Is This Unconstitutional?

[CorvusRexus]

That "other guy" Drake_Roberts you were inquiring about often boasted that there were actually 3 people using the same handle. Both of your pitiful attempts at logic and silly "what if" strategies leads me to believe you're either Flake or the 2nd part of the trio...thus my post that I sincerely hope the 3rd loser is the "brains" of the outfit.

Ohhhhh. Drake-Flake. I get it now. I think I should draw your attention to one major difference between myself and Drake_Roberts. I am advocating voting and peaceful change, not outright irrational and doomed attempts at beating the US through violence while causing the potential death of millions.

You two are the same person, no?

Other than the fact I am from the same town as Drake claimed and may have gone to the same school, we have no connection as far as I know.

 

[RKMBrown]

If a city were to pass a law stating that the federal government loses the ability to monitor its citizens phone calls, records, etc. without a legally signed warrant from a judge, would it be unconstitutional? Or pass laws affecting Freedom of Speech or the 2nd Amendment? IS it unconstitutional for an area lesser than the federal gov't to say, "Fuck off! We will defend the constitution that gives you power, since you won't. Any agent that appears on our doorstep breaking this law shall be treated as a criminal and charged with corruption, as will any official guilty of obtaining illegal records of our citizens. We will demand anybody guilty be extradited immediately to us for prosecution. Have a nice day and go FUCK OFF!"

God I hope my city would be ballsy enough to do that. Maybe I should run for City Council in a few years and propose it myself...

It is Unconstitutional ONLY until Judge Roberts declares it a tax, then it's all good.

We unfairly charge the rich higher taxes "progressively."

Tax breaks for being married and to screw over singles and gays.

"Stimulous" checks for only a select few.

AMT taxes to punish the upper middle class.

50+ million people on welfare.

Health care cost doubling every time the government tries to "help."

Democrats chasing off the evil rich and our jobs going with the money.

Tens of millions of foreign workers here undercut American salaries and take our jobs home with them.

17Trillion in federal debt, not even counting the 70+Trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Wars all over the planet, russia back on the march, more countries with nuclear weapons than ever before...

US Government has used the unpatriot act to completely trash the Constitution, the president is killing US citizens without trial with drones. The US government is permanently jailing people without trial. The US government is going through our papers without warrants.

So what's the good news? It's all constitutional.

 

[dr.d]

Hmmm...I wonder how the citizens of a state would feel if they managed to prevent any NSA monitoring of calls abroad...and then suffered a severe terrorist attack enabled by the ability of terror cells to communicate freely...and coordinate their activities...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[regent]

Under the tenth amendment the states have certain powers called the police powers, and at times states have designated a city or county to use these powers. Would those powers be applicable in this case I don't know, but one thing seems certain we obey laws today that might be found unconstitutional if brought before the Court.

 

[CorvusRexus]

Hmmm...I wonder how the citizens of a state would feel if they managed to prevent any NSA monitoring of calls abroad...and then suffered a severe terrorist attack enabled by the ability of terror cells to communicate freely...and coordinate their activities...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Not to sound insensitive, but sometimes liberty comes at a price. The only way to live completely safe is to surrender all rights to the government and become mindless drones devoid of any rights. Even with the NSA monitoring calls there can still be terrorist attacks.
Just out of curiosity, how many terrorist attacks can you prove have been stopped by the NSA disregarding the 4th?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The only legal and Constitutional recourse to laws made by the Federal Government that you or others feel violate the Constitution is to either get Congress to change the law or challenge it in Federal Court.

The Constitution is clear. Federal law trumps State law. Any disputes go to the Federal Courts to be ironed out. And EVERY State that joined the Union agreed to abide by the Constitution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding

Article VI second paragraph

Section 2

1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;10 --between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Article III section 2

A law is assumed to be legal and Constitutional until such time as either the Congress changes it or the Courts rule otherwise. The Constitution is clear on this matter.

http://constitutionus.com/

 

[thereisnospoon]

If a city were to pass a law stating that the federal government loses the ability to monitor its citizens phone calls, records, etc. without a legally signed warrant from a judge, would it be unconstitutional? Or pass laws affecting Freedom of Speech or the 2nd Amendment? IS it unconstitutional for an area lesser than the federal gov't to say, "Fuck off! We will defend the constitution that gives you power, since you won't. Any agent that appears on our doorstep breaking this law shall be treated as a criminal and charged with corruption, as will any official guilty of obtaining illegal records of our citizens. We will demand anybody guilty be extradited immediately to us for prosecution. Have a nice day and go FUCK OFF!"

God I hope my city would be ballsy enough to do that. Maybe I should run for City Council in a few years and propose it myself...

Good question but that might, in fact, be a State level Rights issue.

No..Cities may in fact propose and enforce their own laws. See New York City.
For example.....NYC was the first municipality to ban smoking in all places of business where the public was invited. Then banned smoking in all public buildings. Both were contrary to State law.
On the other side of the issue, many states' constitutions place such power in the hands of the State legislature. Counties and municipalities have no such freedom.
Here in NC, the Charlotte City council wanted to enact a smoking ban in public places. It was not until the State Legislature passed a law permitting municipalities this power, could that happen....A few years ago, The city of Chapel Hill attempted a total gun ban within the city limits. The state Attorney General quickly filed a suit to have the ordinance quashed and of course was successful. The ordinance was illegal per state statute.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Good question but that might, in fact, be a State level Rights issue.

And if a state proposed it?

There IS a relationship of a State Constitution explicitly PRECEDING the Right of the Federal Government to overrule a State.
Keyword...PRECEDING.
So if the Federal level conflicts with a State's desired superseding Right, the Fed wins.

Be mindful that for this to be correct, the federal law would have to be in place BEFORE the state passed its law.

 

[CorvusRexus]

The only legal and Constitutional recourse to laws made by the Federal Government that you or others feel violate the Constitution is to either get Congress to change the law or challenge it in Federal Court.

The Constitution is clear. Federal law trumps State law. Any disputes go to the Federal Courts to be ironed out. And EVERY State that joined the Union agreed to abide by the Constitution.

(Shrug) The federal gov't agreed to abide by the Constitution. If they break it clearly, I am of the opinion that a second temporary breach in order to rectify the first is justified. In this case, passing legislation to nullify unconstitutional laws, and then resubmitting to federal authority after they have recognized the local law to be legitimate.

 

[CorvusRexus]

2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding

Article VI second paragraph

Section 2

1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;10 --between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Article III section 2

A law is assumed to be legal and Constitutional until such time as either the Congress changes it or the Courts rule otherwise. The Constitution is clear on this matter.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

Yes, but it also says laws must be made in order to uphold the ideals of the Constitution and the Rights it guarantees. Thus, regardless of what courts say, such a law was not legitimate in the first place.

 

[candycorn]

The only legal and Constitutional recourse to laws made by the Federal Government that you or others feel violate the Constitution is to either get Congress to change the law or challenge it in Federal Court.

The Constitution is clear. Federal law trumps State law. Any disputes go to the Federal Courts to be ironed out. And EVERY State that joined the Union agreed to abide by the Constitution.

(Shrug) The federal gov't agreed to abide by the Constitution. If they break it clearly, I am of the opinion that a second temporary breach in order to rectify the first is justified. In this case, passing legislation to nullify unconstitutional laws, and then resubmitting to federal authority after they have recognized the local law to be legitimate.

So if you deem it unconstitutional...it's unconstitutional? Gee, if we only had a court that could make such determinations....

 

[CorvusRexus]

The only legal and Constitutional recourse to laws made by the Federal Government that you or others feel violate the Constitution is to either get Congress to change the law or challenge it in Federal Court.

The Constitution is clear. Federal law trumps State law. Any disputes go to the Federal Courts to be ironed out. And EVERY State that joined the Union agreed to abide by the Constitution.

(Shrug) The federal gov't agreed to abide by the Constitution. If they break it clearly, I am of the opinion that a second temporary breach in order to rectify the first is justified. In this case, passing legislation to nullify unconstitutional laws, and then resubmitting to federal authority after they have recognized the local law to be legitimate.

So if you deem it unconstitutional...it's unconstitutional? Gee, if we only had a court that could make such determinations....

A Court not elected by the People that may be part of the problem? Oh, we have that.
A Court that stands for what it was intended and keeps the Gov't that appoints them for life in line? Nope.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is This Unconstitutional?

Yes, still un-Constitutional.

 

[Geaux4it]

The Constitution is broad enough that most POTUS can easily operate within its constraints. So broad, that it's quite remarkable that so many of Obama's decisions, and agenda, have to face scrutiny.

Why does Obama routinely test the bounds of the constitution?

-Geaux

 

[candycorn]

(Shrug) The federal gov't agreed to abide by the Constitution. If they break it clearly, I am of the opinion that a second temporary breach in order to rectify the first is justified. In this case, passing legislation to nullify unconstitutional laws, and then resubmitting to federal authority after they have recognized the local law to be legitimate.

So if you deem it unconstitutional...it's unconstitutional? Gee, if we only had a court that could make such determinations....

A Court not elected by the People that may be part of the problem? Oh, we have that.

Yes we do. Do you know why?

