Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
"[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[20]"
I believe there is a part of that ruling that declares that a law that is in repugnance to the Constitution is null and void to its face, or some such. But the above does seem to somewhat express that. The part I mentioned is elsewhere.
And how else could it be ? Why even have a Constitution if it is not enforceable ? Why would they bother to do all this writing if it was not to be the law of the land, and I mean the law over governments. Do you stop freedom of speech ? Do you take people's guns ? Do you ompel them to testify against themself ? Do you take their property without due process ?
Of course you don't, governments do that and that is what the Constitution is supposed to at least slow down. Doesn't seem to have worked all that well. All we got is freedom of speech, but only at home pretty much, and guns, also pretty much at home. And those two rights we supposedly still got instead of other countries, you can really use them. Buy airtime on TV, even the radio. And go actually shoot someone. You are usually going to jail, even if for a night because they look to see if you know the person you shot, to see if you had a motive.
Some places make it a separate offense to refuse a breathalyser or drug test. Other places will strap you down and take blood against your will.
And you do not have to be out there on the road. Woman in PA has the news media at her house. She had a bunch of kids, hospital wanted to give her a Csection, she refused. Her and Husband walked out and went to another hospital where the baby was delivered just fine by normal methods. In the meantime the hospital lawyers made her a ward. This actually led to the changes in the rules in PA about this shit but it didn't help Rodriguez. He simply wanted to discuss the effects of the chemicals used in fracking which had caused the patient's kidney failure. I heard about it because he went to court to get an exception, or variance and in like five milliseconds the answer was NO. And these chemicals are directly responsible for that person's renal failure, period. The exposure method is known, it was a leak.
Bottom line, they do not work for us. They want everyone's guns because they know which way they are eventually going to be pointed.
You used to run in to people at the grocery, maybe a councilman or whatever. Not no mo. We might hate shopping but I bet some of them wish they could. HA, they can't go out alone, like a little kid. Well that's the price you pay for the la dolce vita.
T^T
|
RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill ... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread