Constitutionality conversation.

[GOPerfect]

We seem to get off topic quite often here. Seems like many threads turn towards the Constitution, responsibilities of oath and the such.


I thought I might begin a thread and see if it takes off.

When is a law unconstitutional?. No feelings, no emotions. Facts and honest opinions.

I have my take. I have done a decent amount of self learning about our Founding Documents. I ham very far from an expert and a bit more than a novice.

I have read many a book and papers written by those much better versed than I.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

This one's easy. A law is unconstitutional when it's in opposition to the constitution. I'm afraid as far as the thread goes that's about as deep as it has to go.

 

[GOPerfect]

This one's easy. A law is unconstitutional when it's in opposition to the constitution. I'm afraid as far as the thread goes that's about as deep as it has to go.

Who decides if it goes against it?

 

[tirwin1]

I think there is a second part to your question GOP. Who gets to decide when a law is unconstitutional and what is the process to determine this?

 

[GOPerfect]

One of my favorite rights is the First Amendment. Most important in my opinion

Freedom of religion is part of it that is very difficult to ensure constitutionality. We have seen that many times in the past few years.

 

[GOPerfect]

I think there is a second part to your question GOP. Who gets to decide when a law is unconstitutional and what is the process to determine this?

Absolutely. Thanks for the clarity. Your input is the root of what I was getting at.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Who decides if it goes against it?

The words of the opposing documents are what determines it. But I guess whoever enforces the laws technically decide.

 

[@thewheels]

Good thing the FF's wrote it in Latin so the common man wouldn't understand it and be able to abide within it.

 

[1075tech]

One of my favorite rights is the First Amendment. Most important in my opinion

Freedom of religion is part of it that is very difficult to ensure constitutionality. We have seen that many times in the past few years.

Freedom OF religion isn't that hard. But the liberal left has twisted it into freedom FROM religion. Two different things. This country was founded very much on religious principles by religious men. There was never any intent that no one could practice or display their religion in the public or political forum. What they said was that government couldn't establish a religion such as England had an official state sponsored religion.

 

[GOPerfect]

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


The free exercise part is the tough one.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Who gets to decide? The Constitution itself. It’s in black and white for the most part.

For example. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Did congress or a state (the constitution now applies to the states) make a law that prohibits it’s free exercise? Yes or no. If yes then the law is unconstitutional.

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Did congress or a state pass a law that infringes upon the the right to keep and bear arms? Yes or no If yes, then it is unconstitutional. It doesn’t matter if it’s for a militia or for sporting or for collecting. The preamble is irrelevant. It could have said, “Necessary for collecting. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t matter what the original purpose was for. What matters is the absolute. And that absolute says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

All these rights are absolute and in plain English. The only thing that needs interpreting is when someone sues the government in regards to an Amendment like the 8th regarding excessive bail. The court would have to decide if $50000 is excessive bail for a person that makes $20000 a year or against someone else that makes $200000 a year. The amendment itself doesn’t need to be interpreted. The bail does.

End of discussion. The thread can be closed now.

 

[GOPerfect]

So, nearly all civil rights laws should be cancelled?

 

[Marine Cpl]

So, nearly all civil rights laws should be cancelled?

Yep. And all laws requiring permits to assemble and all laws requiring the licensing of the press. All that.

Licensing for a right is unconstitutional because a license can be revoked. Civil rights laws are unconstitutional. They go against property rights. You shouldn’t have to be forced to serve someone in your establishment that you do not want to. No shirt no shoes no service. That flies but denying service to a loud mouth flaming gay liberal does not.

The courts and congress have gotten out of control. And people are so used to this corruption that it is normal to them.

 

[GOPerfect]

Yep. And all laws requiring permits to assemble and all laws requiring the licensing of the press. All that.

Licensing for a right is unconstitutional because a license can be revoked. Civil rights laws are unconstitutional. They go against property rights. You shouldn’t have to be forced to serve someone in your establishment that you do not want to. No shirt no shoes no service. That flies but denying service to a loud mouth flaming gay liberal does not.

The courts and congress have gotten out of control. And people are so used to this corruption that it is normal to them.

So, ones person's rights are tossed for the Rights of another?

BTW, I hate civil right laws.

 

[Marine Cpl]

So, ones person's rights are tossed for the Rights of another?

BTW, I hate civil right laws.

I do not understand what you mean.

 

[GOPerfect]

I do not understand what you mean.

I kind of figured. I hate using my phone for this kind of typing

At the gym now, I will go deeper and explain better when I get home.

Gotta leave you hanging.

 

[Robin]

So, nearly all civil rights laws should be cancelled?

Yes!
Robin

 

[Curmudgeon]

Who decides if it goes against it?

Great thread.

Honestly IMO it's not a "Constitutional" question. It's a question of the natural rights of people, codified by the Constitution. They've already been determined and nobody else gets to decide.

 

[spat]

Who decides if it goes against it?

Who decides if a mathematical equation is correct ?

The answer to that question is nobody, it is either correct or it isn't. It doesn't matter if *everybody in the world* says that 2+2=5, it still doesn't.

 

[John Stark]

Who decides if it goes against it?

The People always and forever decide for themselves, as far as this world goes, in a direct or more roundabout manner, what their government will be.

I could elaborate further in terms of First Principles and actual or theoretical grounds the religious/philosophical basis of that, which is a discussion all nations must and do have; however the Founders laid out their vision and brought it to fruition, and the People loved them, especially General and eventual President, George Washington who opted to preside over a government of equals by the will of the People rather than let them make him just another King George the First.

It is no coincidence that though we have had political family dynasties, they have all been elected (or confirmed in the case of judges), which is an extreme rarity going back to the earliest days of mankind and where the notions of royalty and nobility reigned over men.

