Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 65

Thread: Legally armed Tennessean shocked at NYC 9/11 Memorial arrest, Where can I check this?

  1. #1
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    Legally armed Tennessean shocked at NYC 9/11 Memorial arrest, Where can I check this?

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/m...-rnG8.facebook
    Quote Originally Posted by NYP, Excerpt
    Graves, who has a full legal carry permit in Tennessee, was locked up on a weapons-possession charge and held on $2,000 bond that she posted yesterday. She is due in court on March 19.

    She’ll soon find out exactly how serious New York City is about illegal guns. The Manhattan DA’s Office is pursuing a conviction on felony gun possession — carrying a minimum sentence of 3 1/2 years.
    Evidently in Bloomberg's satrapy, mens rea is not an essential element of a crime.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    As much as I hate and detest it, the thread title is misleading. Mrs. Graves was not legally-armed. When one travels to other states, one must make oneself aware of the local laws. Such is the beauty (and in this case, the tragedy) of the federal system, as opposed to a unitary system found in other nations. States' rights reign supreme.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    So, in NYC the sentence for being 'stupid' is now 3.5 years?

    Just for fun and to lessen my angst over this, here's a thought:

    If it were my case and IANAL, I'd find a life-sized picture of smallest .32 caliber revolver (similar to what she had) and picture of the tiny .32 bullet, and a legal aid with big hands, and a purse, and have him hold them up at 20 feet from the jury with two fingers, (so they can hardly see it) and say to the jury. "My client had the misfortune of trying to obey the law and check this little thing and the state wants to put her in jail for 3.5 years. Really? REALLY?"

    I would also put up a big posterboard explaining mens rea using some kind of laughably elementary pictures and stuff (like presenting it to a kindergarten class) and shame the judge and DA into dropping the case.

    A smart lawyer would hire a big name lawyer (like Gerry Spence) and have him do the case because it's the perfect case to overturn their draconian laws on this kind of thing.


    Any DA who would try to prosecute this case is a moron. BUT, I suspect they'll threaten her with this and make her plea-bargain and try to make her pay some huge fine or something.
    Last edited by Badger Johnson; 12-30-2011 at 06:01 AM.
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  4. #4
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    I posted a link to this story in the NY Thread last night but no one has noticed yet.

    I think these people need to be supported by all of us that care about the right to keep and bear arms.

    If there are many of these cases where people that carry firearms legally in their own state get arrested in states that allow no form of carry for them, people will start to open their eyes that the laws in NY are not Constitutional and must be changed.

    It is a very simple concept, how does a person with a spotless record that is a daily gun carrier for self-defense all of a sudden become a criminal worthy of being put in jail for 3 1/2 years simply for being in NY. They do not put most hard core criminals in jail that long in NY.

    Since there is no way for her to legally carry in NY unless she is a celebrity, very rich, or knows someone, she is being denied her rights.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Johnson View Post
    So, in NYC the sentence for being 'stupid' is now 3.5 years?
    ....
    Any DA who would try to prosecute this case is a moron. BUT, I suspect they'll threaten her with this and make her plea-bargain and try to make her pay some huge fine or something.
    I'm glad YANAL, because these sorts of cases have been prosecuted since 1911 when the Sullivan Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act was passed. Just recently a California attorney who is a bigwig in some 2A organization was busted as he tried to declare his unloaded, secured handgun in his checked baggage for his flight back home - thus implicating him for having had the handgun in NYC for several days.

    As much as it pains me to say it, I'm glad the penalty for being stupid in NYC is severe. Carrying a handgun is a huge responsibility that goes well beyond knowing how to manipulate the item - it involves becoming knowlegable about not only the statute laws but the courts' interpretations of the laws - all while otherwise being untrained and uneducated in the law. Failing to meet that responsibility has consequences for not only the individual but for all those that come after them - I'm willing to bet that NYC installs metal detectors at the 9/11 memorial and thus subjects all visitors to 4th Amendment violations being done in the name of "public safety".

    What seems to stun the "gun community" is that this person, as naive as she may be, was not aware of the draconian prohibition against firearms in NYC. It's sort of one of those things that even girls (no offense to the females of the species - just trying to make a point) are supposed to know, like "don't spit into the wind" or why you are not allowed to climb into the gorilla exhibit to hug the big, fuzzy animals. Seriously, go ask your grandmother if guns are allowed in NYC - I'll bet she knows!

