Anything from the sheriffs?

imported post

Sheriff Gardner from Linn County currently requires fingerprints for a permit to carry. Once SF2379 is signed and goes into effect the sheriff will be required to destroy those fingerprint records. Has he made any statement of not taking fingerprints any more?

That is just one example of the repercussions of this bill once it goes into effect as law. It would seem quite silly for a sheriff to collect fingerprints knowing that he cannot keep them. Likewise for sheriffs that have a no issue policy, it seems silly to no longer issue if they can collect fees on permits for the next eight months knowing that he/she will be forced to do so eventually.

I know, logic will fail to prevail with many sheriffs but some of them will see the writing on the wall.

imported post

I've had fingerprints taken for Utah, North Dakota, and Iowa permits. I assumed that they went permanently into a federal database. Is that not the case? I don't know how that all works.

imported post

amaixner wrote:

I assumed that they went permanently into a federal database. Is that not the case? I don't know how that all works.

Click to expand...

The FBI, since at least the '50's . . . is the only LEO agency in the U.S. that maintains a general searchablefingerprint database . . . there may be some small "fragment" agencies that maintain a smaller subset of them as well, but when local LEO's need finger print data/matches, they go to the FBI.

IPSO Facto, when local LEO's take your prints . . . they end up with the FBI.

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

amaixner wrote:

I assumed that they went permanently into a federal database.  Is that not the case? I don't know how that all works.

Click to expand...

The FBI, since at least the '50's . . . is the only LEO agency in the U.S. that maintains a general searchable fingerprint database . . . there may be some small "fragment" agencies that maintain a smaller subset of them as well, but when local LEO's need finger print data/matches, they go to the FBI.

IPSO Facto, when local LEO's take your prints . . . they end up with the FBI.

Click to expand...

I have to wonder about that. The Linn County Sheriff Office requires that applicants for the PTC take a firearm safety class and marksmanship test at the Isaak Walton League range outside of Cedar Rapids. I've been told that the class size is about 50 and that it is booked full for months with two classes every month. That means 100 applicants every month.

Now the sheriff charges (illegally) $15 per application and $10 per fingerprinting. Sending fingerprints to the FBI is not free, they charge for that. The Utah and Florida applications for concealed weapons permits spell out that something like $35 goes to the FBI to process the fingerprints.

So, either the Linn County Sheriff is spending thousands of dollars every month out of his budget to send fingerprints to the FBI....

Or the LCSO is stuffing those fingerprint cards in a file cabinet to rot.

I don't want to press the issue with the LCSO out of fear I'll end up on some black list. Perhaps someone that is not in Linn County could ask on my behalf. I raised the issue with Iowa Carry but no one there seemed to care what the sheriff did with the fingerprint cards so long as his shall issue stance remained. Oh, and Iowa Carry didn't seem to care that the $15 fee for the permit was above the $10 allowed by law either.

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

Oh, and Iowa Carry didn't seem to care that the $15 fee for the permit was above the $10 allowed by law either.

Click to expand...

It's been mentioned several times, and people don't complain about it to the sheriff for the same reason as you didn't investigate the fingerprints. The sheriff was asked though, and the response was that the official fee (which hadn't changed in decades) was not enough to cover the staff time required for processing.

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

Straight_Shooter wrote:

amaixner wrote:

I assumed that they went permanently into a federal database. Is that not the case? I don't know how that all works.

Click to expand...

The FBI, since at least the '50's . . . is the only LEO agency in the U.S. that maintains a general searchablefingerprint database . . . there may be some small "fragment" agencies that maintain a smaller subset of them as well, but when local LEO's need finger print data/matches, they go to the FBI.

IPSO Facto, when local LEO's take your prints . . . they end up with the FBI.

Click to expand...

I have to wonder about that. The Linn County Sheriff Office requires that applicants for the PTC take a firearm safety class and marksmanship test at the Isaak Walton League range outside of Cedar Rapids. I've been told that the class size is about 50 and that it is booked full for months with two classes every month. That means 100 applicants every month.