Since we are talking about the United States, it absolutely must be remembered that the Declaration of independence is the very first of our Organic Laws, ahead of the Articles of Confederation, the North West Ordinance, and of course the US Constitution, all of which are Title One in the Federal Code.

Furthermore, not only is the Declaration of Independence our first and ruling document as accepted and codified into our laws, but better men in the Supreme Court than we have today ruled long ago that the Declaration is part of our laws that help determine our destiny as a nation.

The Declaration of Independence is Law.

The People of the United States always and forever retain the honor, the duty and obligation, the Right and Privilege, the Power and Authority, to determine not only what our Constitution means (for good or for bad), but also the form of Government under which they will be ruled, and whether that will be for the weal or the woe of their Nation, its States, its territories, and all other holdings that fall under our supremacy as free men.

Which means we have every Right to throw it off when the government no longer represents the People who do most of the work and the living and the dying.

Unless of course we opt for despotism through our own laziness or boredom or greed or calumny or wickedness, in which case we will get the exact government that is no good for anyone but kings and tyrants.

The People are the elites in the United States; everyone else are servants at our discretion.

So help us God.

 

[holdover]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This is from the declaration of independence . This is the mindset of the constitution , Of what the Framers were intending. That The law should be written so that the layman could understand it .

Your question,
""When is a law unconstitutional?. No feelings, no emotions. Facts and honest opinions.""

A law is unconstitutional when it is in Obvious conflict with the constitution .
The use of the word ""obvious"" is reflective of the term Self evident.

 

[Twogunwilly]

When a majority of the people break a law that law becomes null & void.

 

[holdover]

Legally or effectively? Legally its still a law . Millions of people have broken the law regarding the safe act.

 

[Uzi]

Legally or effectively? Legally its still a law . Millions of people have broken the law regarding the safe act.

The safe act act might be a "law", but it is unconstitutional, meaning it's null and void. It doesn't matter who acknowledges that it's unconstitutional. It is not an opinion, but a fact. As long as it's enforced by police illegally, ANY and ALL other unconstitutional laws can and will be passed and enforced by police "just doing their job" as we can all continue to observe.

 

[GOPerfect]

The safe act act might be a "law", but it is unconstitutional, meaning it's null and void. It doesn't matter who acknowledges that it's unconstitutional. It is not an opinion, but a fact.

This is kind of what I am getting at. I understand that the SAFE Act, in whole, has not made it to through all levels of the Court. If and when it does make it to the SCOTUS, and they rule that there are no violations to the Act, what then?

Sure, Congress can pick it up and fight, sign laws at the Federal level to make the Act void, but then more lawsuits come forth. Ends up at the High court one more time and the Justices say, nope. The SAFE Act can and will stand.

What then? This is what I am getting at...

 

[Jmac00]

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


The free exercise part is the tough one.

ok, lets complicate the hell out of this.

What happens when any "religion" become so powerful that it over rules the Constitution?

ie: Muslims are literally breeding themselves into power. Muslim families have, on average, 7 children. Catholics, on average, have 1. at this rate, Muslims will have a majority rule in Congress within 40 years, maybe 60 years.

If a particular religion does become the majority or the Major power in the country, they could change the Constitution and impose Sharia Law?

Muslims, even though consider themselves the "religion of peace" once they become the majority, there victim-hood will disappear and violent part will rear its ugly head.

so, at what point do Americans say, "your religion is not compatible with the constitution, and we reject you as a Majority rule"

 

[GOPerfect]

Abortion laws and rulings are a good one. I do not care what side of the fence you are on.

Abortion is legal in all fifty States because of Roe v Wade.

The 14th Amendment prohibits states from depriving a person of liberty without due process of law.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

When I read the 14th Amendment, I see nothing that includes taking the life of an unborn child.

Sometimes, Rights are not as easy as people think.

Unless a bunch of new Justices appear, Roe v Wade will remain black letter law.

 

[Jmac00]

the other issue we are going to run into is the SCOTUS level of scrutiny, when ruling on the constitutionality of any law

1) rational basis review
2) Intermediate Scrutiny
3) Strict Scrutiny

 

[holdover]

This is kind of what I am getting at. I understand that the SAFE Act, in whole, has not made it to through all levels of the Court. If and when it does make it to the SCOTUS, and they rule that there are no violations to the Act, what then?

Sure, Congress can pick it up and fight, sign laws at the Federal level to make the Act void, but then more lawsuits come forth. Ends up at the High court one more time and the Justices say, nope. The SAFE Act can and will stand.

What then? This is what I am getting at...

If it is self evident that the safe act is an unconstitutional law, what will it say about the courts that approve it? Since the constitution states that laws that are in conflict with it are null and void ?

If upheld, it becomes ""self evident"" that the courts are no longer upholding the law. the supreme court becomes illegitimate. No longer acting in the best interest of the people .

Were not talking about internet crimes or drone crimes that haven't been written into law yet ,This is established law for the last 250 years , Laws that are ""necessary for the security of a free state""

 

[GOPerfect]

If it is self evident that the safe act is an unconstitutional law, what will it say about the courts that approve it? Since the constitution states that laws that are in conflict with it are null and void ?

If upheld, it becomes ""self evident"" that the courts are no longer upholding the law. the supreme court becomes illegitimate. No longer acting in the best interest of the people .

Were not talking about internet crimes or drone crimes that haven't been written into law yet ,This is established law for the last 250 years , Laws that are ""necessary for the security of a free state""

Absolutely it is and Act of high violations. Who makes these laws null and void? Our system of government is corrupt to the point of non-fixable.

Some would say that the police could stop making arrests, never going to happen. Too many cops do not understand basic V&T laws let alone Constitutional law.

Best interest of the people, which people? The ones that support the law or the ones that do not?