    And yes, the odds of her getting away with little or no jail tme are quite good. But only because NYC knows it is cheaper to make her pay them than to have to spens $$ to keep her in prison. Whatever the penalty imposed at sentencing, the damage will be done - among others the loss of not only property but of the right to vote, to hold office, to engage in her chosen profession, and what seemed to be her biggest concern, the right to posses firearms for self defense.

    Thanks to the publicity of cases like this maybe the general public will become more aware of the laws against firearms possession in NYC - not that it will do much if anything to try and change them.

    And for those using this case as another rallying point for national reciprocity or a national CCW system - no thanks! I see what NYC has done and truely fear what the nanny state feds might do either all at once or incrementally. YMMV. I'll live with needing to check each state's rules before I go there.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    What seems to stun the "gun community" is that this person, as naive as she may be, was not aware of the draconian prohibition against firearms in NYC. It's sort of one of those things that even girls (no offense to the females of the species - just trying to make a point) are supposed to know, like "don't spit into the wind" or why you are not allowed to climb into the gorilla exhibit to hug the big, fuzzy animals. Seriously, go ask your grandmother if guns are allowed in NYC - I'll bet she knows!
    I don't know, people are stupid, especially when it comes to gun laws. The amount if stupid things people say or ask in relation to my carry license is overwhelming. And it's not always "you can't X", sometimes it's "I thought you could Y"

    So it does not surprise me that someone would be under the seemingly ridiculous impression that a Tennessee carry license grants them the ability to carry in NYC.

    I said seemingly because to me it's a ridiculous notion. But then I've taken the time to educate myself on gun laws. Not everyone has, even though everyone should. I blame the media and the education system. So much disinformation out there, it's extremely easy for one to become confused and misinformed.

    I better stop now before I digress anymore.

    Posted using my HTC Evo

  7. #7
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    I live in a small and isolated community. Except for the 'beautiful people,' the resorters from Milwaukee, Chicago and Cleveland, most here seem to avoid the topic of anything about Bloomberg's New York, and, unfortunately, guns, ... technology, foreign policy, economy ... But that's why I moved here. Happy New Year.

  8. #8
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Snip

    As much as it pains me to say it, I'm glad the penalty for being stupid in NYC is severe. Carrying a handgun is a huge responsibility that goes well beyond knowing how to manipulate the item - it involves becoming knowlegable about not only the statute laws but the courts' interpretations of the laws - all while otherwise being untrained and uneducated in the law. Failing to meet that responsibility has consequences for not only the individual but for all those that come after them - I'm willing to bet that NYC installs metal detectors at the 9/11 memorial and thus subjects all visitors to 4th Amendment violations being done in the name of "public safety".
    So, they are already violating everyone's 2nd Amendment Rights and instead of rallying behind this person you are "glad the penalty for being stupid in NYC is severe" and only hope that they do not subject us to a 4th Amendment violation too?

    How are we ever going to get bad laws changed with this way of thinking?

    I admit, she was not all that smart for not checking on the laws where she was going but the true outrage is that the only answer for her to travel in NYC is to go unarmed.

    How well does such restrictions coincide with our Founding Fathers ideas and how they felt about being able to travel this country freely?

    Ones Civil Rights must not end because they travel across a state line or city boundary.

    The Bill of Rights were enumerated for this exact reason, to acknowledge that the citizens of this country have certain God Given rights that no government can take away.

    How would you like it if, in order to enter NYC, you had to have your tongue removed as they had decided that the 1st Amendment did not apply in NYC? It is the same concept, one must remove their "arms" in order to go there.

    I totally understand how this lady did not understand how she has a right that suddenly goes away upon entry to another city. NYC is still in the United States and still subject to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    These sort of simple arguments will go further in bringing people to understand and speak out against these laws than just saying, "Well, I just won't go there". The tide has to turn at some point.

    We should be backing this person instead of bashing.

  9. #9
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    As much as I hate and detest it, the thread title is misleading. Mrs. Graves was not legally-armed. When one travels to other states, one must make oneself aware of the local laws. Such is the beauty (and in this case, the tragedy) of the federal system, as opposed to a unitary system found in other nations. States' rights reign supreme.
    States rights end where they violate the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

  10. #10
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Do remember that the Bill of Rights was drafted and ratified as a protection and guarantee that the federal government, not the states or their government, would not infringed upon basic human rights. Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights for more detail regarding this topic, the first paragraph of which states;

    "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."


