Anything from the sheriffs?

imported post

Except Iowa has no criminal common law as do a large super-majority of the states. It's not like North Carolina where there's a common law crime of "going armed in terror of the people".

So, are you going to answer my best questions: What are you doing being a civil rights activist if you think it cannot be enforced via the courts? What would a Governor Vander Plaats do to a county recorder who refuses his executive order?? Would a Governor Vander Plaats arrest such recorders? These are basic questions that you need to answer, since you're the one in the very small minority that think that courts have no authority to review the constitutionality of laws. The onus is on you. You brought up in this forum why Vander Plaats should be supported in the sense of overturning Supreme Court decisions.

imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:

So you think the District of Columbia could violate the constitution and ban handguns, and the federal courts had no authority to strike it down?

So you think that The City of Chicago could ban handguns in violation of the 14th amendment, and the federal courts have no authority over that either?

So you think that if the Iowa Legislature passed a law actually establishing a state religion, a violation of Article 1, Section 3 of the Iowa Constitution, that the Iowa Supreme Court has no authority to strike down the state statute? Who does then?

What good is the Bill of Rights if the courts cannot strike it down? When it's subject to majoritarian tyranny of the political branches of Government?

What kind of civil rights activist are you?

Click to expand...

First of all, I am not a "civil rights activist" at all, at least notbyyour definition of the term. . . if I am an "activist" it would be for a return to Constitutional government in this nation and my state, which, though you veil yourself with similar terms, you do not support.

From my observation, today's so-called"civils rights activists" such as yourself, are attempting to create all kinds of new "civil rights" that have never existed in the past at all, such as the right to "same sex marriage." The problem is, you have absolutely no moral, or even historical basis to create them on. Homosexuality is defined by a sexual ACT, not by race, color of skin or religion, etc, the traditional roles of civil rights advancement.

Thequestion is that if society accepts yourterms of defining"civil rights" by actions,where does it end? Since you believe that it isa violation of your "civil rights"for society to determine that your association with someone of the same sex cannot be termed a"marriage," why is it any less a violation of someone's"civil rights" if they want to engage in bestiality and "marry" their dog or cat or barnyard animal? What about pedophiles?By your definition of the term "civil right," which againby your terms is simply allowing people to define "marriage" by their sexual actions, pedophiles have the same "civil right" to marry children that you espouse. I guess the question must be asked: do you find it acceptable to define "marriage" as the joining of a 45 year old man and an 11 year old "consenting" boy, even if parents object?

Let me quote Dr. Martin Luther King, unarguably the greatest "civil rights leader" of our time, who would not share your opinion as to what constitutes "civil rights:"

"How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of Harmony with the moral law." (MLK~ letter from a Birmingham jail)

I won't quote the Biblical passages that proscribe homosexuality here . . . you can find them in Romans chapter 1 and Leviticus 18:22 among other places. I will certainly assume in advance that you reject Biblical moral law, but please do not associate yourself with true civil rights leaders like Dr. MLK . . . you are light years apart.

As far as the judicial "acts" that you list abve,this is veryeasily answered inthat the un-Constitutionallaws that exist are properlydisposed of byhands of the people through their representatives in a Republican form of government, which is how our constitutions are written. I am certain that you, like countless other American people, have repeatedly elected representatives who have passed un-Constitutional laws. . . it issimply not necessary to create a judiciary composed of 9 black robed tyrants to have "super authority" over us to tell us how to live (which no American Constitution ever did). As the Iowa Constitution states, "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right, at all times, to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it."

This is quite easily done if we simply elect moral and honest leaders who do not violate their oaths to uphold our constitutions . . . but this, we do not do.

SS

imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:

"Except Iowa has no criminal common law as do a large super-majority of the states."

Click to expand...

"I asked a few Iowa-based attorneys for guidance on the issue you asked, I was flat out told this: "He doesn't understand common-law concepts . . . "

Click to expand...

Well Mr. Peterson . . . who isn't telling the truth here? You, or your "Iowa-based attorney" friends?

You can't have it both ways . . . either the common law exists, or it doesn't. Tell me which rules you are playing by and I will abide by them.

Oh . . . and if you choose to assume that the common law doesn't exist, then please write a retraction of your first statement, because it would be in error.

SS

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

Gray Peterson wrote:

Except Iowa has no criminal common law as do a large super-majority of the states.

Click to expand...

Reference please!

SS

Click to expand...

Not playing your games anymore. You have no business being on this forum if you support short circuiting the constitutional amendment process. Your view is only supported by a very tiny minority of the legal field which is generally associated with a few fringe issues. My view in terms of the role of the judicial branch is supported by every civil rights attorney for the RBKA, and would condemn our largest population centers to the forever darkness of being unable to defend oneself effectively.

All because you don't like the idea of two consenting adults marrying each other. Don't like gay marriage? THEN DON'T MARRY ONE!

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

Gray Peterson wrote:

"Except Iowa has no criminal common law as do a large super-majority of the states."

Click to expand...

"I asked a few Iowa-based attorneys for guidance on the issue you asked, I was flat out told this: "He doesn't understand common-law concepts . . . "

Click to expand...

Well Mr. Peterson . . . who isn't telling the truth here? You, or your "Iowa-based attorney" friends?

You can't have it both ways . . . either the common law exists, or it doesn't. Tell me which rules you are playing by and I will abide by them.

Oh . . . and if you choose to assume that the common law doesn't exist, then please write a retraction of your first statement, because it would be in error.

SS

Click to expand...

You will never get a retraction, so don't bother trying. You are a troll, a sock puppeteer, and a supporter of tyrants.

imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:

"You will never get a retraction, so don't bother trying. You are a troll, a sock puppeteer, and a supporter of tyrants."

Click to expand...

I assumed that yourbearing would eventually default to this . . .

"You will never get a retraction" . . . I think it is fair to assume that I will never get an answer to my questions to you either . . .

This string started with your attack onmyresponse to IA Farmboy and my support of BVP:

I have asked you twice now to show me where in the Iowa Constitution it supports your contention that the ISC has the authority to declare laws un-Constitutional and you have demurred on both occasions . . .

I answered the direct questions you have posed to me about how, without judicial fiat, it is possible to retain constitutional authority . . .

And I have clearly and directly posed questionsto you, with authorities, about your definition of "civil rights advocate," and you demurred on these points as well.

You have made it clear that you believe that the people of the state of Iowa should be forced to live under the rule of unelectedjudges rather than the laws of their duly elected representatives . . .

And now, we move to an ad-hominim vein because you are unable to support your contentions with substantive arguments . . .

So now it is I who am the "troll, sock puppeteer, and a supporter of tyrants?"

Yeah . . . right . . .

SS

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

You have made it clear that you believe that the people of the state of Iowa should be forced to live under the rule of unelected judges rather than the laws of their duly elected representatives . . . 

Click to expand...

Un-elected judges? What in the living hell are you talking about?

Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, her term expires at the end of 2010.

Justice Michael J. Streit term expires at the end of 2010

Justice David Baker term expires in 2010

Justice David Wiggins term expires in 2012

That's four judges of the Supreme Court of Iowa you throw out of office in the next 30 months. The Governor appoints judges, so all you would need is a Governor who selects judges on the basis of their opposition to Varnum, and you can overturn the decision in less than 36 months by finding a recorder who will refuse to issue after the new judges are appointed.

You can elect Legislators who believe the way you do and will pass the amendment in two sessions, and get it to a vote of the people in 2014.

You can vote for the constitutional convention vote in 2010 and then elect convention delegates who believe as you do.

Or is that too difficult for you?

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

I have yet to post my response to you and Mr. Peterson . . . I will in due time . . . I am enjoying your discussion for the moment, and I would like the two of you to give me the benefit of your extensive knowledge of government and answer one very simple, one line question:

Can you please show me in either the Iowa or U.S. Constitution the exact phrase where either the ISC or the SCOTUS are empowered to "interpret and vet laws for constituionality as you have asserted?"

All I am asking for is your reference to the legitimatesource of this power. Is that asking for too much, given that generally that is thestandard for posting here?

Thank you,

SS

Click to expand...

I answered your question. The answer is Marbury v. Madison. But you then dismissed that authority as unconstitutional. I must say that I spent an awful long time on that case in law school for a case that you want to dismiss so easily.

Anytime anyone brings forward an answer that doesn't mesh with your preconceived notions, you shout 'Unconstitutional' and then move back to your already discredited question.

And you never answered my question as to which of the two other branches of government you would like to be above the constitution since you seem to dislike our system of checks and balances.

To quote Justice Marshall from Marbury, "The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

Gray Peterson wrote:

So you think the District of Columbia could violate the constitution and ban handguns, and the federal courts had no authority to strike it down?

So you think that The City of Chicago could ban handguns in violation of the 14th amendment, and the federal courts have no authority over that either?

So you think that if the Iowa Legislature passed a law actually establishing a state religion, a violation of Article 1, Section 3 of the Iowa Constitution, that the Iowa Supreme Court has no authority to strike down the state statute? Who does then?

What good is the Bill of Rights if the courts cannot strike it down? When it's subject to majoritarian tyranny of the political branches of Government?

What kind of civil rights activist are you?

Click to expand...

From my observation, today's so-called"civils rights activists" such as yourself, are attempting to create all kinds of new "civil rights" that have never existed in the past at all, such as the right to "same sex marriage."

Click to expand...

Nice 'gun rights' debate here.

Now where does the Constitution provide for marriage rights? Straight people? Gay people?

How is marriage the business of Government to regulate, condone or condemn?

SS the Constitutional purist is somehow saying marriage is a sacred right between a man and a woman, when the Constitution doesn't address this at all!

SS is for Constitutional rights and purist ideal Government, except for when he is against it. And then SS brings us Bible verses - the Constitutional purist indeed!

MY solution for this whole marriage debate is to get the Government the H out of this debate. Government should have NO role in marriage.

Government can't even do the things required of it by the Constitution, so why/how do we expect Government to do anything beyond what is required by the Constitution? And why would we want an expanded role of Government that has already expanded beyond it's authorized role?

imported post

Max G wrote:

Nice 'gun rights' debate here.

Now where does the Constitution provide for marriage rights? Straight people? Gay people?

How is marriage the business of Government to regulate, condone or condemn?

SS the Constitutional purist is somehow saying marriage is a sacred right between a man and a woman, when the Constitution doesn't address this at all!

SS is for Constitutional rights and purist ideal Government, except for when he is against it. And then SS brings us Bible verses - the Constitutional purist indeed!

MY solution for this whole marriage debate is to get the Government the H out of this debate. Government should have NO role in marriage.

Government can't even do the things required of it by the Constitution, so why/how do we expect Government to do anything beyond what is required by the Constitution? And why would we want an expanded role of Government that has already expanded beyond it's authorized role?

Click to expand...

This discussion has everything to do with gun rights AND the Constitution: this is a discussion about the overreaching of the courts beyond their constitutional authority. . . the courts in this country are constantly infringing on the second amendment due to their usurpation of the people’s Republican right to self-government through representation. Heller[/i] is a case in point: while it is good that they recognized the individual rights nature of the 2A, they also decided, in violation of the clear intent of the founders that the 2A not be infringed upon, that all kinds of federal gun laws are “Ok.” Therefore they again, rather than interpret the LAW (as they are suppose to), interpreted (and modified) the Constitution[/i], which they have no authority to do.

I generally agree that the federal government has no right to interfere with the definition of marriage (and this INCLUDES the SCOTUS!), and I ALSO AGREE that it is not in the best interest of state governments to be involved in the definition of marriage, though there is no prohibition in the legislature doing so in the Iowa Constitution. However,because we already livewith anun-Constitutionalgovernmental system where everything from the tax system, welfare benefits, etc,are based on marriage, until we as a society are willing to get the government out of interfering with marriage within the definition ofall of those things, then it has to be considered to be "in play" in the political process. I don't like that anymore than anyone else, but I also cannot change all those other areas where the government intrudes into our private lives. The question is, do you really mean that you want the government OUT of the marriage definition . . . if you do, then you should support the overhaul of these government intrusions into our freedom.

I would also add that the Iowa supreme court is GOVERNMENT that took it upon themselves to define marriage in Iowa, so one would assume that since you are against the government meddling in marriage, you should also be against their un-Constitutional activity.

As far as my "including Bible verses in the conversation about constitutionality," you apparently find those two things to be at odds. . . I will only say that I am in good company inunderstanding the impact of Judeo-Christian history on the founding of this nation, to wit:

“Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”[/i] ~ George Washington, farewell address to Congress, 1792

"The Bible is the rock on which this Republic rests." ~ Andrew Jackson

SS

imported post

The fact that you would attempt to use Jackson as a moral authority is astonishing. In addition to being a slave owner, he was the worst of the worst ... can you say "Trail of Tears?"

Anyway, this thread has run its course and I am closing it. Let's get back to advancing the civil rights of ALL Americans!