Now the sheriff charges (illegally) $15 per application and $10 per fingerprinting. Sending fingerprints to the FBI is not free, they charge for that. The Utah and Florida applications for concealed weapons permits spell out that something like $35 goes to the FBI to process the fingerprints.

So, either the Linn County Sheriff is spending thousands of dollars every month out of his budget to send fingerprints to the FBI....

Or the LCSO is stuffing those fingerprint cards in a file cabinet to rot.

I don't want to press the issue with the LCSO out of fear I'll end up on some black list. Perhaps someone that is not in Linn County could ask on my behalf. I raised the issue with Iowa Carry but no one there seemed to care what the sheriff did with the fingerprint cards so long as his shall issue stance remained. Oh, and Iowa Carry didn't seem to care that the $15 fee for the permit was above the $10 allowed by law either.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that the sheriff's could do this (chuck them in a drawer and not submit them to the FBI, and still make you go through the FP process) . . . my only point is that the "central repository" for the anti-guncollection of finger prints lies with the FBI . . . all the NICS checks go through them, and the only way that I am aware that local LEO's can do a search of a national fingerprint database is with the FBI.

As far as the permit cost, I had a co-worker tell me the same thing . . . the problem was (under "may issue"), if you complain about the excess fees, all they had to do is say "ok, heck with you . . . I'm not issuing you a permit." I expect the anti's to figure out similar things under this new law.

SS

imported post

Is there some way that other elected officials can lean on these sheriffs that don't follow the law as written?

One thing I found out is that it is legally impossible to force an elected official to sign a document that they do not want to sign. If there is a government employee that is not doing their job then that person can simply be fired and another person put in that position. With an elected official there is the matter of elections to protect their position. That is a blessing and curse inherent to our representative democracy. It is also why we need to remove elected officials from the path to the tools of self defense.

Where do sheriffs get their funds? Is that something the county supervisors do? If a sheriff is not willing to issue permits, or is asking for documents or training above those required by law, can the county supervisors threaten the withholding of funds until the sheriff follows the law?

That must be nice for a sheriff to just charge what they want for a permit. Too bad I wasn't elected, I'd tell my boss I want a 50% raise or I'm not going to do my job any more. You see my current pay doesn't cover my expenses any more so I'll just raise my fees. What is my boss going to do? I was elected, after all.

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

Is there some way that other elected officials can lean on these sheriffs that don't follow the law as written?

One thing I found out is that it is legally impossible to force an elected official to sign a document that they do not want to sign. If there is a government employee that is not doing their job then that person can simply be fired and another person put in that position. With an elected official there is the matter of elections to protect their position. That is a blessing and curse inherent to our representative democracy. It is also why we need to remove elected officials from the path to the tools of self defense.

Where do sheriffs get their funds? Is that something the county supervisors do? If a sheriff is not willing to issue permits, or is asking for documents or training above those required by law, can the county supervisors threaten the withholding of funds until the sheriff follows the law?

That must be nice for a sheriff to just charge what they want for a permit. Too bad I wasn't elected, I'd tell my boss I want a 50% raise or I'm not going to do my job any more. You see my current pay doesn't cover my expenses any more so I'll just raise my fees. What is my boss going to do? I was elected, after all.

Click to expand...

All I can say to this is I love to see and hear well directed rage about the injustices that are continuously foisted upon us by illigitimate government . . . this is exactly why the founders gave us the right to elect those who make the laws in this country, and why we must work to put the courts back into their Pandora's box so that they are stripped of their current, extraconstitutional "power" to make law from the bench.

There is only ONE gubernatorial candidate this year in Iowa that will stand up to runaway courts and bureacracies . . . BVP. TB has already stated that he doesn't believe that the executive can countermand an order of the state SC . . .Unbelieavable! a candidate for the top executive post in the state believes that the supreme executive power resides in the courts!!!

If you want to start turning the tide in this state against the tyrannical powers that be, vote in the June primary for BVP . . . otherwise, in the future, it will only be "business as usual."


SS

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

All I can say to this is I love to see and hear well directed rage about the injustices that are continuously foisted upon us by illigitimate government . . . this is exactly why the founders gave us the right to elect those who make the laws in this country, and why we must work to put the courts back into their Pandora's box so that they are stripped of their current, extraconstitutional "power" to make law from the bench.

