Do US politicians have the authority to legislate against the Constitution?

reply to post by Namaste1001


I had to stop your video at 1:04. His point is pathetic and maybe because the document we speak of is so old and so far removed from your reality that you are unable to comprehend the gravity of it. It is not supreme law of the land because some Joe Blow wrote it down, it was agreed to by US, you know WE the people.

reply to post by Namaste1001


Your video is summarised by this: "It's just a piece of paper."

But if that's the way someone feels about the Constitution, why would they have sworn allegiance to the country under its sway? Seeing as it defines the way the entire society is to be governed, someone who disagrees with it would either have to disown it, and leave the country, or remain and openly subvert it - in which case their activity would be considered criminal.

The only other option is hypocrisy.

Of course they don't have it.

There's a very strict procedure to follow to change the constitution.

Anything else violating it is no law at all.

Every president is bound to protect our constitution, that is how the system was put in place from the beginning, that is why we have three branches of government and that is why any grievance are taken to the supreme court that historically will tend to side with the constitution as that is their purpose.

So to say that is an old document and that it holds no power in this day and times, is actually very wrong taking into consideration that onces you learn about the reasons our Constitution still stands today is very simple, no government can get rid of it even if they want it too.

Yes governments today go around making laws to be able to over step the constitutions powers whenever they can but actually the only reason they get away is because they do not get challenged in the supreme court by the people, it was a time when we the people have the power to suppress the powers of the government but now a days we are too busy with our daily lives and personal affairs to care anymore.

That is why our government is going around like a runway train been ruled by a body of elite interest.

Our constitution still holds the power as long as we the people recognize that power.

Just remember that people.

reply to post by pause4thought


Congress can pass legislation that is unconstitutional and the supreme court can overturn it.

Checks and balances.

reply to post by FortAnthem

The only problem with that is; nowhere in the Constitution or within the body of laws passed since this country's inception, is there a law making it illegal for anyone to pass or enforce a law which contradicts the Constitution.

OBE has all ready pointed to Article I, Section 8 to refute your claim, but beyond that there is The Bill of Rights which is very much a part of the Constitution for the United States of America. These Bill of Rights are not grants of rights but are instead express prohibitions on the federal government.

Take note how the First Amendment begins:

"Congress shall make no laws...."

The Second Amendment ends,

"...shall not be infringed."

On and on and on each of the Ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights make perfectly clear what the federal government cannot do.

Some argue that Congress can legislate unlawful legislation, but that the SCOTUS has authority of judicial review and can overturn unlawful legislation. This is only partially true in that the courts have the authority of judicial review, but this does not mean that Congress can pass unlawful legislation, only that given the history of judicial review that Congress has. Congressmen enjoy immunity for their unlawful legislation, but that only protects them as individual legislators and does not at all protect the legislation.

However, this notion that people are stuck with unlawful legislation until the Supreme Court strikes it down tends to miss the point of unlawful legislation. Whatever legislation the Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional was done so because some person somewhere challenged the unlawful legislation and it made it all the way up to the Supreme Court. It is not as if the Supreme Court looks for unlawful legislation to review. Compelling arguments have to be made by people in order to get the Supreme Court's attention. That, and of course, losing lower court challenges.

It is arguable, that in Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court, in a stunning 9-0 decision, made a grand gift to the We the People, and ruled that we as individuals not only have the authority, but quite possibly the responsibility to challenge unlawful legislation. Traffic tickets? Bond v. United States becomes a compelling and binding argument challenging this revenue scheme. IRS actions that are undeniably unconstitutional? Bond v United States becomes a compelling and binding argument to put a stop to thugish administrative agents who believe themselves to be above the law.

If an act of unlawful and unconstitutional legislation is to be treated as it should be, and that is to say to have that odious "piece of paper" destroyed, it must begin with We the People as individuals willing to actually challenge the legislation. This is important, because to effectively challenge the legislation, it is prudent to understand that pleading guilty or not guilty to unlawful legislation can legally be construed as a tacit approval of the legislation itself. What this means is that if Congress passes an act of legislation to curb the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, and demands that all Americans stop breathing in between the hours of 3pm and 4pm, and if you breathe during that time frame and are charged with violation of the "Clean Air and Global Warming Reduction Act" it would not be a very good idea to plead not guilty, and of course, since you have an unalienable right to breathe at all times of the day, it would be beyond stupid to plead guilty.

