Wanna have a serious conversation about the Constitution?

[Airborneguy]

Who decides if the courts are corrupt? Who determines if the government is corrupt?

The people, as I said awhile back. It’s either work to change from within or start a revolution. Those are the only options. Stomping your foot and screaming “It’s unconstitutional because I say so!” does nothing.

 

[holdover]

The people is the correct answer. stomping your foot and screaming its unconstitutional is the beginning of change, it brings awareness to whats going on .

 

[GuyMontag]

Oh, so I was right? My translation was correct? Who’da thought? Heck.

Hold your horses Matlock, your bullshit about Judges FORCING jurors to bend to their will remains.

 

[Marine Cpl]

The people, as I said awhile back. It’s either work to change from within or start a revolution. Those are the only options. Stomping your foot and screaming “It’s unconstitutional because I say so!” does nothing.

Of course it doesn't. But when we are talking about the topic, we talk about it. That's how it works in conversation.

You seem to want us to not talk about it.

 

[Defilade]

Chief Justice Marshall was correctly saying that, like everyone in government, those in the judicial branch, because of their "oath of office", have a required constitutional duty to examine and determine if their actions are constitutional or unconstitutional. To not so discharge their duties "is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime."

^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[nortatoga]

To the Hot Topic of the day, Recertifying your pistol licence. Concealed Carry has already been ruled on by the SCOTUS in Robertson vs Baldwin back in 1897.

Robertson V. Baldwin (1897)

Without 2A protection requiring a license to CCW a firearm is not unconstitutional, So would be long licensing process times and restrictions on CCW license! Here in NY what may be unconstitutional is the State recording all the pistols you own as a legal CCW license holder! But that is something that would need to challenge on it's own merit!

And with this Robertson vs Baldwin ruling this is probably why the SCOTUS have not taken any CCW cases?

 

[Airborneguy]

Hold your horses Matlock, your bullshit about Judges FORCING jurors to bend to their will remains.

Except I didn’t say that.

Get substantial and prove something. Stop with the one-liner crap. Let’s debate.

You can start by clearing up what you said earlier: you implied that justice is served if one juror bucks the other 11 or so (some states have more than 12). Can you explain in more detail what you meant?

 

[GuyMontag]

You previously tried to suggest jurors can't vote as they like, that's bullshit and you know it.

You then went on to say the Judge would compel them to change their vote, which is absolutely false.

What the other 11 on the jury decide is moot if one person sticks to their guns and doesn't budge.

I've been a foreman and know what I speak of, so why keep up the charade?

 

[SomeSoldier]

Only if you can get the court to hear the case.

I disagree, I don't need someone else to tell me when a action is right or wrong. The laws in the country are intended to be written in such a matter than the simplest person can understand them. The law says that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." That law is very plainly written. If it is peace time in the US, meaning no war has been declared and congress has not passed a law, then it is my right to not have to house and feed soldiers. I don't need a lawyer or judge to tell me that.

I think one of the biggest issues with our current law system from SCOTUS all the way down to the beat cop is a mentality that if the fuck up its just tax payer money. I know there are civil cases that go after the individual personally but how many of those have you seen or heard of? I think we need to spend less time fearing our gov and law enforcement and more time pushing them back, such as Bundy Ranch. If the government officials doesn't fear the people then its time to replace the government officials. I think we are almost at that point. All levels of government have put into place a security barrier from the people. Secret Service, Marshalls, State Police, Local Police. If you didn't piss people off then you wouldn't need all that protection. I understand the president because its not just the people here you have to worry about but also foreign assassins.

The abuses of power that take place everyday have become common place and people no longer get mad about it. About a month ago, I was stuck at a green light because whoever the Bills played that night had a huge sheriff escort to get to the airport. Who the fuck are they that they need an escort and stop my freedom of movement. Because they pay the sheriffs? If you or I did that would that be called bribery? The system is very broken from top to bottom, the more people wake up and start to see it the more control they need to take from us.

 

[Airborneguy]

You previously tried to suggest jurors can't vote as they like, that's bullshit and you know it.

You then went on to say the Judge would compel them to change their vote, which is absolutely false.

What the other 11 on the jury decide is moot if one person sticks to their guns and doesn't budge.

I've been a foreman and know what I speak of, so why keep up the charade?

No, I did not.

I specifically said that such actions would cause a mistrial. I said nothing about a judge bending jurors to their will.

One lone holdout will result in a hung jury with a likely mistrial leading to retrial. In some states, only a “supermajority” is necessary for a guilty verdict fyi.

Stop bs’ing and start debating. Don’t make stuff up. Actually read what I write and comment on it as written, I welcome that. Making shit up is pathetic lefty crap.

 

[Airborneguy]

Even if jury nullification wasn’t a fantasy (more on that in a few), the act of a jury finding someone not guilty does not change the law. Furthermore, if a jury stated “we find the defendant not guilty due to disagreeing with the law” then the judge would immediately declare a mistrial and start again. Juries are charged to find based on the facts of the case and the letter of the law. They cannot interpret the law or determine whether it is constitutional or not, period, end of story (yet again).