There is only ONE gubernatorial candidate this year in Iowa that will stand up to runaway courts and bureacracies . . . BVP. TB has already stated that he doesn't believe that the executive can countermand an order of the state SC . . .Unbelieavable! a candidate for the top executive post in the state believes that the supreme executive power resides in the courts!!!

If you want to start turning the tide in this state against the tyrannical powers that be, vote in the June primary for BVP . . . otherwise, in the future, it will only be "business as usual."


SS

Click to expand...

Now I understand why you're supporting Vander Plaats. It was somewhat about guns,but itis more about Varnum v. Brien and attempting to overturn their ruling in that case using an extra-constitutional and unlawful executive order. Such anexecutive order, presumably would allow County Recorders to refuse to issue licenses, and if a County Recorder follows their oath to to the Iowa constitution, the only way to stop those marriage licenses from being issued is to order their arrest and removal by force.

I must point out a statement made by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in his dissent on denial of rehearing en banc for Silveira v. Lockyer:

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees*. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Every state is required to have a republican form of government under our US Constitution. The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of exclusion of marriage from those who are of the same gender under the provisions of the Iowa constitution. They are the final authority on what the Iowa Constitution means, until the Legislature passes a constitutional amendment and it is voted on by the people to overturn their ruling and decision. There is a proper procedure for amending the constitution, which must be followed. It must be passed by two Legislative sessions (2011-2012 and 2013-2014 sessions) and then voted on by the people of the state.

Robert Vander Plaats isan authoritarian tyrant-in-waiting. Even if you believe the Iowa Supreme Court made the wrong call in Varnum, responding with a tyrranical executive order which can only be effectively enforced by arresting and removing by force county recorders who are following the Varnum ruling is not the way to go.

Will Iowa citizens defend their own constitution and invoke the Doomsday Provision which is part of the 2A, and forcibly remove using the force of arms a Governor Vander Plaats who is actively enforcing an ultra vires executive order? One would hope that doesn't come to pass. There would be bloodshed, especially spilled by the minority who would be most effected by such an order, some of who are former combat veterans who honorably served our country. Guns will be used by those who unlawful following the governors orders, and guns will be used by those who uphold the constitution of the State of Iowa. The forces of constitutional liberty versus the forces of executive authoritarian tyrrany. Families would lose their husbands, their wives, their children, and their parents over a pure political grandstanding.

A vote for Vander Plaats is a vote for tyrrany, bloodshed, and needless death. You can't be pro-gun and support other violations of the state and United States constitutions at the same time, for if they don't like the fact that those resisting your tyrrany have guns, they will take them away from the people too.

imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:

Now I understand why you're supporting Vander Plaats. It was somewhat about guns,but itis more about Varnum v. Brien and attempting to overturn their ruling in that case using an extra-constitutional and unlawful executive order. Such anexecutive order, presumably would allow County Recorders to refuse to issue licenses, and if a County Recorder follows their oath to to the Iowa constitution, the only way to stop those marriage licenses from being issued is to order their arrest and removal by force.

I must point out a statement made by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in his dissent on denial of rehearing en banc for Silveira v. Lockyer:

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees*. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Every state is required to have a republican form of government under our US Constitution. The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of exclusion of marriage from those who are of the same gender under the provisions of the Iowa constitution. They are the final authority on what the Iowa Constitution means, until the Legislature passes a constitutional amendment and it is voted on by the people to overturn their ruling and decision. There is a proper procedure for amending the constitution, which must be followed. It must be passed by two Legislative sessions (2011-2012 and 2013-2014 sessions) and then voted on by the people of the state.

Robert Vander Plaats isan authoritarian tyrant-in-waiting. Even if you believe the Iowa Supreme Court made the wrong call in Varnum, responding with a tyrranical executive order which can only be effectively enforced by arresting and removing by force county recorders who are following the Varnum ruling is not the way to go.

