Memorize This - It's Law and you need to know it!, page 1

reply to post by EnochWasRight

---

I do not need to memorize this thanks and I don't need to know it.

I'll learn the laws that apply to me here that are slightly more relevant.

I get what you're saying, but you are addressing the whole world here, not just americans.

reply to post by Hopechest

---

Justify is not the word you should be using, rationalize is what you are looking for.

There are dozens of unconstitutional laws and doings out there.

NDAA
PATRIOT ACT
Obama's appointment of Cordray
The 14th amendment was not legally ratified
The 16th amendment was not legally ratified
Depending on how you interperet the constitution, the Air Force is unconstitutional, the letter of the law says its not.
The ACA is unconstitutional (the only good thing about roberts decision is that it'll end in the supreme court again)
DHS is unconstitutional
FBI is unconstitutional

Well I better stop lest you get overwhelmed.

Good luck!

Originally posted by Dfairlite
reply to post by Hopechest

---

Justify is not the word you should be using, rationalize is what you are looking for.

There are dozens of unconstitutional laws and doings out there.

NDAA
PATRIOT ACT
Obama's appointment of Cordray
The 14th amendment was not legally ratified
The 16th amendment was not legally ratified
Depending on how you interperet the constitution, the Air Force is unconstitutional, the letter of the law says its not.
The ACA is unconstitutional (the only good thing about roberts decision is that it'll end in the supreme court again)
DHS is unconstitutional
FBI is unconstitutional

Well I better stop lest you get overwhelmed.

Good luck!

Let me continue this debate ( I really need to get in that debate forum) by saying that no law is unconstitional until it goes to the Supreme Court and they rule it so.

Your turn

reply to post by EnochWasRight

---

I think it needs to be clarified that this is only "law" in a broad sense. It's criminal code and governs the procedures and penalties of laws they pertain to. They do not supercede the law.

It would also be helpful to properly define "color of law" for people. Color of law.

It seems many people only read up to "Constitution" and then pay no attention to the words that immediately follow, "or laws of the United States". Those "laws of the United States" are the law until deemed otherwise under judicial review.

Now, I'm making a crazy assumption here that the Title 18 Section 242 stuff circulating is in response to gun control discussion, but I think it's a reasonable one. This would have no bearing on the legality of any passed legislation unless and until it was deemed unconstitutional under judicial review by a federal court. There is no secret "poison pill" hidden within the US penal code to supercede federal law. Were this the case you should be able to point to cases where it was used against something like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. In fact, federal assault weapon bans have been upheld in court. Like this.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

---

I am going to guess that your point is that this may be used against the government for NDAA, Patriot Act, Gun Confisication, etc.... The operative portion of the section is the qualifier, "....on account of such person being
an alien, or by reason of his color, or race,..." So the gist of this section is that if someone is treated differently because they are of different immigration status or race, then that government agent (be it local, county, state, or federal) may be charged under this section.

reply to post by Hopechest

---

Hopechest, the logic of you argument is not only skewed to the point of absurd but you seem to be trying to live up to the expression of your mood in your profile, to whit "God Complex". I will ignore even attempting to disuade you of your delusions of grandeur and instead focus on the more salient flaws of your argument.

Well gun laws are not against the Constitution so they wouldn't qualify.

Uh, actually they are! The Supreme Court very recently has stated that the 2nd Amendment is inviolate in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and then clarifying even further in McDonald v Chicago cases. In point of fact in DC v Heller, the Supreme Court pointed to specific provisions of Firearms Control Regulations of 1975 that were clearly unconstitutional. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled that regulation mandating that weapons be stored unloaded and disassembled.

If we are to look at past rulings, even under the color of stare decisis, the big one being US v Miller 1939, then you would have some semblance of an argument. However, I would present that if another similar case were brought before the Court, in US v Miller would be overturned; in no small part that both sides never showed up for oral arguments. This is in part to Prosecutorial malfeasances on the side of the Government and lack of funds/risk of further prosecution to Miller for the Defense.

Contrary to what you have been brainwashed into thinking, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not about hunting. If you read the Federalist Papers, which by the way the Supreme Court does use in it's decision making process, you would find that our Forefathers did indeed mean for 2nd Amendment to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

Or maybe the actual author of the Bill of Rights and 4th President:

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

Or perhaps one of the Founding Fathers and 2nd President:

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

reply to post by Hopechest

---

Firstly, your entire premise is based on the view that an unjust law that has not be subjected to judicial review is therefore warranted.

This is not the case. An unjust law is a law that is deemed a constitutional violation by its citizens, usually as a prelude to judicial review. Therefore an 'unconstitutional law' is an unjust law that has been recognized as such by the supreme judicial authority.

Secondly, a national constitution is most usually binding on the part of the government, not the people. Therefore in the interest of checks and balances, the people have the right and responsibility to question the constitutionality of laws they deem to be unjust.

In other words, just because the supreme judicial authority hasn't ruled a law as unconstitutional doesn't necessarily mean the law is ethically, morally, or legally binding. All constitutional laws are considered to be in a state of flux, with the exception of amendments which are rigid by nature.

Originally posted by nerbot
reply to post by EnochWasRight

---

I do not need to memorize this thanks and I don't need to know it.

I'll learn the laws that apply to me here that are slightly more relevant.

I get what you're saying, but you are addressing the whole world here, not just americans.

If it doesn't apply to you then move along... why waste your time responding

reply to post by EnochWasRight

---

I don't think that's what it means unless I'm reading it wrong .. Broken down with all the legalese cut out it would read...

Whoever willfully subjects any person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution
*********on account of such person beingan alien, or by reason of his color, or race, ********
than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;

So It really only says you must treat all people equally under the law regardless of their nationality, race, or whatever. Whether or not our government has down that is another matter...

RON PAUL to appear on Jay Leno September to make a "special announcement"!? 3rd Party run???
  Posted 11 days ago with 29 member flags

Mitt Romney, The Life Saving Hero
  Posted 10 days ago with 19 member flags

Obama\'s nod to Neil Armstrong, causing a stir on the conservative blogosphere
  Posted 15 days ago with 14 member flags

Why is NBC doing a Story on Mormonism Tonight?
  Posted 19 days ago with 12 member flags

Funniest pic of the year
  Posted 19 days ago with 10 member flags

Romney to ‘legitimate rape’ doctor: ‘We agree on almost everything’
  Posted 19 days ago with 9 member flags

Homeless Isaac Victim: Romney Told Me To \'Go Home And Call 211\'
  Posted 10 days ago with 8 member flags

Clint Eastwood tell the POTUS to "eff himself", on live television!
  Posted 12 days ago with 8 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: