testtest

Major win in DC for 2nd Amendment

Winchester67 said:
They swear an oath to protect the Constitution. If they write a law that is later found Unconstitutional, they should be stripped of their office, deigned the benefits and pension and be forever barred from holding office again. I suspect that would fix a lot of things right there.
Click to expand...
And marched out of office in their undies, tarred and feathered. We really need to bring that back. Or, maybe not, since there are some sickos out there that would actually enjoy that.
 
Winchester67 said:
They swear an oath to protect the Constitution. If they write a law that is later found Unconstitutional, they should be stripped of their office, deigned the benefits and pension and be forever barred from holding office again. I suspect that would fix a lot of things right there.
Click to expand...
I can kind of, maybe, possibly understand of enacting an unconstitutional law but after you and other have been told time and time again NO moving the comas around and calling it a new law just so you can do what you damn well please until that works its way through the courts and then wash rinse recycle and repeat, someone needs to start paying the :censored: consequences for their actions.
PieterCoetzee said:
I do think any prospective law, should have a constitutional review before being signed into law. Being voted on by elected officials doesnt make it constitutional, no matter how much some of those fools want it to be
Click to expand...
No Thank You!
We don't live in a Kritarchy. We already have "Judicial Review", that is NOT in the constitution, a power the court gave itself in Marbury v Madison by the way. Do you really want James Boasberg, Arthur Engoron, or even Amy Coney Barrett having the preemptive strike power? We already have a system and the laws to deal with these issues, and much more besides, we just need a DOJ with the guts to do their job.
 
bc22wm said:
No Thank You!
We don't live in a Kritarchy. We already have "Judicial Review", that is NOT in the constitution, a power the court gave itself in Marbury v Madison by the way. Do you really want James Boasberg, Arthur Engoron, or even Amy Coney Barrett having the preemptive strike power? We already have a system and the laws to deal with these issues, and much more besides, we just need a DOJ with the guts to do their job.
Click to expand...
But we already DO have that. It just takes years an the court can decide not to hear the case so its a +/- thing, when "they" are in power, "they" decide but it takes a lot more to change the constitution, so a review before enacting seems prudent
 
There is a considerable difference with review, someone with standing initiating and challenge, and then a judge reviewing the law, and then going through the system of higher courts reviewing the review on and on, than some ego maniac giving it a thumbs up or down before the fact.
" In short, they (judges) are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself."
Brutus, no. 15. 20 Mar. 1788. Anti Federalist papers.
 
bc22wm said:
There is a considerable difference with review, someone with standing initiating and challenge, and then a judge reviewing the law, and then going through the system of higher courts reviewing the review on and on
Click to expand...
YES there is but all that takes time, that cant be given back to the aggrieved parties. Why not just have a constitutional review BEFORE the law is passed?

Help me to understand why knowing the law meets constitutional standards before its passed is a bad thing
 
PieterCoetzee said:
Help me to understand why knowing the law meets constitutional standards before its passed is a bad thing
Click to expand...
If you read my entire post I don't know that I can, but I'll give it a shot. While it has always been the case, it is happening with much more frequency, courts are making rulings based of their personal feelings/political leanings than what the constitution states. What the founding fathers intended, and yes for the most part we know.
We have federal child labor laws, and minimum wage, both of which had been struck down, via a convoluted reading of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the constitution. The justice's opinion not a reading of the constitution. John Roberts saved The Affordable Care Act twice. 1st by declaring the act a tax, even though the act specifically stated in the text that it was NOT a tax. His opinion not a reading of the text. Then again when he ignored the fact that ACA did not have a severability clause. Without which when parts of the act were stuck down all of it should have all been stuck down, that's what we have done for years. Roe V Wade via 1st amendment right to privacy that even pro-choice RGB said was bad law. Perhaps most glaring of all is Elena Kagan stated in her confirmation hearings that she would consider in part THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF OTHER COUNTRIES. o_O o_O o_O
We don't need one judge or a panel of them putting their biased thumb on the scale beforehand. Constitutional carry is slowly sweeping the land. Wisconsin looking to be #30. Dose anyone think this would be the case if some judge had been able to use his personal feelings/political opinions to declare the law that started it all in Fla. unconstitutional before it had a chance to work. That there would not "be blood in the streets"?
Again. We already have a system and the laws to deal with these issues we just need a DOJ with the guts to do their job.
 
Hi,

One would hope that lawmakers would know the Constitution and whether or not their bill is Constitutional without hashing it out in court. But bad laws get passed all the time. Even good laws can get hung up in court just because someone on the other side doesn't like it.

Are we considering state or federal laws? Or both? Gavin Newsom has signed over 7000 bills into law during his term. I think most of them are bad, spending money on useless boondoggles, unfair taxes, social atrocities, etc. If there was a Constitutional review for every one of those bills the courts would be tied up for years.

Sorry, I don't have a solution. I know the system is not perfect, but it's the best thing going. Plus, it can change for the better once enough people want to change it. God bless America.


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top