Now I mentioned fantasy because I’m sure the retort will be “they just won’t tell the judge why”. Well fine, but again even if everyone kept their mouths shut, the only result is one not guilty defendant: the law still doesn’t change.

So again, the only arbiters of constitutionality in this country are the Courts. Absent a successful armed uprising, that’s the legal way to determine whether a law stands or not.

Here’s the post for reference. Let’s stop obfuscating and start debating like adults.

 

[holdover]

I cant find anything in the case law Robertson vs Baldwin 1897. referring to concealed carry. If you can, please show where in the case law this was addressed. I cant find it.

United States Supreme Court
ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, (1897)
No. 334
Argued: Decided: January 25, 1897
This was an appeal from a judgment of the district court for the Northern district of California, rendered August 5, 1895, dismissing a writ of habeas corpus issued upon the petition of Robert Robertson, P. H. Olsen, John Bradley, and Morris Hanson.
The petition set forth, in substance, that the petitioners were unlawfully restrained of their liberty by Barry Baldwin, marshal for the Northern district of California, in the county jail of Alameda county, by virtue of an order of commitment, made by a United State commissioner, committing them for trial upon a charge of disobedience of the lawful orders of the master of the American barkentine Arago; that such com- [165 U.S. 275, 276] mitment was made without reasonable or probable cause, in this: that at the time of the commission of the alleged offense, petitioners were held on board the Arago against their will and by force, having been theretofore placed on board said vessel by the marshal for the district of Oregon, under the provisions of Rev. St 4596, subd. 1, and Id. 4598, 4599, the master claiming the right to hold petitioners by virtue of these acts; that sections 4598 and 4599 are unconstitutional, and in violation of section 1 of article 3, and of the fifth amendment to the constitution; that section 4598 was also repealed by congress on June 7, 1872 (17 Stat. 262); and that the first subdivision of section 4596 is in violation of the thirteenth amendment, in that it compels involuntary servitude.



U.S. Supreme Court
Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
Robertson v. Baldwin

No. 334

Argued December 15, 1896

Decided January 25, 1897

165 U.S. 275


APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Syllabus

Section 4598 of the Revised Statutes is not unconstitutional by reason of its authorizing justices of the peace to issue warrants to apprehend deserting seamen and deliver them up to the master of their vessel.

The judicial power of the United States is defined by the Constitution, and does not prevent Congress from authorizing state officers to take affidavits, to arrest and commit for trial offenders against the laws of the United States, to naturalize aliens, and to perform such other duties as may be regarded as incidental to the judicial power, rather than a part of it.

Section 4598 and 4599, insofar as they require seamen to carry out the contracts contained in their shipping articles, are not in conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment forbidding slavery and involuntary servitude, and it cannot be open to doubt that the provision against involuntary servitude was never intended to apply to such contracts.

The contract of a sailor has always been treated as an exceptional one, and involving to a certain extent the surrender of his personal liberty during the life of the contract.

This was an appeal from a judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of California, rendered August 5, 1895, dismissing a writ of habeas corpus issued upon the petition of Robert Robertson, H. H. Olsen, John Bradley, and Morris Hanson.



United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) The Justices stated "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

 

[nortatoga]

@holdover I did post a link.

 

[Marine Cpl]

A well regulated Police Force, being necessary to the order of a free state, the right of the officers to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Could you imagine the BS meter if this was the Second Amendment and we lied to ourselves that it isn't in plain English and we needed some clown in a robe to rule if it indeed covered concealed weapons for the officers or modern rifles and shotguns?

That's what's happening with us and we have citizens here defending these BS rulings quoting Madison vs Fucknut and Heller vs Clown Court.

 

[nortatoga]

A well regulated Police Force, being necessary to the order of a free state, the right of the officers to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Could you imagine the BS meter if this was the Second Amendment and we lied to ourselves that it isn't in plain English and we needed some clown in a robe to rule if it indeed covered concealed weapons for the officers or modern rifles and shotguns?

That's what's happening with us and we have citizens here defending these BS rulings quoting Madison vs Fucknut and Heller vs Clown Court.

Did Dick Heller lose?

 

[holdover]

@holdover I did post a link.

yeah, I read the link, its not case law. I want to read what the actual court case says .

 

[GuyMontag]

Juries are charged to find based on the facts of the case and the letter of the law. They cannot interpret the law or determine whether it is constitutional or not, period, end of story (yet again).

Wrong and wrong.

Which is why you can't account for Juries who IGNORED the Fugitive Slave Act, or didn't put Draft Dodgers behind bars for not going to Vietnam, or refused to jail non-violent drug offenders. This is our country's history, not the bullshit you've been spoodfed to make towing the line easier to digest.

The Law is as much on trial as the accused, regardless how many times you attempt to suggest otherwise. Denying this simple truth is your choice, but as I've said from the onset, ONE juror who understands this reality is all it takes preserve justice.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Did Dick Heller lose?