    For a short dissertation, here is an interesting link.

    http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/04/1...ill-of-rights/

    But this whole thing does get a little quirky in that the verbiage of the Bill of Rights is clearly about The People and the protection of their rights against the federal government. We must remember that at the forming of the nation, the states were wholly sovereign and independent entities and that the federalization of the nation both honored and protected their sovereignty. At the state levels it was unthinkable that a man would be disbarred from owning and bearing arms at his pleasure. What the Framers were worried about was at the federal level, laws could be passed and perversions of the Constitution cast upon the states and the People to their restriction, control, and eventual demise.

    The Bill of Rights was a statement from and by the states to the federal government, as warning really, to keep their hands off of certain unalienable rights held by and reserved to the People. What we have seen happen, especially over the past 80 years, is that very perversion our Founders worried about, become law at not only the federal level but the state level as well. They are in bed with one another to our detriment. The Bill of Rights is most clear in its statements. The usurpation Jefferson warned of has come to pass and we as a nation not only turn a blind eye, but welcome it and are party to it.

    They really must be rolling in their graves.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 12-30-2011 at 10:55 AM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  11. #11
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by rscottie
    Ones Civil Rights must not end because they travel across a state line or city boundary.

    The Bill of Rights were enumerated for this exact reason, to acknowledge that the citizens of this country have certain God Given rights that no government can take away.

    ... I totally understand how this lady did not understand how she has a right that suddenly goes away upon entry to another city. NYC is still in the United States and still subject to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
    :: clapping ::
    I agree completely.

    There is no legal, lawful, rational, or moral reason that the 2A should be treated any differently than any of the other rights (those specifically mentioned in the Constitution & those which are not).

    Until a citizen has the same freedom to travel & continue to exercise her 2A rights as she does to travel & continue to exercise her 1A or 4A or 5A (or any other A) rights, government is infringing our rights and that's wrong.

    (That being said, how could she not know about the extreme infringement in NY, or others be unaware of DC or CA? I agree the laws need to change, but she seems to be unaware rather than deliberately creating an incident by which to challenge them, as I suspect that 2A group's lawyer did. I could be way off base, 'cause people have said the same about me & I know I haven't tried to engineer any such thing.)
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  12. #12
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    If this is a States Rights issue, would it be legal for NYC to suddenly making a law to allow slavery? How about a law saying that women cannot vote?

    Remember, these were not issues that were even in the original Bill of Rights.

    And here is one that is in the Bill of Rights, how about a law banning the King James Version Bible? Could New York do that? They could claim that they do not want people armed with teachings of the King James Bible.

    If they cannot do the above, why can the ban firearms from possession by law abiding people?

    My understanding of the Bill of Rights was that it was put in and agreed upon by all the states in order to become states because some of the first states wanted to make sure the Federal Government did not overstep its boundaries. But, by incorporating and agreeing to the Bill of Rights when they became states, they are bound by them as well.

  13. #13
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    I'm glad YANAL, because these sorts of cases have been prosecuted since 1911 when the Sullivan Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act was passed. Just recently a California attorney who is a bigwig in some 2A organization was busted as he tried to declare his unloaded, secured handgun in his checked baggage for his flight back home - thus implicating him for having had the handgun in NYC for several days.

    As much as it pains me to say it, I'm glad the penalty for being stupid in NYC is severe. Carrying a handgun is a huge responsibility that goes well beyond knowing how to manipulate the item - it involves becoming knowlegable about not only the statute laws but the courts' interpretations of the laws - all while otherwise being untrained and uneducated in the law. Failing to meet that responsibility has consequences for not only the individual but for all those that come after them - I'm willing to bet that NYC installs metal detectors at the 9/11 memorial and thus subjects all visitors to 4th Amendment violations being done in the name of "public safety".

    What seems to stun the "gun community" is that this person, as naive as she may be, was not aware of the draconian prohibition against firearms in NYC. It's sort of one of those things that even girls (no offense to the females of the species - just trying to make a point) are supposed to know, like "don't spit into the wind" or why you are not allowed to climb into the gorilla exhibit to hug the big, fuzzy animals. Seriously, go ask your grandmother if guns are allowed in NYC - I'll bet she knows!