If such an absurd act was passed, the best thing We the People can do is refuse to plead, and demand that those bringing charges against us prove they have the lawful authority to do so. If individuals acted more in this manner and less willing to acquiesce to every single act of legislation that comes down the pike, Congress wouldn't be so willing to keep passing absurd acts of legislation that are undeniably unconstitutional.

Originally posted by Namaste1001
reply to post by type0civ

 

It's just a bit of paper with some ink on it. Nobody alive today was around when it was signed. So does it have any actual authority? I would say no. The real authority are the people that make up the population of the country. It's their birth right that is being mortgaged by the government.

So following that logic if framers of an agreement being all deceased, that agreement is no longer in effect, why is there the federal reserve act, the right for women to vote, etc. Everyone that were the framers of those agreements, and voted to approve them, are now dead. So are all 99-year leases between all parties when it gets to about 70-90 years, everyone's dead.

Your words are just less than ink and only on virtual "paper". The foundation of all civilzed society world-wide is the unanimous accepance by all sane humans that contracts, once in place remain so until voted to be modified, voted to be terminated, or when upon their inception there was a built in expiration date. Without contracts there is total anarchy, there is no monetary system. Even bartering systems are contractual.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Very interesting Jean Paul. Once again I bow to your great knowlege and wisdom. I have downloaded a PDF of that case and will review it when I can find a few minutes tomorrow. Thank you my friend.

Bond v united states

Here is some good info on the "Necessary and Proper Clause".
law.onecle.com...

This is supported by the 1819 decision in McCullough v. Maryland, which contains the quote by

Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional.

supreme.justia.com...

So, it is necessary to remember the Constitution not only restricts the government on its intrusions upon the individual, it also empowers government and provides instructions on things government is required to do. This is where the "Necessary and Proper Clause" comes into play.

I wrote a short essay a few weeks ago, for my American Government class, in which I challenged the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act. The government claims its authority to regulate controlled substances (among a thousand other things) is derived from the "Interstate Commerce Clause" (also in Art, I Sec, 8). My argument was, using Chief Justice John Marshall's quote from McCullough, the true intent of the CSA was not to regulate interstate commerce. Therefore, "the end" was not legitimate, making "the means" inappropriate and neither "necessary" nor "proper".

reply to post by WTFover

I wrote a short essay a few weeks ago, for my American Government class, in which I challenged the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act. The government claims its authority to regulate controlled substances (among a thousand other things) is derived from the "Interstate Commerce Clause" (also in Art, I Sec, 8). My argument was, using Chief Justice John Marshall's quote from McCullough, the true intent of the CSA was not to regulate interstate commerce. Therefore, "the end" was not legitimate, making "the means" inappropriate and neither "necessary" nor "proper".

Oh my Dear Lord! I feel like a proud Brother at this moment. My eyes are literally welling up with pride. I have always known you to have a remarkably open mind and yet, was not surprised when you and I debated the efficacy of this so called "war on drugs", given your own background. I am not surprised today to see a somewhat different attitude from you simply because you are a profound thinker and seem far more interested in knowing the truth than being right.

Is the Controlled Substance Act a legitimate act of legislation? Tonight I have had the privilege of reading a first rate argument as to why it is not. I couldn't be more proud of you, my friend.

Originally posted by marg6043

Yes governments today go around making laws to be able to over step the constitutions powers whenever they can but actually the only reason they get away is because they do not get challenged in the supreme court by the people, it was a time when we the people have the power to suppress the powers of the government but now a days we are too busy with our daily lives and personal affairs to care anymore.

I submit the error of the People is continuing to reelect those who have proven, on a daily basis, that they are completely willing to trample on the People and the Constitution. With the exception of a brief period in 2001 (WTC attack), Congress job approval has been significantly below 50% and mostly below 20%. Yet, when election time rolls around, the voters decide their representatives are acceptable and it is only everyone else's representatives that... well... suck. So, we wind up where we now find ourselves.
www.gallup.com...

reply to post by WTFover


No Ruler or Goverment in the History of Mankind has ever been able to Leglislate Behavior amoung it's People without resorting to Tyranny . What makes the United States Federal Goverment any Different ? Seems not only does Time March on , but Man's Ignorance keeps pace right along with it..........