Will Iowa citizens defend their own constitution and invoke the Doomsday Provision which is part of the 2A, and forcibly remove using the force of arms a Governor Vander Plaats who is actively enforcing an ultra vires executive order? One would hope that doesn't come to pass. There would be bloodshed, especially spilled by the minority who would be most effected by such an order, some of who are former combat veterans who honorably served our country. Guns will be used by those who unlawful following the governors orders, and guns will be used by those who uphold the constitution of the State of Iowa. The forces of constitutional liberty versus the forces of executive authoritarian tyrrany. Families would lose their husbands, their wives, their children, and their parents over a pure political grandstanding.

A vote for Vander Plaats is a vote for tyrrany, bloodshed, and needless death. You can't be pro-gun and support other violations of the state and United States constitutions at the same time, for if they don't like the fact that those resisting your tyrrany have guns, they will take them away from the people too.

Click to expand...

"The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of exclusion of marriage from those who are of the same gender under the provisions of the Iowa constitution. They are the final authority on what the Iowa Constitution means"

It seems to me that you are the one who constantly reminds folks here that they need to provide cites on the authority of their assertions . . . so we'll turn the tables here just a bit . . . you won't mind practicing what you preach will you?

Please show us all in the Constitution of the State of Iowa exactly where it says "The supreme court of Iowa is the final authority on what the Iowa Constitution means."

I await your reply . .

SS

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote

"The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of exclusion of marriage from those who are of the same gender under the provisions of the Iowa constitution. They are the final authority on what the Iowa Constitution means"

It seems to me that you are the one who constantly reminds folks here that they need to provide cites on the authority of their assertions . . . so we'll turn the tables here just a bit . . . you won't mind practicing what you preach will you?

Please show us all in the Constitution of the State of Iowa exactly where it says "The supreme court of Iowa is the final authority on what the Iowa Constitution means."

I await your reply . .

SS

Click to expand...

I haven't forgotten about your question. Work is basically calling a lot of my attention away from here due to overtime requirements. Should have a better answer for you within the next week.

imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:

I haven't forgotten about your question. Work is basically calling a lot of my attention away from here due to overtime requirements. Should have a better answer for you within the next week.

Click to expand...

Ok . . . Fair enough . . . but don't wait too long . . . I have my draft critique of your original posting done, replete with references!

And BTW . . . I know this will not come as a surprise to you, but I will be rebutting your original post . . . regardless of your answer.

SS

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

"The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of exclusion of marriage from those who are of the same gender under the provisions of the Iowa constitution. They are the final authority on what the Iowa Constitution means"

It seems to me that you are the one who constantly reminds folks here that they need to provide cites on the authority of their assertions . . . so we'll turn the tables here just a bit . . . you won't mind practicing what you preach will you?

Please show us all in the Constitution of the State of Iowa exactly where it says "The supreme court of Iowa is the final authority on what the Iowa Constitution means."

I await your reply . .

SS

Click to expand...

You are kidding right? Judicial Review is a cornerstone of the American system of checks and balances which goes back to the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison and beyond. (State courts had been exercising judicial review to protect themselves from encroachment by legislatures and governors long before Marbury.)

An executive may no more perform an unconstitutional act via fiat than the legislature may do via passage of legislation.

The system, as it exists in the United States (all of it including Iowa).

imported post

jpierce wrote:

You are kidding right? Judicial Review is a cornerstone of the American system of checks and balances which goes back to the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison and beyond. (State courts had been exercising judicial review to protect themselves from encroachment by legislatures and governors long before Marbury.)

An executive may no more perform an unconstitutional act via fiat than the legislature may do via passage of legislation.

The system, as it exists in the United States (all of it including Iowa).

Click to expand...

Nope . . . I am not kidding at all . . . There is no provision anywhere in the Iowa Constitution that says that the Iowa supreme court has the final say on what is "constitutional" in Iowa . . . sorry, but it just ain't in there; it is an assumed, un-Constitional power.Also, for Vander Plaats to issue an executive order commanding all the county recorders to stop issuing marriage licenses to same sex "couples" is completely within the powers of the office of governor. I will demonstrate these points forthwith.

I like your nice little picture . . . but it is kind of like all the history that says the constitution allows the federal gubermint to infringe on our second amendment rights by requiring licenses and permits ad naseum; it just ain't so. . . sorry, but the U.S. Constitution contains only those specific, enumeratedpowers that have been granted to the various branches of the government, and the founders very clearly said so. All the other "stuff" that people belive is authorized by the Constitution got into our brains by drinking the "Koolaid."

Bottom line . . . statism is a powerful brainwasher . . . and you are a victim.

BTW - I would point out that Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Indepence and at least a "collaborator" in the creation of the Constitution (he wasn't at the convention),as well as James Madison,very clearly found the opinion in Marbury vs. Madison to be un-Constitutional . . . which it is.

High federalist John Marshall, the C.J. and writer of M v. M., saw his party ushered into extinction because of things like M. v. M and the Alien and Sedition acts . . all of which were elitist federalist power grabs not authorized anywhere in the Constitution of 1782. The party of George Washington quickly morphed into a party much like the Democrats of today, and to a certain degree, the "Republicans."

SS

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

Nope . . . I am not kidding at all . . . There is no provision anywhere in the Iowa Constitution that says that the Iowa supreme court has the final say on what is "constitutional" in Iowa . . . sorry, but it just ain't in there; it is an assumed, un-Constitional power.

Click to expand...

So if the courts do not get to interpret the laws, who does? Giving that power to any other branch of government would place them permanently above the Constitution, answerable to no one! Are you suggesting that the legislature should be able to pass laws that are unconstitutional and then pass another law stating that "No really the first law was constitutional after all!" Or should the Governor be able to issue an executive order that strips fundamental rights? What in your analysis would be the proper home for the role that you say the courts do not have?

Also, for Vander Plaats to issue an executive order commanding all the county recorders to stop issuing marriage licenses to same sex "couples" is completely within the powers of the office of governor. I will demonstrate these points forthwith.

Click to expand...

[sup]You actually never did demonstrate why this is true, instead wandering off on some vague rant about Marbury being unconstitutional, Jefferson not liking it, etc.

The short answer is that we are a nation of laws which are written by the legislature, enforced by the executive, and interpreted and vetted for constitutionality by the judiciary. Any other view you may have is simply incorrect. I may believe that I can fly, but my belief doesn't compel gravity to be turned off.
[/sup]
Finally, what is it about same sex couples that so many people find threatening? Same sex marriage is not compulsory! :lol:

It never ceases to amaze me how that people who truly believe in keeping government out of people's lives are willing to make an exception where marriage equality is concerned.

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

Also, for Vander Plaats to issue an executive order commanding all the county recorders to stop issuing marriage licenses to same sex "couples" is completely within the powers of the office of governor. I will demonstrate these points forthwith.

Click to expand...

You didn't demonstrate a damned thing other than whining about Marbury. Congress had the ability to overturn the Marbury v. Madison decision, they did not. Most of the amendments to our Constitution were generally passed in response to a Supreme Court decision that Congress and a ultra-majority of the states did not like.

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 and thinks that our legal system should be civil law, solely because he didn't like the decision made in Varnum. The Legislature can follow the state constitutional procedure procedure to pass an amendment and put it a vote of the people. If the Legislature will not pass it, then they can vote accordingly in office people that agree with that view. There is also a constitutional convention vote in 2010 as well that can propose wholesale changes to the state constitution, or propose a new one".

Also, getting back to a potential executive order, let's say for a minute that half of the County Recorders decide to give in to the Governor's order. The other half does not and basically advises them that they are following Varnum. What do you think the Governor can do? Arrest them? For what crime? That would invite "The Doomsday Scenario" Chief Judge Kozinski speaks of.

When a person like BVP threatens with force a person who faithfully doingwhat is ordered to by a court, it is the responsibility of the people of the State of Iowa to remove, by force of arms if necessary, the person responsible.

People like BVP are the REASON for the 2nd amendment. A Governor who would threaten with force of arms a county recorder who follows an on point Supreme Court ruling on the subject is nothing more a tyrant, and has no true respect for the constitution or the rule of law. He claims to fully respect the Second Amendment, but I'm willing to bet if thousands of people stormed his office and arrested him, he wouldn't be such a believer.

imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:

You didn't demonstrate a damned thing other than whining about Marbury. Congress had the ability to overturn the Marbury v. Madison decision, they did not. Most of the amendments to our Constitution were generally passed in response to a Supreme Court decision that Congress and a ultra-majority of the states did not like.

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 and thinks that our legal system should be civil law, solely because he didn't like the decision made in Varnum. The Legislature can follow the state constitutional procedure procedure to pass an amendment and put it a vote of the people. If the Legislature will not pass it, then they can vote accordingly in office people that agree with that view. There is also a constitutional convention vote in 2010 as well that can propose wholesale changes to the state constitution, or propose a new one".

Also, getting back to a potential executive order, let's say for a minute that half of the County Recorders decide to give in to the Governor's order. The other half does not and basically advises them that they are following Varnum. What do you think the Governor can do? Arrest them? For what crime? That would invite "The Doomsday Scenario" Chief Judge Kozinski speaks of.

When a person like BVP threatens with force a person who faithfully doingwhat is ordered to by a court, it is the responsibility of the people of the State of Iowa to remove, by force of arms if necessary, the person responsible.

People like BVP are the REASON for the 2nd amendment. A Governor who would threaten with force of arms a county recorder who follows an on point Supreme Court ruling on the subject is nothing more a tyrant, and has no true respect for the constitution or the rule of law. He claims to fully respect the Second Amendment, but I'm willing to bet if thousands of people stormed his office and arrested him, he wouldn't be such a believer.

Click to expand...

My word! . . . all I did was ask you to show us in the Iowa Constitution where it says that the Iowa supreme court has the ultimate authority to decide what is and is not constitutional, as you asserted in your earlier post.

How about you check with your "Iowa based attorneys" and see if THEY can answer this question . . . why won't you just answer this very simple question to back up all your assertions that the Varnum opinion is a constitutional act? Just show us where the constitution of the State of Iowa empowers the State Supreme Court to declare laws "unconstitutional," and create their own law authorizing same sex "marriage" in Iowa? Can't you just respond to this simple question?

SS

imported post

jpierce wrote:

[suP]You actually never did demonstrate why this is true, instead wandering off on some vague rant about Marbury being unconstitutional, Jefferson not liking it, etc.

The short answer is that we are a nation of laws which are written by the legislature, enforced by the executive, and interpreted and vetted for constitutionality by the judiciary. Any other view you may have is simply incorrect.[/suP]

Click to expand...

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

imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:

"He doesn't understand common-law concepts . . . "

Click to expand...

By the way Mr. Peterson, I wouldn't go the the common law to support your opinesif I were you. Under the common law, homosexuality was long recognized asa felony crime equivocated with rape:

"Thomas Jefferson, in a criminal code written during the American Revolution, made it a felony in the same class as rape. In this he only followed the common law."

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/SexualImmorality/Homosexuality/HomoAndNaturalLaw.htm

And of course prior to the SCOTUS un-Constitutionally writinglaw from the bench in it's opine of Lawerence v. Texas, sodomy was a longstanding crime in the states (actually since the inception of the Republic as you can see above).

Also, I would add that under historical American jurisprudence, in the absence of statutory law, which would be the case if the ICS actually had the legitimateauthority to rule statutory laws "unconstitutional," the prevaling law DEFAULTS to the common law, which as you can see treats homosexuality much more harshly than does statutory law.

Just an "FYI" . . .

SS

imported post

Straight_Shooter wrote:

jpierce wrote:

[suP]You actually never did demonstrate why this is true, instead wandering off on some vague rant about Marbury being unconstitutional, Jefferson not liking it, etc.

The short answer is that we are a nation of laws which are written by the legislature, enforced by the executive, and interpreted and vetted for constitutionality by the judiciary.  Any other view you may have is simply incorrect. [/suP]

Click to expand...

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 legitimate source of this power. Is that asking for too much, given that generally that is the standard for posting here?

Thank you,

SS 

Click to expand...

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?