    And yes, the odds of her getting away with little or no jail tme are quite good. But only because NYC knows it is cheaper to make her pay them than to have to spens $$ to keep her in prison. Whatever the penalty imposed at sentencing, the damage will be done - among others the loss of not only property but of the right to vote, to hold office, to engage in her chosen profession, and what seemed to be her biggest concern, the right to posses firearms for self defense.

    Thanks to the publicity of cases like this maybe the general public will become more aware of the laws against firearms possession in NYC - not that it will do much if anything to try and change them.

    And for those using this case as another rallying point for national reciprocity or a national CCW system - no thanks! I see what NYC has done and truely fear what the nanny state feds might do either all at once or incrementally. YMMV. I'll live with needing to check each state's rules before I go there.

    stay safe.
    As far as the responsibility goes, maybe we should be as harsh on uninformed voting. The Sullivan act would not exist if we subjected ignorant voters to 3-1/2 years.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Uber_Olafsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    585
    As far as knowing the law look at how many different laws on on the books for each state concerning firearms. Heck the new bill in California has 100 plus exceptions. Cops don't even know the laws in their states so when we have thousands of different laws for the states how is a normal citizen supposed to keep track of all of them. What burns me is the the laws are for something that is supposed to be a right.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098
    The real injustice here is that all my Constitutional Rights follow me across state lines... but not the Second.

    States have no "rights" where the U.S. Constitution is concerned. They agreed to it, they need to abide by it.

  16. #16
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    The Constitution as a compact/contract has been changed in word and interpretation since the ratification. That's what the 1861 war was about, the Republican Lincoln killed the union to save the Union in March of 1861 before even taking office. In December of 1860 South Carolina declared its secession in its Declaration of Immediate Causes.

  17. #17
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    The Constitution as a compact/contract has been changed in word and interpretation since the ratification. That's what the 1861 war was about, the Republican Lincoln killed the union to save the Union in March of 1861 before even taking office. In December of 1860 South Carolina declared its secession in its Declaration of Immediate Causes.
    Perhaps it is high time for our Country to revert back to what the Founding Father's intended and nullify any law that does not comply with the limits of the Constitution. A Constitutional Convention of sorts.

  18. #18
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    That's just another way of asking for "reset" and isn't possible. Contracts have been written and jurisprudence has advanced in the direction of cause-and-effect that cannot be un-done. Our Founding Fathers' child will have to go, thrown out with its fouled bath water. The best alternative is to clean up the/its mess.

  19. #19
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    That's just another way of asking for "reset" and isn't possible. Contracts have been written and jurisprudence has advanced in the direction of cause-and-effect that cannot be un-done. Our Founding Fathers' child will have to go, thrown out with its fouled bath water. The best alternative is to clean up the/its mess.
    The Supreme Court was originally intended to judge laws to insure they were within the confines of the Constitution.

    Unfortunately they have decided to use politics and emotions to determine law instead of actual Constitution.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by rscottie View Post
    The Supreme Court was originally intended to judge laws to insure they were within the confines of the Constitution.
    Huh!?! This is a new one on me. Lemme check Article III, and I'll get back to you.

    Edited to add:

    I just finished reading Article III. Nothing about the Supreme Court being originally intended to judge laws to insure they are constitutional.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...leiii#section2


    Interested readers might look into an early SCOTUS case called Marbury v Madison. This case is often referred to as the case where SCOTUS took upon itself the power to weigh the constitutionality of a law, although the text doesn't say it in those terms.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/137/case.html
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-01-2012 at 04:14 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and President's, Politicians, and the Supreme Court have been doing everything they can since our countries founding to get around what they did not like about it.

    The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbitrator in determining if a law fits within the confines of the Constitution.

    As I am not a lawyer, I do not care about the minutia of the wording of this or that law, case law, etc, but instead care about the outcome.

    I know what the 2nd Amendment says. I know what the Founders said about the bearing of arms and their intentions of acknowledging that right by making it number 2 in the top 10 list.

    It does not take a lawyer to know that the citizens of this country are being sold down the road by bad politicians that would like nothing better than to disarm us piece by piece so that they can take even more of our liberties. They would love to disarm us to pass more tax laws in order to steal more and more of our hard earned money to give to the voting groups that will keep them in power. They are a disgrace to the ideals this country was founded upon.