In part, to prevent the majority from infringing on the rights of the minority; i.e. to protect the minority. This is why a person's rights should never be put up to popular vote. I have no unusual body piercings. I think neck tattoos are incredibly unattractive. If we were to have a national referendum to either outlaw them or appoint judges who would do so, the thin minority of those who partake will likely have to cover them or get fined.

Would "we" do this? Of course those who sponsor such idiotic notions as electing judges who will make popular decisions lest they get voted out of office by becoming unpopular will say "no". History reveals otherwise.

A Court that stands for what it was intended and keeps the Gov't that appoints them for life in line? Nope.

If you live in the 50 states, you live in the greatest civilization ever fielded...by far. There are no close seconds. Adjusting for climate, inflation, per capita, etc...there are no close seconds. Yet ignorant fucks such as yourself seem to think there is some thing you're being deprived of and are ready to go to war.

Like you buddy Drake (I'm pretty sure he's reading this at the same time you are)...go for it and see how popular your views are loser. Some philosopher onces said that "when you set your course for revenge, first dig two graves." Supposedly one for whomever you're going after and one for yourself. In your case, one for yourself will suffice.

 

[Ame®icano]

All I see is, if feds come to your door, you're screwed regardless of what State or City law says.

 

[Ame®icano]

“Surrender of power’ is an inaccurate phrase.

Our civil rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man; but those rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by the government (see, e.g., Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)).

When government seeks to restrict our rights it must meet a very heavy burden – the restriction must be rationally based, it must be supported by objective, documented evidence, it must seek a compelling governmental interest, and it must pursue a propre legislative end. Absent these elements the state will have failed to meet its burden.

It’s the responsibility of the judicial branch of government to determine the constitutionality of laws as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review. When citizens perceive a law to be detrimental to their civil liberties, they may file suit to seek relief in Federal court. The rulings of the Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are binding upon the states and local jurisdictions.

This is the essence and genius of our Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Yet this infallible law states that men must carry it out. Opportunistic, conniving, greedy, rich, selfish, out-of-touch men. Just because a law is infallible does not mean what is done under it is.

As citizens of the USA, we hold with highest regards the US Constitution as the Supreme law of the Land.

Unconstitutional laws, by their very nature, are not legal laws. In effect, they are automatically voided. Citizens have no civic duty to obey unconstitutional laws. Additionally, if we truly believe that a law is in violation with the US Constitution, it is our civic duty to not obey that illegal law.

Citizens have many non-exclusive options when this happens. Some examples of options:

1) Sue in Federal Courts
2) Civil disobedience
3) Jury nullification
4) Organized Protests
5) Push for New Federal Legislation
6) Push for New State Legislation
7) Push for New Local Legislation

Why go thru all that trouble...

Easiest way to avoid all that is to have every law passed by the Congress check for constitutionality by SCOTUS before it goes into affect.

 

[regent]

Yet this infallible law states that men must carry it out. Opportunistic, conniving, greedy, rich, selfish, out-of-touch men. Just because a law is infallible does not mean what is done under it is.

As citizens of the USA, we hold with highest regards the US Constitution as the Supreme law of the Land.

Unconstitutional laws, by their very nature, are not legal laws. In effect, they are automatically voided. Citizens have no civic duty to obey unconstitutional laws. Additionally, if we truly believe that a law is in violation with the US Constitution, it is our civic duty to not obey that illegal law.

Citizens have many non-exclusive options when this happens. Some examples of options:

1) Sue in Federal Courts
2) Civil disobedience
3) Jury nullification
4) Organized Protests
5) Push for New Federal Legislation
6) Push for New State Legislation
7) Push for New Local Legislation

Why go thru all that trouble...

Easiest way to avoid all that is to have every law passed by the Congress check for constitutionality by SCOTUS before it goes into affect.

The Court takes only those cases it deems necessary, and some cases not at all.

 

[Ame®icano]

As citizens of the USA, we hold with highest regards the US Constitution as the Supreme law of the Land.

Unconstitutional laws, by their very nature, are not legal laws. In effect, they are automatically voided. Citizens have no civic duty to obey unconstitutional laws. Additionally, if we truly believe that a law is in violation with the US Constitution, it is our civic duty to not obey that illegal law.

Citizens have many non-exclusive options when this happens. Some examples of options:

1) Sue in Federal Courts
2) Civil disobedience
3) Jury nullification
4) Organized Protests
5) Push for New Federal Legislation
6) Push for New State Legislation
7) Push for New Local Legislation

Why go thru all that trouble...

Easiest way to avoid all that is to have every law passed by the Congress check for constitutionality by SCOTUS before it goes into affect.

The Court takes only those cases it deems necessary, and some cases not at all.

Given the last 50 or 100 years of laws passed by Congress, they should take them all...