Skip to comments.When Government Breaks The Law
Posted on 03/28/2002 10:00:21 PM PST by antidemocommie
When government breaks the rules, what are you entitled to do about it? Are you bound by unconstitutional laws forced on you by those who live by their own rules?
Consider the following famous Americans, and the Rule of Law:
Excerpt from the Bill of Rights, Amendment I:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Please observe that this does not contain any exceptions
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference
and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly
void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the
date of the decision so branding it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it."
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged:
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well,
when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to
live without breaking laws."
Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow
Nope. There are no rules. You'll have to deal with things by yourself.
Are you ready?
Which un American quote above do you object to? The Constituton? Abe Lincoln? Ann Rand? Remember what the battle flag of the American Revolution was "Live Free, or Die."
PREAMBLE Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
BILL OF RIGHTS
That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:
Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
Now anyone not understand that??
Freedom makes me sad. It prevents me from pursuing happiness. I have the right to determine the society I (and you) live in. Children have a right to their own innocence. Who are these libertarians to fill up their world with pornography and women with exposed ankles, and to rob them of innocent childhood diversions such as roasting marshmallows over a heretic?
He seems to support making the US a theocracy, otherwise known as "obey we who speak for God...or else."
The idea that people might want to *choose* whether or not to follow God -- that is, that they may want to exercise their God-given Free Will -- seems repugnant to him. Otherwise, he would not react so...over-the-top to any hint that people might not like being told what to do all the time, even if it is for their own good.
An alternative view might be that he supports Tyranny of the Majority, but only if the Majority is religious in the way he supports. I *suppose* this is a slightly better form of government than a theocracy, as more people are involved in making decisions, but there is still no means of redress if the Majority errs and commits an injustice.
Oh well. He should be more happy with the future statist government than he is with the current one.
Many have tried. All have failed. I know where you are coming from, but you have no idea where I am. Come back after you have died, and try it again.
A fringe political movement which can never get more than a half a percent of the vote has only murder as the means to attain it's ends. After 9-11, people are rightfully wary of ideologues with these really weird and murderous ideas floating around in their heads.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it."
Worth a repeat.
I guess those guys in Philly around two and a quarter centuries ago should've all been rounded up and shot. They were, after all, rebelling against a lawful government. At least, the English Parliment would say they were the lawful government.
I guess it depends on your point of view?
Nope. You were closer with majoritarian as long as the majority agrees with him.
The Bill of Rights, as well as certain portions of the Constitution were written *specifically* to prevent the Majority from bringing tyranny. However, it was understood that over time, the majority would eventually get its way. The Founding Fathers, knowing this, admitted they were taking a risk by *trusting* the People be able to handle wisely the power the Constitution made manifest (as the People have always had it.)
I leave it to the reader to decide how well we've managed the power made manifest by the Constitution.
He is actually _Jim's evil twin.
That's his point, idjit. The Constitution says you can, the Supreme Court says you cannot. That's his question: Is this a nation of laws or of men? And if not laws, what is to be done? Thanks for explicitly coming down on the side of a government of men, not of laws.
I'm sure you would want the SCOTUS to declare his asking the question unconstitutional.
Sure. And, if 9-11 hadn't happened, you would say, "After OKC . . .". And you would be correct; however, if you were truly honest, you would say, "After Waco . . .".
ONe does have a right to commit insurrection against a lawful government, if that government does not meet the desires of the insurrectionist, however, I recommend to that person that he try to incorporate a few million of his closest friends. The solitary insurrectionist is doomed to failure.
On the flip side, since you cowardly chose "lawful" govt, (not the topic of this thread), when one is confronted by unlawful government, one has a moral DUTY to throw off such government, and to disobey unlawful statutes.
Laws which protect society or the "collective", such as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre, are inconsistent with the American system. Rather, one who yells "Fire" should subsequently be punished for any damage or injury caused by him, rather than society attempting to outlaw said activity before the fact.
That approach is inconsistent with indivdual liberty.
It is clear that you value the needs of society above the needs of the individual. As such, you are both a statist and a socialist.
Your cultural Jihad leads to a society of slaves at the mercy of Federal power.
And getting the majority to agree with him -- why, that's just a simple matter of applying prison sentences and death penalties to enough of the Non-Jihadists to reduce the sample size down to a comfortably Jihadist majority. ;-)