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by FortAnthem
The only problem with that is; nowhere in the Constitution or within the body of laws passed since this country's inception, is there a law making it illegal for anyone to pass or enforce a law which contradicts the Constitution.

Fort you are an intelligent person but this statement is just false.

Article I, Section 8 clearly defines the scope of legislation and law that leaves the Halls of Congress

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I think you misunderstood my assertion which I still hold to. I agree that the Constitution sets definite limits on the power of government and the laws that it can pass but, there is no law anywhere on the books making it illegal for a congressman to pass unconstitutional legislation or preventing a federal official from enforcing said legislation.

There is no penalty imposed upon the legislator who passes such a law or the official who enforces the law. Once the unconstitutional law is passed by congress and signed into law by the president, it becomes the law of the land until such time as someone works their way through the courts with a challenge and takes it to the Supreme Court. Even then there is no guarantee the unconstitutional law will be overturned.

The worst penalty a congressman could face for passing unconstitutional legislation is to have that legislation, eventually, over the course of time, overturned by the courts. Maybe he could be turned out by the voters but that is assuming an educated electorate who care that the constitution was violated.

When I said there is no law against unconstitutional legislation, I meant that there were no legal sanctions (jail time, or better yet; hanging) imposed for the persons who vote the legislation into law. The Constitution spends a lot of time limiting the powers of the federal government but, it lays down no penalties for those who chose to blatantly ignore those limits.

If anyone thinks that getting voted out of office is sufficient punishment for voting in unconstitutional legislation, they had better think again. The ex-congressman will still reap the benefits of their illegal legislation while the rest of us pay the price for their criminality. Most ex-congressmen make a good living as lobbyists after leaving office when, IMO they should be sent to jail for their crimes against the people they were sworn to serve.

reply to post by FortAnthem


You are indeed correct that there is no legal sanctions against any Congress member regarding unlawful legislation. There is, however, plenty of legal sanctions against those who enforce unlawful legislation.

As an example, I will stay with the example I used earlier, of the "Clean Air and Global Warming Prevention Act" where breathing between 3pm and 4pm is made illegal. If you are I are arrested and charged with a crime of breathing between 3 and 4pm, both of us have plenty of legal recourse and remedy to seek.
h
Any law enforcement officer who has arrested us for the so called "criminality" of breathing at unsanctioned times is guilty of denying and disparaging our right to breathe. That is a crime, and if you and I do not pursue legal action then we certainly cannot rely on the corrupt governments sanctioning unlawful legislation to do it for us. What you or I have to do under these circumstances is file a verified complaint asserting injury. Government must act upon that verified complaint. Of course, you or I run the risk of conviction of perjury if we cannot prove injury, but if you've been arrested for breathing this is demonstrably an injury and it shouldn't be too hard to find a jury that would agree with you.

Some would argue that if a law enforcement agent arrested you or I based upon legislation - unlawful or not - that these enforcement personnel acted on "good faith" meaning they believed they were acting lawfully. However, given their oaths of office and given The Bill of Rights, this is just a desperate legal strategy of defense. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and this means that government agents tasked with enforcing legislation must know which legislation is unlawful in that it violates the right of the People.

When We the People begin holding law enforcement accountable for the injury the cause based upon unlawful legislation, and begin finding convictions of these LEO's, then what will happen is a much greater reluctance of LEO's to enforce any legislation that appears as if it is violating the rights of the People. Once LEO's become reluctant, and even hostile to unlawful legislation, then we will get closer to how our government was intended to work, where checks and balances mean a much more adversarial relationship between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches than the obvious collusion that goes on all too often today.

In short, the problem we have today is the result of We the People allowing it to happen without any proper checks and balances from US! We cannot expect government officials to actually embrace checks and balances if we all show far too much of a willingness to agree to their unlawful acts, and to acquiesce to tyranny. In the end, people get the government they deserve.

reply to post by pause4thought


If you read the Constitution from the first word to the last, you will have read the entire scope of what our government is legally allowed to do. Anything outside of that is illegal, and our government is subject to the will of its citizens.

Unfortunately, our citizenry hasn't, for the most part, bothered to understand this concept. We have allowed our government to trample our rights because we didn't know that we didn't have to allow it. Complacency has put us in the position we are in now.

/TOA

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It is arguable, that in Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court, in a stunning 9-0 decision,

What is interesting is Bond v. United States made no big stink here on ATS. It was a defining moment for many detractors of the Supreme Court yet a ruling that was held to the individual. Conspiratorial mind is churning.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Fort you are an intelligent person but this statement is just false.

I think you misunderstood my assertion which I still hold to. I agree that the Constitution sets definite limits on the power of government and the laws that it can pass but, there is no law anywhere on the books making it illegal for a congressman to pass unconstitutional legislation or preventing a federal official from enforcing said legislation.

I shall clarify -- I knew your premise and I understood it. While no physical law resides in the books to deny Congress the ability to push and break the limits of their enumerated powers, I also understand those respective powers.

As crazy as it may seem; I would not welcome a law that needs to spell this out -- just as I oppose a "term-limit" amendment. Such is already in place but never enforced. Never placed upon the alter of recourse because of an anemic education that the average American citizen receives.

There is no penalty imposed upon the legislator who passes such a law or the official who enforces the law. Once the unconstitutional law is passed by congress and signed into law by the president, it becomes the law of the land until such time as someone works their way through the courts with a challenge and takes it to the Supreme Court. Even then there is no guarantee the unconstitutional law will be overturned.

In my opinion there should not be. I know this sounds counter-intuitive -- especially with the advent and passage of the 17th Amendment -- but why create a law that already is stated clearly within the enumerated Powers of said legislature?

More and more I realize it was the People who failed and not Government.

When I said there is no law against unconstitutional legislation, I meant that there were no legal sanctions (jail time, or better yet; hanging) imposed for the persons who vote the legislation into law. The Constitution spends a lot of time limiting the powers of the federal government but, it lays down no penalties for those who chose to blatantly ignore those limits.

And I agree -- but felt the need to point out that such restrictions are and have been in place since the founding of the Constitution.

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by pause4thought

 

If you read the Constitution from the first word to the last, you will have read the entire scope of what our government is legally allowed to do. Anything outside of that is illegal, and our government is subject to the will of its citizens.

Unfortunately, our citizenry hasn't, for the most part, bothered to understand this concept. We have allowed our government to trample our rights because we didn't know that we didn't have to allow it. Complacency has put us in the position we are in now.

/TOA

I think what you say compliments the extraordinarily erudite responses of some, by putting it in a nutshell.

My response would be that too many people equate 'complacency' with a reluctance to engage in violence — as if that were the answer. But people are waking up to just how meaningful and worthwhile peaceful protest can be. Perhaps the time will come when they also awaken to the efficacy of legal redress. From what has been said so far that constitutes a very real safeguard against abuse of power.

Are there (even now) any signs the latter route may be pursued if possibly unconstitutional legislation is passed?

The provisions in NDAA basically piggyback off the results of a trial from several years ago. In Federal court it was concluded that an American citizen may be treated as an enemy combatant if they assist a terrorist organization in a significant way such as plotting a terrorist attack or providing them aid. It's the laws that let us prosecute the underwear bomber.
NDAA simply expands on that by using the recognized laws of war to deal with domestic terrorists. In war, a war-prisoner is held without trial until hostilities have ended, but since there is no end in sight for the war on terror, you see where this is going.
All the NDAA does is change how we determine who is an enemy, and how we treat them. Since the law allows a person to be labeled a terrorist merely on suspicion, the person in question is then treated like a terrorist. suspension of their rights and all.

EDIT: now that I have given up all hope of redemption, I will now go smoke a stogie and hope to God it isn't my last.

The constitution means whatever a supreme court rules at the time. In the future the supreme court can offer a different ruling on a similar case and that becomes the new precedent. There are so many variables to the legislative process that sometimes a law holds up and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes poor wording can be the difference. It all depends on perspective.