reply to post by DragonSpirit2
I will prove to everyone that I am right, if you can offer proof to the contrary, anywhere it says somewhere where anyone, anywhere, and at anytime
may ignore the principles of the Constitution for the purposed benefit of "law and order" then I will desist however if there is nothing but law
after law and article after article which states that the constitution is the law of the land not statutory law then I hate to tell you but you may
have an opinion but in this matter YOU ARE WRONG!!! Not being judgmental just presenting the facts as they are supposed to be being followed in this
country, in this system of government.
"Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz.,
384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966)
Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be
bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding... All executive and judicial officers, both of the
United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."
There is also a Common Law principle which states that for there to be a crime, there has to be a victim (corpus delecti). In the absence of a victim
there can be no crime.
There is also no mention in the Constitution of the phantoms some judges use as justifications for "interpreting" the Constitition: "Public
Safety," "Public Interest," or "Public Policy." In 1968, in Columbia University's Charpentier Lectures, Justice Hugo Black said:
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to
judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice. I have no fear of constitutional amendments properly adopted, but I do fear the rewriting of
the Constitution by judges under the guise of interpretation."
"What spurs men on to achievement is the deep urge to be rid of the commands once laid on them." - from "Wake Up America! - Obedience, Punishment,
THE WEAKEST ARGUMENT FOR GOVERNMENT
If we don't have government there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc.
Answer 1: How do you know? Answer 2: Such a list almost always consists of problems we already suffer from - in other words, if we have government
there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc.
The people who call themselves "government" need such problems in order to justify their jobs. It is in their interest to create such problems and
make them worse. The worse the problems, the bigger the bureaucratic empires they create, the more money they get, the more power they obtain, the
more people they control.
The bigger the government, the greater the problems. A politician like Bush may say that he will reduce government and lower taxes because he thinks
it will help him get re-elected. In practice Bush has greatly increased his own bureaucratic empire. His administration has expanded government
regulation with abandon. He promised, "Read my lips, no new taxes," and then raised taxes. Under Bush, deficit spending has ballooned out of
PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED BY PEOPLE, NOT BY GOVERNMENTS.
Once you realize that governments consist of people, and that whatever is being done is done by individual human beings - even though they may use
machines and equipment - then it becomes embarrassingly obvious that only people can solve problems. The entire notion that government can or should
do anything becomes quite absurd.
In their book Breakthrough Thinking, Gerald Nadler and Shozo Hibino write that "an organization, as a collective body, can't approach a problem."
They have a section on "political and governmental horrors." They indicate that politics and government "are the graveyards of misbegotten problem
solving." Politicians and bureaucrats have three basic types of "solutions":
Pass a law.
Throw money at the problem.
Appoint a committee to study the problem.
In terms of problem-solving methodology, all three types are at best inefficient.
I would go further and suggest that as soon as people call themselves "government," there is a considerable probability that they acquire some kind
of "magical power in reverse" - they somehow become less able to solve problems. Nadler and Hibino say that, "Government is operated mainly by
bureaucrats, and bureaucrats' classic criterion in decision making is not fulfillment of project purposes but protection of their jobs."
Some people say government is a fecal alchemist - everything they touch turns into feces. ----- Also from "Wake Up America!"
FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, AND THE PRESS; RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY AND PETITION
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 peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
GUARANTEE OF PROTECTION TO ALL CITIZENS (1868)
... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
Not a huge fan of 14th because it says privileges and not rights but you get the point!
"It [The U.S. Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of Common Law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers
of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution could not be understood without reference to the Common Law." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.
649, 18 S. Ct. 456.
"Law of the Land" means "The Common Law." Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill. 140, 146 (1843) - Justice Bronson; and State v. Simon, 2 Spears 761, 767
(1884) - Justice O'Neal.
The U.S. adopted the Common Laws of England with the Constitution. Coldwell v. Hill, 176 S.E. 383 (1934).
In contrast, legislated or statutory law - like the laws of Congress - are written mostly by attorneys to further their own self-interest or to favor
special-interest groups with big bucks - exactly as Thomas Jefferson predicted in 1821.