Omg. Yes! You don't see that. SCOTUS defined the 2A! So while he won his particular case, they fucked the rest of us by adding nonsense to a sentence that doesn't say what it says.

 

[nortatoga]

Omg. Yes! You don't see that. SCOTUS defined the 2A! So while he won his particular case, they fucked the rest of us by adding nonsense to a sentence that doesn't say what it says.

So you like Justice Stevens with whom Justice Ginsberg, Justice Souter and Justice Breyer joined dissenting? (Opinion)(Definition)

 

[nortatoga]

@holdover it is also mentioned in Heller v DC

Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a "novel principl[e]" but rather codified a right "inherited from our English ancestors," Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897), petitioners' interpretation does not even achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification of the right. If, as they believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners 8--if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment's guarantee--it does not assure the existence of a "citizens' militia" as a safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force.17 That is why the first Militia Act's requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government's Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477, 521-525 (1998). Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens' right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people's militia that was the concern of the founding generation.

 

[holdover]

You sited Robertson vs Baldwin, for concealed carry being ruled on, I cannot find it mentioned in the case law you sited . Now you change sources to Heller 2008 , big difference.

I will look at the rest of this later on , got stuff to do.


To the Hot Topic of the day, Recertifying your pistol licence. Concealed Carry has already been ruled on by the SCOTUS in Robertson vs Baldwin back in 1897.

Robertson V. Baldwin (1897)

 

[nortatoga]

You sited Robertson vs Baldwin, for concealed carry being ruled on, I cannot find it mentioned in the case law you sited . Now you change sources to Heller 2008 , big difference.

I will look at the rest of this later on , got stuff to do.

For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues


To the Hot Topic of the day, Recertifying your pistol licence. Concealed Carry has already been ruled on by the SCOTUS in Robertson vs Baldwin back in 1897.

Robertson V. Baldwin (1897)

Not a changed source just and additional, as how it was used in Heller!

 

[Podmonkey]

Stomping your foot and screaming “It’s unconstitutional because I say so!” does nothing.

I concur.

 

[GuyMontag]

I concur.

 

[holdover]

Not a changed source just and additional, as how it was used in Heller!

That's fine, but I wanted to actually read the law itself . For the sake of argument , Ill work with that.

 

[Airborneguy]

Wrong and wrong.

Which is why you can't account for Juries who IGNORED the Fugitive Slave Act, or didn't put Draft Dodgers behind bars for not going to Vietnam, or refused to jail non-violent drug offenders. This is our country's history, not the bullshit you've been spoodfed to make towing the line easier to digest.

The Law is as much on trial as the accused, regardless how many times you attempt to suggest otherwise. Denying this simple truth is your choice, but as I've said from the onset, ONE juror who understands this reality is all it takes preserve justice.

Juries don’t jail anyone. Judges do. Pre-civil war, “nullification” was apparently more of a thing. Currently, you’d be hard pressed to find a non-charged jury. And yes, the judge states that juries must rule on the facts and the law as written.

You’re talking theory, which as I said in my first post on the matter, I understand. As I said earlier, should a jury or single juror choose to go this route without verbalizing it, then theoretically “nullification” is possible.

The rub is doing this openly. It will result in a mistrial with a likely retrial. It will not accomplish anything.

 

[eagleridge357]

.

The people, as I said awhile back. It’s either work to change from within or start a revolution. Those are the only options. Stomping your foot and screaming “It’s unconstitutional because I say so!” does nothing.

Which is why the Sovereign Citizen ignoring a law due to it's pereived immorality or unconstitutionality is not allowed in a civilized society. The Rule of Law is just what the military fights for. Law is Law until it ain't. If one picks and chooses the laws, one has no respect or use for Law.

 

[Podmonkey]

.

Which is why the Sovereign Citizen ignoring a law due to it's pereived immorality or unconstitutionality is not allowed in a civilized society. The Rule of Law is just what the military fights for. Law is Law until it ain't. If one picks and chooses the laws, one has no respect or use for Law.

Hiding behind "law and order" as an excuse for inaction sounds like a cop out to me.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

I got one even better. What if law enforcement went there right beside them and not a single one arrested them? What if the thousands of cops, chiefs, sheriff's, troopers, deputies, ect went there in force and said that they will never enforce an unconstitutional gun law? What would the law makers do then?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Without law enforcement enforcing draconian laws, there are no laws. They and only they have the power to do it without violence.

Which is one reason I have a higher opinion of local level law enforcement. They seem to be more responsive to the residents wants and opinions. Sherriffs go through elections. Voters have some marginal control in which sheriff is voted in or out of office based on their vision for how local law enforcement should be carried out.

 

[Marine Cpl]

So you like Justice Stevens with whom Justice Ginsberg, Justice Souter and Justice Breyer joined dissenting? (Opinion)(Definition)

I've explained it to you a million times. You just can't seem to get it for one reason or another.