    No one has answered my question yet on whether they think it would be OK for New York City to pass a law banning the King James Bible? I mean, if we are talking about States Rights? (I am a believer that only People have rights, States have Powers, powers that are constrained by the Constitution and Bill of Rights) The City has no more power to ban the King James Bible than to ban law abiding citizens the right to bear arms there.

    I also think that Permits are not Constitutional. Would Christians pay for a Permit to carry the King James Bible? Would Muslims pay for a Permit to carry the Koran?

    Why should we stand for the issuance of Permits to exercise our Natural Right of bearing Arms for Self-Defense, a right recognized and acknowledged by the 2nd Amendment?

    We should not.

  22. #22
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    Solipsism

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/solipsism It often reveals itself by nonstandard capitalization.

  23. #23
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/solipsism It often reveals itself by nonstandard capitalization.
    Actually I have no problem acknowledging the views of others...agreeing to them is another thing.

    What part of my analysis do you disagree with?

    Would people stand for the Government requiring a permit to carry the King James Bible? The Koran? If no, why would they stand for a permit for a firearm?

    The argument is no more complex than that. We have allowed lawyers and politicians to frame the argument and use terminology that most do not use nor care to learn. They do this in order to pretend to be more important than they are. If you can control the language, you can keep control.

    Certainly some on this forum are quite versed in this...as they link to their own big words they found on the internet. Priceless.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by rscottie View Post
    SNIP The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and President's, Politicians, and the Supreme Court have been doing everything they can since our countries founding to get around what they did not like about it.

    The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbitrator in determining if a law fits within the confines of the Constitution.

    As I am not a lawyer, I do not care about the minutia of the wording of this or that law, case law, etc, but instead care about the outcome.
    Wait a minute.

    You come along and say SCOTUS was originally intended to review the constitutionality of laws.

    Then I look into it and find that was not true. And, post more accurate information.

    Then you come back and say a) you don't care, and b) say SCOTUS is supposed to be the final arbiter, basically reinforcing what you said earlier?

    Rather than just say, "Oh, thanks for the tip."

    Do I got all that straight?


    Relying on SCOTUS to accurately maintain rights is like relying on Congress not to pass laws infringing rights. SCOTUS has a long history of wiping away rights. SCOTUS might from time to time come up with a right decision, but make no mistake, it is government and there seems to be an inclination to support the other branches when the question is between government and a citizen.

    And, Marbury v Madison is where ruling on the constitutionality of a law started. Its not that SCOTUS was originally intended to do this. Its not that SCOTUS is supposed to do this. Its that the Marshall court just up and seized the power. It saw that power laying out there unassigned and decided, "We'll take that, 10th Amendment be damned." (10A = all powers not granted are reserved).

  25. #25
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Wait a minute.

    You come along and say SCOTUS was originally intended to review the constitutionality of laws.

    Then I look into it and find that was not true. And, post more accurate information.

    Then you come back and say a) you don't care, and b) say SCOTUS is supposed to be the final arbiter, basically reinforcing what you said earlier?

    Rather than just say, "Oh, thanks for the tip."

    Do I got all that straight?


    Relying on SCOTUS to accurately maintain rights is like relying on Congress not to pass laws infringing rights. SCOTUS has a long history of wiping away rights. SCOTUS might from time to time come up with a right decision, but make no mistake, it is government and there seems to be an inclination to support the other branches when the question is between government and a citizen.

    And, Marbury v Madison is where ruling on the constitutionality of a law started. Its not that SCOTUS was originally intended to do this. Its not that SCOTUS is supposed to do this. Its that the Marshall court just up and seized the power. It saw that power laying out there unassigned and decided, "We'll take that, 10th Amendment be damned." (10A = all powers not granted are reserved).
    I apologize as my limitations are borne of the Public Education System and IANAL.

    I have read some of the Federalist Papers and other writings from our founding fathers.

    If the three branches of the government are not bound by the Constitution, what recourse do we have? It would seem we have again been sold a false bill of goods.

    I, perhaps falsely, always believed that the Supreme Court was supposed to determine whether laws and lower court decisions were made within the confines of the Constitution.

    If I am incorrect, then we are in a far worse position than I previously thought.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •