CDZ Cops, would you sign this statement?

[TheGreatGatsby]

Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

I disagree. There are plenty of laws that are currently declared Constitutional that really aren't. Maybe, from a very stringent legal standpoint you are correct though.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This law has been declared unconstitutional? When did that happen?

I provided you the pertinent amendment.

You realize this is not a dictatorship of the judiciary where rights only exist if granted by judge-kings, right?

Of course. However, cops are required to enforce all laws. Until such time as the Courts deem this unconstitutional, it is a legal law to be enforced.

Just because YOU don't like it does not make it unconstitutional.

Isn't that sort of like saying that until someone is arrested and convicted, their actions should always be considered legal?

Their actions ARE considered innocent until they are convicted.

Sure, by the government. And I'm not necessarily saying it should be any different for cops re the Constitution. But it's perfectly valid to cite a law as unconstitutional without, or even in disagreement with, a Court ruling.

LOL No it's not.

Jury nullification IS a valid defense in terms of a jury saying we don't care if the law is right or not. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is constitutional unless THE court says otherwise.

 

[dblack]

I provided you the pertinent amendment.

You realize this is not a dictatorship of the judiciary where rights only exist if granted by judge-kings, right?

Of course. However, cops are required to enforce all laws. Until such time as the Courts deem this unconstitutional, it is a legal law to be enforced.

Just because YOU don't like it does not make it unconstitutional.

Isn't that sort of like saying that until someone is arrested and convicted, their actions should always be considered legal?

Their actions ARE considered innocent until they are convicted.

Sure, by the government. And I'm not necessarily saying it should be any different for cops re the Constitution. But it's perfectly valid to cite a law as unconstitutional without, or even in disagreement with, a Court ruling.

LOL No it's not.

Jury nullification IS a valid defense in terms of a jury saying we don't care if the law is right or not. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is constitutional unless THE court says otherwise.

So, in your view, the Court is infallible?

 

[Christophera]

"I, ---------, sworn officer of --------- agency/dept, do hereby swear that I will NEVER enforce any unconstitutional law"


Of course you won't. you DO enforce such laws every DAY, and you'd be fired for signing such a statement, and we all know it, too.

Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

"Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind."

With jury nullification it does.

"Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional"

Why would an unconstitutional government declare unconstitutional laws unconstitutional?

 

[Christophera]

Cops are not the arbiters of what is Constitutional. Any question of Constitutionality, that's what the court system is for.

Cops' job is to simply enforce what's on the books. Some of 'em have a hard enough time just limiting themselves to that; let's not go crazy.

The cops failed to appear on a subpoena duces tecum.

The court was prejudiced and refused to disqualify itself.

The records subpoenaed would have proven over 1,000 court case files were missing from the courts records.

The prejudiced court in 1998 refused to find the cops in contempt of court. The cops boss, the county was being sued because the missing records were the most important records a society can keep.

It was about stopping extreme violence in the county. Twenty two people have been murdered within four miles of each other by four murderers in fourteen years.

Five years after that, another lawsuit was filed because the first four killed were murdered by someone who had tried to get mental help but such was not available. The suit was about a treatment potentially effective at intervening in extreme behaviors. A treatment which had seen defacto approval by the mental health department.

but the us district court secretly revised their rules removing a 125 year old court rule providing a new magistrate and judge to a refiled pro se civil rights case.

That was the fourth civil action filed trying to get justice for the failure to appear and deprival of evidence which was of a type proving that court case files missing were missing and that those case files would have been adequate to show psychology that the treatment proposed was effective.

The local newspaper was given a copy of the lawsuit so a story might inform the public which could broadly be protected and benefit from the treatment. Within 2 weeks the reporter the copy went to was fired.

Santa Barbara Secrets of media-Newspress independent county public defender.

Within 6 weeks 16 other reporters and editors were fired, resigned and gagged by the court.

Clearly, we have an unlawful government and only a lawful and peaceful revolution with "the people as the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" will suffice to return constitutionality to any of it.

 

[Darkwind]

Of course. However, cops are required to enforce all laws. Until such time as the Courts deem this unconstitutional, it is a legal law to be enforced.

Just because YOU don't like it does not make it unconstitutional.

So cops take an oath to faithfully serve and uphold the judge-kings? There word alone is law?

What the hell are you talking about? Laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Cops take an oath to uphold THOSE laws. YOU are not empowered to just say, "I think it is unconstitutional, therefore it is no longer valid".

Do you even understand that?

 

[Darkwind]

This law has been declared unconstitutional? When did that happen?

I provided you the pertinent amendment.

You realize this is not a dictatorship of the judiciary where rights only exist if granted by judge-kings, right?

Of course. However, cops are required to enforce all laws. Until such time as the Courts deem this unconstitutional, it is a legal law to be enforced.

Just because YOU don't like it does not make it unconstitutional.

Isn't that sort of like saying that until someone is arrested and convicted, their actions should always be considered legal?

Their actions ARE considered innocent until they are convicted.

Sure, by the government. And I'm not necessarily saying it should be any different for cops re the Constitution. But it's perfectly valid to cite a law as unconstitutional without, or even in disagreement with, a Court ruling.

No, you can say your opinion is that the law is unconstitutional. To cite that it is means that there has been a ruling of some kind to alter the law from valid to invalid.

 

[Darkwind]

Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

I disagree. There are plenty of laws that are currently declared Constitutional that really aren't. Maybe, from a very stringent legal standpoint you are correct though.

Yes, I am correct. If you or anyone feels that a law is unconstitutional, and you can show standing before the courts, you are permitted to challenge the validity of the law. However, until such time as it is ruled as unconstitutional, law enforcement is required to uphold that law.

Now, debating the validity of a law is perfectly acceptable. Just realize that a law does not become unconstitutional simply because you, Me, or jack public doesn't like it.

 

[Darkwind]

"I, ---------, sworn officer of --------- agency/dept, do hereby swear that I will NEVER enforce any unconstitutional law"


Of course you won't. you DO enforce such laws every DAY, and you'd be fired for signing such a statement, and we all know it, too.

Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

"Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind."

With jury nullification it does.

"Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional"

Why would an unconstitutional government declare unconstitutional laws unconstitutional?

Jury nullification does not render a law unconstitutional.

What government is unconstitutional and why is that even in this thread?

 

[JoeMoma]

Asset forfeiture

{
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.}
.
Armed robbery is not due process of law. Seizure violates the constitution, and cops engage in it all the time. In reality it is simply armed robbery by the police - who are little more than another violent criminal gang running the streets.

This law has been declared unconstitutional? When did that happen?

I provided you the pertinent amendment.

You realize this is not a dictatorship of the judiciary where rights only exist if granted by judge-kings, right?

Of course. However, cops are required to enforce all laws. Until such time as the Courts deem this unconstitutional, it is a legal law to be enforced.

Just because YOU don't like it does not make it unconstitutional.

Isn't that sort of like saying that until someone is arrested and convicted, their actions should always be considered legal?

Their actions ARE considered innocent until they are convicted.

Samantics.......

 

[Uncensored2008]

You've only demonstrated your ignorance of the law.

The irony of your post is beyond the pale.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I disagree. There are plenty of laws that are currently declared Constitutional that really aren't. Maybe, from a very stringent legal standpoint you are correct though.

This idiocy that the court and unelected judges are the law was the very danger that Jefferson warned against when Marshall usurped the power to adjudicate the constitutionality of legislative acts. Jefferson warned of the tyranny of the judiciary. Chief Justice Marshall scoffed that Americans were too wise to confuse the determination of new law with the enumeration set forth in statutory protections.

But we see in this thread that Jefferson was correct, Americans turn to rulers as the law unto themselves, rather than codified statute.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What the hell are you talking about? Laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President.

If, as you contend, the Constitution is meaningless and only the utterance of SCOTUS justices have weight, then the idea that an oath is taken to uphold and preserve the United States Constitution is absurd.

So I ask again, do those in a protective position take an oath to uphold and preserve the judge-kings, or is the oath to the Constitution?

Cops take an oath to uphold THOSE laws. YOU are not empowered to just say, "I think it is unconstitutional, therefore it is no longer valid".

Do you even understand that?

Again; you are wrong.

{Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.}

Your desire for dictatorship where the rule of man is supreme, rather than the rule of codified law, does not make it so.

 

[Christophera]

"I, ---------, sworn officer of --------- agency/dept, do hereby swear that I will NEVER enforce any unconstitutional law"


Of course you won't. you DO enforce such laws every DAY, and you'd be fired for signing such a statement, and we all know it, too.

Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

"Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind."

With jury nullification it does.

"Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional"

Why would an unconstitutional government declare unconstitutional laws unconstitutional?

Jury nullification does not render a law unconstitutional.

What government is unconstitutional and why is that even in this thread?

Jury nulification renders a law unconstitutional in the case before the jury.

It is in this thread because pogo posted that the cop does not decide what is constitutional.

Our government has become increasingly unconstitutional since the act of 1871 and is beginning to destroy unalienable rights on a regular basis all across the nation.

Justice in civil court is rare.

 

[paddymurphy]

"I, ---------, sworn officer of --------- agency/dept, do hereby swear that I will NEVER enforce any unconstitutional law"


Of course you won't. you DO enforce such laws every DAY, and you'd be fired for signing such a statement, and we all know it, too.

And can you identify a single "unconstitutional" law they enforce every day? And are we to judge it unconstitutional cause you say it is or do we prefer to follow the rule of law and allow our Courts to make that call?

 

[JoeMoma]

If a congressman believes that a bill that he is voting on has is unconstutional, then he should vote against that bill on those grounds. If president believes a bill passed by congress is unconstitutional, then he should veto the bill.

