A True Patriot

Gunhobbit said:

Perhaps reading the Constitution would help? At least, if nothing else, you can point out to everyone here the part where it says that only the Supreme Court can decide on issues of what's constitutional and what isn't.

:lol:

Click to expand...

That's not exactly true. The Sheriff is the elected (i.e. executive) representative of the people of his county and in most jurisdictions is the one who runs the incarceration facility for the county. If the Sheriff doesn't arrest someone because he believes his oath prevents him from enforcing a law, then what's going to happen? I suppose the fed's could come in and try to take the suspect but if the Sheriff stands up to them then what? Armed confrontation? I think not, sheeesh I hope not!!!!

But hey, there's another elected position that can protect the people. The District Attorney. If he doesn't prosecute for a violation of state law, is the state Attorney General going to step in? Then are we right back to the question of will there be armed confrontation (between county and state officials this time)?

And there is always the JURY, the FINAL decider of the propriety of the law. Regardless of what the Supremes say, it is THE JURY that has the ultimate power to nullify a law for being unconstitutional (or even just because they don't like it). Since the trial has to be in the jurisdiction, if the people of a jurisdiction decide they don't like a law, then how is the prosecutor going to get a jury conviction?

The Supremes are NOT the final decider, the PEOPLE, in the form of the JURY are.

We-the-People said:

The Supremes are NOT the final decider, the PEOPLE, in the form of the JURY are.

Click to expand...

Presuming, of course, that you can get enough jurors through the voir dire process to have them actually nullify something. :uhoh:

beebobby said:

So a local sherrif gets to determine what is constitutional, not the SCOTUS. Doesn't sound constitutional to me.

Click to expand...

In your opinion, who determines if an act you foresee being ordered to do or are ordered to do is constitutional? I'll give you a hint from my military days: individual soldiers can refuse to perform an unlawful order. PERIOD. The directive wasn't "you can refuse to perform an unlawful order as long as SCOTUS said it's unlawful".

In Nazi Germany, people carried out their orders mindlessly. The Fuhrer said it's lawful, so gee it's lawful and now I'm going to carry out my orders given to me.

We're Americans, not Nazis. We have the sense to know (at least many of us do) that it is an ethical right and responsibility to individually make a determination if an order is not lawful and refuse to carry it out.