Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: SCOTUS Opinion on un-Constitutional Laws

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    SCOTUS Opinion on un-Constitutional Laws

    The entire post is a quote:

    The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.

    This is succinctly stated as follows:

    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 its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

    An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.

    Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

    Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

    An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

    Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

    No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

    -- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

    In light of the above, I feel it would be both prudent and responsible to reexamine this clause in Rule 15: "Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts," for one simple and very good reason: According to the Supreme Court of the United States, any such "law" is not a law at all. It's merely un-Constitutional legislation, null and void at that, and carrying no legal authority. It's neither breaking it nor is it a law.

    However, what does break the law is any enforcement of such illegitimate legislation, for in so doing, those enforcing it must break higher law, that is, our Constitution, along with their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution.

    As Rule 15's second clause quoted above closely resembles the latter, and stands contrary to Supreme Court ruling as reported by Sixteenth American Jursiprudence, 2nd Ed., S. 177, I hereby move it be stricken from the rules.
    Last edited by since9; 04-30-2014 at 05:25 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,163
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    [ ... ] As Rule 15's second clause quoted above closely resembles the latter, and stands contrary to Supreme Court ruling as reported by Sixteenth American Jursiprudence, 2nd Ed., S. 177, I hereby move it be stricken from the rules.
    Neither this site nor jurisprudence answer to mere parliamentary procedure. You have no standing in either.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274


    Who is your beef with again? And what is your beef?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post


    Who is your beef with again? And what is your beef?
    "Where's the beef?!"


  5. #5
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    The entire post is a quote:

    [INDENT][I]The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail

    This is succinctly stated as follows:....


    ......In light of the above, I feel it would be both prudent and responsible to reexamine this clause in Rule 15: "Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts," for one simple and very good reason: According to the Supreme Court of the United States, any such "law" is not a law at all. It's merely un-Constitutional legislation, null and void at that, and carrying no legal authority. It's neither breaking it nor is it a law
    I would say three things here.

    1) I totally agree. However...

    2) As a private establishment they can and clearly do make the rules they choose to and it's up to us to either live with it or go elsewhere. I don't say that to try to sound mean or harsh. Just stating what is. and lastly

    3) Though the piece quoted is utterly brilliant and I do agree, is there actually any legal precedent that can be used to back this up? If so, I can quite see people using that to defend themselves if need be.


    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    "Where's the beef?!"

    between 2 pieces of bread would be udderly brilliant. If so i'm sure we'll herd over and devour it



    yea yea ok ok. Enough puns for now :P
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I've never seen moderators say "you cannot argue a law is unconstitutional"

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    I would say three things here.

    1) I totally agree.
    Thanks.

    However...

    2) As a private establishment they can and clearly do make the rules they choose to and it's up to us to either live with it or go elsewhere.
    I quite understand. There is nothing, however, preventing them from examining sound reason, good judgement, and modifying their rule as recommended to bring it and this site in closer adherence to our Constitution as per the Supreme Court's commentary.

    3) Though the piece quoted is utterly brilliant and I do agree, is there actually any legal precedent that can be used to back this up? If so, I can quite see people using that to defend themselves if need be.
    First, "American Jurisprudence (second edition is cited as Am. Jur. 2d) is an encyclopedia of United States law, published by West." It's not exactly a "lightweight" resource.

    Second, the oath of office is standard fare in all military commissioning pipelines. The quoted material is commensurate with what is taugtht.

    Third, you asked for precedence, so, here you go:

    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. "
    Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

    "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them quot;
    Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

    "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
    Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442

    ...between 2 pieces of bread would be udderly brilliant. If so i'm sure we'll herd over and devour it; yea yea ok ok. Enough puns for now :P
    Herford! Herford! I believe a mootion is in order! Sorry, I couldn't resist milking your lead. Ok, hoofing right along...
    Last edited by since9; 11-14-2016 at 05:30 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  8. #8
    Regular Member MackTheKnife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    204

    Great discussion

    The information presented here is how it should be, but not how it is. Any law that violates the Constitution should be null and void, but unfortunately that isn't the case. There was a guy who was traveling and was arrested in NJ for removing his unloaded pistol out of his car and taking it into the hotel. A hotel employee saw it, called the police, and the man was arrested. He's facing three years in jail, or one year with a plea deal. I think this might have been posted here on OC.org. NJ obviously doesn't believe in, or adhere to, the Constitution. And the courts uphold these "null and void" laws.
    Mack The Knife sends.

    "Laech cach fer co bas" (Gaelic- "Everyman a warrior until death")
    "Bas no beatha" (McLean war cry- "Death or life")

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by MackTheKnife View Post
    The information presented here is how it should be, but not how it is. Any law that violates the Constitution should be null and void, but unfortunately that isn't the case. There was a guy who was traveling and was arrested in NJ for removing his unloaded pistol out of his car and taking it into the hotel. A hotel employee saw it, called the police, and the man was arrested. He's facing three years in jail, or one year with a plea deal. I think this might have been posted here on OC.org. NJ obviously doesn't believe in, or adhere to, the Constitution. And the courts uphold these "null and void" laws.
    This is why I have come to the conclusion that we, as individuals, must judge for ourselves the Constitutionality, justice, and compatibility with right of every law, and bring that judgment into the jury box.

    Forget what some black-robed professional shills for the state have to say; they all possess questionable judgment, intellect, and morals.
    Last edited by marshaul; 05-01-2014 at 12:02 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    This is why I have come to the conclusion that we, as individuals, must judge for ourselves the Constitutionality, justice, and compatibility with right of every law, and bring that judgment into the jury box.

    Forget what some black-robed professional shills for the state have to say; they all possess questionable judgment, intellect, and morals.
    Not really in context but made me think about something I have been dwelling on.

    Jury Nullifcation is still one form we get to judge even "case law".

    A founding principle of most our states and perfectly constitutional and in the end very very anarchistic. No matter how much people want us to obey the rulers the people can decide they won't punish for those who disobey certain laws.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MackTheKnife View Post
    The information presented here is how it should be, but not how it is. Any law that violates the Constitution should be null and void, but unfortunately that isn't the case. There was a guy who was traveling and was arrested in NJ for removing his unloaded pistol out of his car and taking it into the hotel. A hotel employee saw it, called the police, and the man was arrested. He's facing three years in jail, or one year with a plea deal. I think this might have been posted here on OC.org. NJ obviously doesn't believe in, or adhere to, the Constitution. And the courts uphold these "null and void" laws.
    I'm sure, if convicted, the guy will come out of prison a very happy person.

    NJ is a craphole state. I unfortunately have to travel through it occasionally and I have noted NJ's willful hatred of our natural rights. They would not find such a willing victim here..

  12. #12
    Regular Member MackTheKnife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I'm sure, if convicted, the guy will come out of prison a very happy person.

    NJ is a craphole state. I unfortunately have to travel through it occasionally and I have noted NJ's willful hatred of our natural rights. They would not find such a willing victim here..
    I'm sure he'll be happy knowing he spent time in jail although NJ laws are unconstitutional-NOT. The problem could be solved if the judges would follow their oath to the Constitution. Instead of otherwise good judges, like Scalia, who say there can be "reasonable regulations". That is BS. There should little, or no, restrictions on the Bill of Rights.

    Sent from my Kindle via the NSA.
    Mack The Knife sends.

    "Laech cach fer co bas" (Gaelic- "Everyman a warrior until death")
    "Bas no beatha" (McLean war cry- "Death or life")

  13. #13
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Not really in context but made me think about something I have been dwelling on.

    Jury Nullifcation is still one form we get to judge even "case law".

    A founding principle of most our states and perfectly constitutional and in the end very very anarchistic. No matter how much people want us to obey the rulers the people can decide they won't punish for those who disobey certain laws.
    Sorry, but there are a large number of problems with this. First, the jury has almost been eliminated in most "courts" now. Becoming quite rare as governments at every level pass "laws" that limit or eliminate even the possibility of being tried by a jury. The "stacking" of the juries still permitted is legendary. Only the intellectually and critically thinking impaired are even allowed to "serve." If you lie your way onto the jury, by some miracle, you may spend some time in jail yourself. The jury is threatened and browbeat into giving the "verdict" the court wants... And on and on...

    It's a great idea... but it just doesn't happen much anymore.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by MamaLiberty View Post
    Sorry, but there are a large number of problems with this. First, the jury has almost been eliminated in most "courts" now. Becoming quite rare as governments at every level pass "laws" that limit or eliminate even the possibility of being tried by a jury. The "stacking" of the juries still permitted is legendary. Only the intellectually and critically thinking impaired are even allowed to "serve." If you lie your way onto the jury, by some miracle, you may spend some time in jail yourself. The jury is threatened and browbeat into giving the "verdict" the court wants... And on and on...

    It's a great idea... but it just doesn't happen much anymore.
    True but there is a rise of people aware of this power, and using it, a state even codified the right.

    Yet as you point out judges and prosecutors in that state are doing all they can to ignore a codified law.

    So I keep pushing it with hope that more and more people will do all they can to exercise their power.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 05-06-2014 at 09:31 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by MamaLiberty View Post
    It's a great idea... but it just doesn't happen much anymore.
    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/12/22/...ijuana-mutiny/

    Rather pessimistic, wouldn't you say?

    It may be that jury nullification is due for a rebirth.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    ottawa county
    Posts
    4

    Unconstitutional gun restrictions are not LAW! they are "pretended legislation"!

    Acts of Congress and STATE Legislators are not always binding on the Citizen. When are they binding? Simply stated, they only are binding if they are lawful, that is when they do not conflict with the Constitution and with the Law of Nature and Nature’s God. When they are not lawful, they are “pretended legislation” and the States Legislators are supposed to declare them as null and void and of no effect on the Citizen. This is the Doctrine of Nullification.
    Nullification of invalid federal actions is the duty of state officials, particularly the Governor. In Michigan we look to Rick Snyder (he either doesn't know his duty or for some reason, he refuses to do it.) to protect us from the tyrannical collusion of all three branches of the government.
    Unconstitutional gun restrictions are not LAW! they are "pretended legislation"!

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by MackTheKnife View Post
    The problem could be solved if the judges would follow their oath to the Constitution.
    You've correctly identified the problem, but you've over-localized the source. If anyone involved had followed their oath of office, we wouldn't be seeing these problems. Any one of the following entities could break the chain of mistakes by doing their job: legislators, executives (Christy), judges, law enforcement, and district attorneys/prosecutors. All are at fault, both severally and collectively.

    Even the citizen who called the cops should have known his Constitution. The citizens oath of naturalization contains the same clause as the oath of office. That implies the same is expected of all citizens.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690
    Wouldn't the failure to follow one's oath fall under a violation of the McCarron Act?
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    CO, Lakewood
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by MackTheKnife View Post
    The information presented here is how it should be, but not how it is. Any law that violates the Constitution should be null and void, but unfortunately that isn't the case. There was a guy who was traveling and was arrested in NJ for removing his unloaded pistol out of his car and taking it into the hotel. A hotel employee saw it, called the police, and the man was arrested. He's facing three years in jail, or one year with a plea deal. I think this might have been posted here on OC.org. NJ obviously doesn't believe in, or adhere to, the Constitution. And the courts uphold these "null and void" laws.
    NJ needs badly a legal spanking, scolding and readjustment back to the Supreme law of the land.

    NJ forgets that it is still part of the U.S. of A.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan 5 View Post
    Wouldn't the failure to follow one's oath fall under a violation of the McCarron Act?
    Are you referring to the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945? That governs the regulation of the insurance industry. Or are you talking about the McCarran Act that was vetoed by President Truman as it ran counter to our Constitution?
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by MackTheKnife View Post
    Any law that violates the Constitution should be null and void, but unfortunately that isn't the case.
    Actually, it is the case. Just because a law is null and void, however, doesn't automatically prevent law enforcement or the courts from acting on it in an unconstitutional manner.

    Our oaths of office enter the picture at many points, including legislation, law enforcement, and the judiciary. Adherence to one's oath of office at any point would render the law null and void.

    When I, as a U.S. Citizen, lawfully choose to ignore an un-Constitutional law, it is immediately rendered null and void throughout my sphere of influence. If higher authority should screw the pooch, it does not impart any Constitutional legitimacy to that law. That un-Constitutional law remains un-Constitutional, even if the Supreme Court itself declares otherwise.

    People, I think you're forgetting the checks and balances built into the system. Justices of the Supreme Court are only allowed to serve so long as they exhibit good behavior. Do you think they'll be allowed to continue serving if they toss the Constitution out the window? No. One check/balance against that is Congress, who has the authority to remove them. A second check/balance is We the People, who have the authority to remove members of Congress who fail to do their duty to removing them. Our Founding Fathers themselves mentioned additional checks and balances associated with their recognition and protection of our right to keep and bear arms.
    Last edited by since9; 05-24-2014 at 02:48 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690
    Well, the signs at most if not all military facilities refer to the McCarran Act, and Chealsea Manning was busted violating it....
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan 5 View Post
    Well, the signs at most if not all military facilities refer to the McCarran Act, and Chealsea Manning was busted violating it....
    I'd like to see a link to this act so we can all get it from the horse's mouth.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  24. #24
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I'd like to see a link to this act so we can all get it from the horse's mouth.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCar...l_Security_Act and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/797

    Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  25. #25
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Actually, it is the case. Just because a law is null and void, however, doesn't automatically prevent law enforcement or the courts from acting on it in an unconstitutional manner.

    Our oaths of office enter the picture at many points, including legislation, law enforcement, and the judiciary. Adherence to one's oath of office at any point would render the law null and void.

    When I, as a U.S. Citizen, lawfully choose to ignore an un-Constitutional law, it is immediately rendered null and void throughout my sphere of influence. If higher authority should screw the pooch, it does not impart any Constitutional legitimacy to that law. That un-Constitutional law remains un-Constitutional, even if the Supreme Court itself declares otherwise.

    People, I think you're forgetting the checks and balances built into the system. Justices of the Supreme Court are only allowed to serve so long as they exhibit good behavior. Do you think they'll be allowed to continue serving if they toss the Constitution out the window? No. One check/balance against that is Congress, who has the authority to remove them. A second check/balance is We the People, who have the authority to remove members of Congress who fail to do their duty to removing them. Our Founding Fathers themselves mentioned additional checks and balances associated with their recognition and protection of our right to keep and bear arms.
    Agree 100%

    But how is one supposed to deal with it if arrested with these non-laws? What recourse is there when judges and even the Supreme Court uphold these 'laws'?

    Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •