• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Lawyer's Who Worked Pro Bono Now Ask For 3.5 million

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

I think the most important thing to remember about laws is that all laws are only enforceable, eventually, at the point of a gun. Anyone who does not believe that see Ed and Elaine Brown's standoff in NH against armed federal agents over failure to pay taxes.

Here's what I have come up with to explain my take on the matter:

Laws passed by the government are ultimately only enforceable against the citizens at the point of a government agent wielded and directed gun.

The United States Constitution, the highest law of the land, ultimately is only enforceable against the federal government at the point of We, The People's wielded and directed guns. Hence the importance of the 2A.

I think every law passed by the United States Congress should be required to be prefaced by, "Under threat of lethal force against the Citizens of the United States of America we hereby pass the following: " Might make them think a little bit about how truly serious the potential effects of their laws are. Can you imagine the worst dictators in history willing to pass a law that could eventually allow lethal force against a citizen over what kind of light bulb they use in their home? Or what sorts of signs they post in their offices? Or all sorts of piddly a$$ controlling laws that congress has passed intruding on our day to day lives that could eventually lead to arrest at the point of a gun and if resisted, the death of a citizen.

Can you see sitting in the ever-after talking to other dead spirits and being asked how you died and having to say, "Well, it's like this. I stocked up on iridescent light bulbs before the CFC bulb requirement went into effect. My neighbor wanted some so I agreed to sell them a few boxes. Well, the gov't heard about my illegal sale of iridescent bulbs, and sent me a subpoena to appear in court. Well I thought it was stupid so I didn't go. A few weeks later federal agents showed up at my house. They didn't identify themselves immediately and as I went to adjust my OC pistol for comfort I was shot 17 times and died. Over a light bulb."

So yeah, I hope they get 3.5 mill. And I hope the new Heller case as to semi-autos is won and they get another 3.5 mill. And I hope that all the law abiding gun owners in this country with law suits pending over having their rights violated get a big check that is not in the best interests of the city or state and their lawyers go back and sue for more millions. Let the politicians explain to the citizens that their local taxes are being raised because of the huge losses to law suits for violating citizen rights and hopefully, a peaceful rebellion follows limiting government back to its constitutional role.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

deepdiver wrote:
SNIP I think the most important thing to remember...
Good points.

Gotta get me some groovy irridescent light bulbs. Cool, daddy 'o. :) I'm guessing you meant incandescent. :p



"Lets just say that despite me having plenty of bulbs, the feds took a dim view and put my lights out."

--Citizen Spirit, Cloud 9, Seventh.
 

Flyer22

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
374
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
deepdiver wrote:
SNIP I think the most important thing to remember...
Good points.

Gotta get me some groovy irridescent light bulbs. Cool, daddy 'o. :) I'm guessing you meant incandescent. :p



"Lets just say that despite me having plenty of bulbs, the feds took a dim view and put my lights out."

--Citizen Spirit, Cloud 9, Seventh.

:lol: :lol:

Seriously, though, I may have to stock up on regular light bulbs at some point.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
deepdiver wrote:
SNIP I think the most important thing to remember...
Good points.

Gotta get me some groovy irridescent light bulbs. Cool, daddy 'o. :) I'm guessing you meant incandescent. :p



"Lets just say that despite me having plenty of bulbs, the feds took a dim view and put my lights out."

--Citizen Spirit, Cloud 9, Seventh.
DOH :banghead: Yes I did, Citizen. Man was a fried last night. Didn't realize how badly until I re-read this thread :shock:.

Thanks for having my back on that one. ;)
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

rodbender wrote:
Actually, if you read the Federalist Papers, the role of SCOTUS was to interpret laws, not the Constitution. The Constitution was written for all citizens to understand, simple English. It plainly states in the Federalists Papers that the Constitution was written for the farmer and the scholar to understand.
Farmers have no problem understanding the plain language of the Constitution. It seems to be lawyers and politicians who have comprehension problems.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

KBCraig wrote:
rodbender wrote:
Actually, if you read the Federalist Papers, the role of SCOTUS was to interpret laws, not the Constitution. The Constitution was written for all citizens to understand, simple English. It plainly states in the Federalists Papers that the Constitution was written for the farmer and the scholar to understand.
Farmers have no problem understanding the plain language of the Constitution. It seems to be lawyers and politicians who have comprehension problems.
Ain't dat de truth.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

LeagueOf1291 wrote:
I don't believe in having the government use taxpayer dollars to pay for defending the rights of citizens.

Well, I don't believe in having the government collect "taxpayer dollars" in the first place. As it stands, I can't really think of a better possible use for the money stolen from us, than using it to fight those who work to encroach upon our rights.

Our government should be sued into bankruptcy for its egregious violations of our rights. Then we can have our "bloodless revolution."
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:
If you ask me, it would be a much better system if, instead of waiting for an unconstitutional law to be passed, waiting for someone to complain, waiting for a court date, etc. If SCOTUS's job was simply to review each law before it was presented on the floor, and signing of on the constitutionality of it THEN, which is what I imagine the founders probably had in mind in the first place.

Fie! Certainly not!

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.

Thomas Jefferson also wrote:
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

The people should rely on their own powers (e.g. jury nullification) to ensure the constitutionality of laws enacted by their representatives. We should not rely on the good graces of men appointed for life to a position with powers they don't rightfully have. In fact, the judiciary is responsible for taking our powers (for example, the above-mentioned jury nullification) as much as is either other branch, while we sit idly by and pray for a mitigating decision, and heap praise upon them on the rare occasions when we receive such a decision.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
(emphasis mine)

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
The juries [are] our judges of all fact, and of law when they choose it.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
If the question before [the magistrates] be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.
(emphasis mine)

Wikipedia wrote:
In recent years, judges seem to be less likely to favor jury nullification. While unable to take away the power of nullification, they have done much to prevent its use....

...The first major decision [along these lines] was Games v. Stiles ex dem Dunn, 39 U.S. 322 (1840),[20] which held that the bench could override the verdict of the jury on a point of law. The 1895 decision in Sparf v. U.S. written by Justice John Marshall Harlan held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. It was a 5-4 decision. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present legal argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.

Once again, Jefferson was right. We would do well to read his words, rather than assume we know what they were.
 

unreconstructed1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
695
Location
Tennessee, ,
imported post

marshaul wrote:
Fie! Certainly not!

thank you sir, I stand corrected.

As previously stated, the Judicial branch is one area of study that I have largely forsaken. I suppose now, I'll have to dig a little deeper.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

The law that gives lawyers the ability to collect fees from DC government for civil rights violations, 42 USC 1988, does not punish anyone. You can't get punitive damages from the government in cases like this.

Rather, it makes it economically feasable for lawyers to take on constitutional cases like Heller, which require thousands of hours of work. Without this law, fewlawyers would be able to even consider such cases.

And thanks tomodern SCOTUS"conservative" legal doctrines, you are unlikely to get any hearing on the merits in any constitutional case, and you can't get compensatory damages in any case where the constitutional law is not "clearly established."

So compensatory damages post Heller are only available to Plaintiffs in any follow on litigation up to the point that Heller clearly decided the issue. With the possible exception of the Chicago litigation, where the statute under attack is similar to what has been struck down in DC, very few gun rights Plaintiffs stand any chance at getting damages atall.

Gun rights activists need to realize that 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights are now subject to the same enforcement problems as all other civil liberties. Consider what types of justices are more likely to relax the boundaries that the SCOTUShas erectedto justice in civil libertiescases in general, now that they include gun rights cases.

That is way more important to gun rights post-Heller than general philosiphizing about limits on government, re-arguing Marbury v. Madison, orparcing judges' substantive positions on 2A.
 

curtm1911

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
363
Location
Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
imported post

We Are Supposed to have Three branches of Government:

Executive

Legislative

Judicial

Now, please follow me on this, is not a Lawyer a member of the Judicial branch? If you are a member of one you are disqualified from another, or at least should be......



Are not most, if not all politicians lawyers? Are they permitted to Run/Hold an office in another branch of Gov't? Am I wrong, or does something smell real bad here..........



The Three Branches of Gov't are supposed to Equal AND Separate, am I correct on this point, I have read the Constitution Of The United States and I seem to remember that part. Separate, but Equal.



IMO, If you are a lawyer, you are in the Judicial, therefore, disqualified from the other two.



WHAT HAPPENED?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?
 

unreconstructed1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
695
Location
Tennessee, ,
imported post

curtm1911 wrote:
We Are Supposed to have Three branches of Government:

Executive

Legislative

Judicial

Now, please follow me on this, is not a Lawyer a member of the Judicial branch? If you are a member of one you are disqualified from another, or at least should be......



Are not most, if not all politicians lawyers? Are they permitted to Run/Hold an office in another branch of Gov't? Am I wrong, or does something smell real bad here..........



The Three Branches of Gov't are supposed to Equal AND Separate, am I correct on this point, I have read the Constitution Of The United States and I seem to remember that part. Separate, but Equal.



IMO, If you are a lawyer, you are in the Judicial, therefore, disqualified from the other two.



WHAT HAPPENED?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?
several of the founding fathers were lawyers
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

Being a lawyer does not make you part of the government. It's a job. Most lawyers that can't make a living as a lawyer wind up being politicians or ambulance chasers. The latter of which is probably more noble.
 
Top