congress. This is absurd on its face, and would rightly be considered an act of war by that foreign state.
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.