If a cop strongly believes that a law that he is expected to enforce is unconstitutional, then he may take a stand and not enforce that law; however, he may be disciplined (fired) because he is not in a position to make a legal judgement of whether a law is constitutional of not. Perhaps being fired from his job would give a cop legal standing to challenge a law that he beleives unconstitutional in court. That being said, who would have the resources to take such a stand that is living a normal life with a family to support and bills to pay?

 

[paddymurphy]

"I, ---------, sworn officer of --------- agency/dept, do hereby swear that I will NEVER enforce any unconstitutional law"


Of course you won't. you DO enforce such laws every DAY, and you'd be fired for signing such a statement, and we all know it, too.

Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

"Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind."

With jury nullification it does.

"Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional"

Why would an unconstitutional government declare unconstitutional laws unconstitutional?

Jury nullification does not render a law unconstitutional.

What government is unconstitutional and why is that even in this thread?

Jury nulification renders a law unconstitutional in the case before the jury.

It is in this thread because pogo posted that the cop does not decide what is constitutional.

Our government has become increasingly unconstitutional since the act of 1871 and is beginning to destroy unalienable rights on a regular basis all across the nation.

Justice in civil court is rare.

Jury nullification has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law. Any time a jury refuses to follow the law and substitutes their own judgment as to the wisdom of the law, they engage in jury nullification, an entirely illegal action. They may simply think that the law is not needed. They certainly are not determining the constitutionality of a law.

 

[JoeMoma]

"I, ---------, sworn officer of --------- agency/dept, do hereby swear that I will NEVER enforce any unconstitutional law"


Of course you won't. you DO enforce such laws every DAY, and you'd be fired for signing such a statement, and we all know it, too.

Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

"Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind."

With jury nullification it does.

"Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional"

Why would an unconstitutional government declare unconstitutional laws unconstitutional?

Jury nullification does not render a law unconstitutional.

What government is unconstitutional and why is that even in this thread?

Jury nulification renders a law unconstitutional in the case before the jury.

It is in this thread because pogo posted that the cop does not decide what is constitutional.

Our government has become increasingly unconstitutional since the act of 1871 and is beginning to destroy unalienable rights on a regular basis all across the nation.

Justice in civil court is rare.

Jury nullification has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law. Any time a jury refuses to follow the law and substitutes their own judgment as to the wisdom of the law, they engage in jury nullification, an entirely illegal action. They may simply think that the law is not needed. They certainly are not determining the constitutionality of a law.

I agree that jury nullification does not necessarily have anything to do with the constitutionality of a law. On the other hand, jury nullification is legal.

 

[paddymurphy]

Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

"Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind."

With jury nullification it does.

"Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional"

Why would an unconstitutional government declare unconstitutional laws unconstitutional?

Jury nullification does not render a law unconstitutional.

What government is unconstitutional and why is that even in this thread?

Jury nulification renders a law unconstitutional in the case before the jury.

It is in this thread because pogo posted that the cop does not decide what is constitutional.

Our government has become increasingly unconstitutional since the act of 1871 and is beginning to destroy unalienable rights on a regular basis all across the nation.

Justice in civil court is rare.

Jury nullification has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law. Any time a jury refuses to follow the law and substitutes their own judgment as to the wisdom of the law, they engage in jury nullification, an entirely illegal action. They may simply think that the law is not needed. They certainly are not determining the constitutionality of a law.

I agree that jury nullification does not necessarily have anything to do with the constitutionality of a law. On the other hand, jury nullification is legal.

It is actually not "legal". A lawyer cannot ask a jury to engage in jury nullification and a judge instructs a jury they have to follow the law. Since it is not permitted to inquire from a jury the basis for their verdict, it is one of those things that can happen, though, technically, it is not legal.

 

[JoeMoma]

"Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind."

With jury nullification it does.

"Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional"

Why would an unconstitutional government declare unconstitutional laws unconstitutional?

Jury nullification does not render a law unconstitutional.

What government is unconstitutional and why is that even in this thread?

Jury nulification renders a law unconstitutional in the case before the jury.

It is in this thread because pogo posted that the cop does not decide what is constitutional.

Our government has become increasingly unconstitutional since the act of 1871 and is beginning to destroy unalienable rights on a regular basis all across the nation.

Justice in civil court is rare.

Jury nullification has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law. Any time a jury refuses to follow the law and substitutes their own judgment as to the wisdom of the law, they engage in jury nullification, an entirely illegal action. They may simply think that the law is not needed. They certainly are not determining the constitutionality of a law.

I agree that jury nullification does not necessarily have anything to do with the constitutionality of a law. On the other hand, jury nullification is legal.

It is actually not "legal". A lawyer cannot ask a jury to engage in jury nullification and a judge instructs a jury they have to follow the law. Since it is not permitted to inquire from a jury the basis for their verdict, it is one of those things that can happen, though, technically, it is not legal.

It's legality is debatable, but I beleive that we can agree that it's a moot point. The legal system is designed such that it can take place without consequence to the jurors, and the verdic stands.