Unconstitutional history

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, what is with all this hatred toward libertarians? I don't get it. I'm not personally a libertarian, but your hatred toward them is ridiculous.



[/ QUOTE ]

My hatred toward libertarians is well founded. They are generally ignorant of history and they don't understand human nature which means they are more dangerous to America than liberals usually are.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you compare libertarians to liberals? Libertarians stand for freedom (to an extent) liberals stand for socialism..

[/ QUOTE ]

Libertarians also stand for license.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mainly for license to be free of other people f'ing with them, especially those in government.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
How can a court ruling be unconstitutional since the Courts are responsible for interpreting the Constitution?

[/ QUOTE ]

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted."

- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)

So: the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a thing exists inherently, regardless of what anyone or any group, including SCOTUS, says about it. A law has the fixed attribute of being inherently EITHER constitutional OR unconstitional, BEFORE any court rules on its constitutionality, as American Jurisprudence explains.

SCOTUS is allowed to rule on whether something comports with the Constitution, but the inherent attribute of comportation does not morph to accord itself with SCOTUS' ruling. Something is either constitutional, or it isn't; it either comports with the Constitution, or it violates it. SCOTUS can no more affect the inherent quality of whether something comports with the Constitution, than a group of scientists can affect global warming by voting on it. "Unconstitutional" refers to whether something comports with the Constitution (or not): See American Jurisprudence above ("since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.")

Now, if we empower SCOTUS or the group of scientists to make a binding ruling on a matter, we might have to accept their ruling, but that does not mean they must be correct, or that their ruling must accurately reflect the factual truth of the matter under consideration. If SCOTUS says the Constitution means that every red-headed child must be killed before the age of seven, or if the chosen group of scientists rule that global warming means that by 2010 all the oceans of the Earth will be boiling hot, their edicts might carry the force of law, but by making that ruling neither group has affected the underlying reality of the matter under consideration. SCOTUS doesn't MAKE the Constitution; it merely rules upon it. An issue or law would have the attribute of comporting with the Constitution (or not) even if SCOTUS had never existed.

You are confusing the empowerment to make a legally binding ruling on a matter, with an inherent attribute of the underlying matter itself.

Thanks for reading.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Can any libertarian here tell me what the first 10 unconstitutional things the federal government did are?

[/ QUOTE ]

What were the first ten Acts of Congress?

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Taking military action against the federal government is rebellion.

[/ QUOTE ]

So citizens have no recourse when the federal government attacks them?

[/ QUOTE ]

In 1860 (and ever since) elections were held as scheduled, office holders left when their terms expired and the Courts were open for business.

So why did the South have to resort to armed rebellion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

But yet the South wasn’t willing to extend this “freedom” to their slaves. What hypocrites you libertarians must be.

[ QUOTE ]
Edit to add That was what they were fighting for. However there was no "Armed Rebellion" until 7/21/1861 when general Scott attacked the South.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the repeated seizure on the part of the South of United States property, such as the Norfolk Navy Yard? Don't tell me that you are the one libertarian that is opposed to property rights.




[/ QUOTE ]

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are aware that if the terms of surrender would not have been so generous, the South was prepared to use guerrilla warfare...

[/ QUOTE ]

The South did resort to guerrilla warfare; it was called the Ku Klux Klan, literacy test, grandfather clause and Jim Crow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I am so glad you're not actually serving as an American soldier.

I don't really support the war, but I do support the soldiers, and I hope none of them ever had to rely on you for cover fire if you consider terrorism = guerrilla warfare.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the context of Iraq, what else can you call it?

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
Your OP didn't say anything about that. I answered your OP, then you pull this bait-and-switch. That's goalpost shifting. It doesn't matter to me, since I don't really have a dog in the "original intent" fightp

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m merely pointing out how little understanding you libs have of original intent.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still an opponent of the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you registered to vote? Did you have to take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States when you registered the way I had to when I registered to vote here in Florida? If so, you cannot legitimately be both a voter and an opponent of the Constitution.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Duh!! If you can avoid compliance with the supreme law of the land by seceding, then the supreme law is not supreme because it wouldn’t be binding on anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't answer my question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did answer your question. It's not my fault you are too addle-brained to understand.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
Thomas Jefferson raised constitutional objections to the First Bank less than 5 years after it was ratified. The framers couldn't even agree on their own intent and showed a remarkable willingness to subvert the Constitution when it proved inconvenient to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thomas Jefferson didn't have anything to do with writing the Constitution; he had no original intent.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Taking military action against the federal government is rebellion.

[/ QUOTE ]

So citizens have no recourse when the federal government attacks them?

[/ QUOTE ]

In 1860 (and ever since) elections were held as scheduled, office holders left when their terms expired and the Courts were open for business.

So why did the South have to resort to armed rebellion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

But yet the South wasn’t willing to extend this “freedom” to their slaves. What hypocrites you libertarians must be.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not forcing other people to abide by our beliefs is very consistant with libertarianism. Where's the hypocrisy?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your OP didn't say anything about that. I answered your OP, then you pull this bait-and-switch. That's goalpost shifting. It doesn't matter to me, since I don't really have a dog in the "original intent" fightp

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m merely pointing out how little understanding you libs have of original intent.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're the only one in here displaying a complete lack of understanding of original intent.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the federal government were ever to become the sole judge of the limits of its own powers through its own courts, then there would eventually be no limits to those powers and the Constitution would effectively become a dead letter.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are going to take advice on freedom and liberty from a rapist who owned his fellow human beings as slaves?

[/ QUOTE ]

Strawman. The quote didn't say anything about freedom and liberty. Stop trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny that OP probably takes his cues on civil rights from a man who was repeatedly unfaithful to his wife.

I despise this argument.. No man is perfect, why do people find it necessary to attack character, rather than ideas. I'm no GW fan, but I can honestly say, I've never resorted to the "cocaine" argument against him. I can argue against his ideas, and insult his intelligence, without taking personal shots at his past.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is a man’s personal behavior not illustrative of his character? Thomas Jefferson was a moral reprobate. Why should anyone take his advice on anything?