US Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land

[Axeanda45]

I just got my account suspended on another internet gun forum for advocating following the constitution, lol....


My argument was that the Supreme court itself has ruled that any law that contradicts the US Constitution is invalid and powerless.

They are trying to say I am advocating anarchy by saying that we shouldnt have to follow unconstitutional laws.... (and that I normally dont)

Two of the moderators (in the thread, not by a PM like their rules say it should be handled) warned me about breaking the rules (which I read, and DID NOT BREAK in my opinion, obviously not theirs)


They are just as bad as the liberals they claim to be against, yet they do the EXACT SAME THING liberals do when someone say's something (even if it is true) that they dont like....:sarcastic:

Now, am I breaking the "rules" here by complaining/ridiculing them on this forum?:man_in_love: (if I am, feel free to delete this thread, or at least have the decency to pm me about it, and let me delete it, lol)

 

[dalerush73]

I second that!

While I may not know "specifically" what laws you are making a point of, I do understand what you're saying in general and I agree with you 100%. It should be pointed out, however, that they are in fact also NOT following the Constitution, since they are eliminating your right to free speech. Its funny how regardless of a person's political views, they only seem to see things from one side or the other and never from a neutral stance, which is of course the REAL problem with our country being so split on any issue. Common sense should always prevail and yet NEVER does.

 

[Midnight]

The US Constitution applies to limiting the actions of the government, not limiting the actions of private individuals. When you're posting in an Internet forum, it's akin to talking in someone's place of business or private residence--since they're paying for the webspace you're using. I don't think the Constitution would apply in that case.

But I agree with the OP's overall notion. It would not surprise me at all if the vast majority of federal laws go beyond the scope of the Constitution.

 

[Highline]

They are trying to say I am advocating anarchy by saying that we shouldnt have to follow unconstitutional laws.... (and that I normally dont)

That is ridiculous.

Under their logic, if a law was passed saying that all black people no longer have civil rights, you saying the law should be ignored because it clearly violates the 13th, 14th, so-on and so-on amendments would be you advocating anarchy.

When in fact.... it is you advocating the proper functioning of the constitutional framework of government.

What crap.

 

[Highline]

The US Constitution applies to limiting the actions of the government, not limiting the actions of private individuals. When you're posting in an Internet forum, it's akin to talking in someone's place of business or private residence--since they're paying for the webspace you're using. I don't think the Constitution would apply in that case.

But I agree with the OP's overall notion. It would not surprise me at all if the vast majority of federal laws go beyond the scope of the Constitution.

+1

The Constitution only restricts government actors... not private citizens.

I could break into someones house, find evidence of murder, and turn it over to the police. The police could then use it lawfully in court. I am a private actor not constricted by the 4th Amendment.

If they did it, it would be excluded from court as it was a violation of the Constitution.

 

[Axeanda45]

The US Constitution applies to limiting the actions of the government, not limiting the actions of private individuals. When you're posting in an Internet forum, it's akin to talking in someone's place of business or private residence--since they're paying for the webspace you're using. I don't think the Constitution would apply in that case. You are correct in this statement... but I didnt state that it did in my post...

But I agree with the OP's overall notion. It would not surprise me at all if the vast majority of federal laws go beyond the scope of the Constitution.

I opened a new account on that site/forum so I could possibly get the moderator misdeeds undone (by PM)... They didnt like the new nick I used..... I dont blame them, it is "violatedbymoderators" although I had/have NO INTENTION of posting under that identity, lol:dirol:

I will give them credit though.... They just suspended all the privileges EXCEPT reading the forums with that name. At least they didnt kick me off completely... BTW, I didn't try to post with it, (that might still work) like I said, I created it only so I could have a avenue of communication with the mods....

 

[walt629]

What?

What gun blog would penalize anyone for referencing to and basing an opinion on their perception of the Constitution? Doesn't make sense to me.

Perhaps this wasn't the first run in with perceiveded violation of the site rules? :laugh: But then again, what do I know?

What site was it that you were removed from? If they have that narrow view of freedom of speech maybe I don't want to go there either.

 

[Axeanda45]

As much as I would like to post the name of the forum, I believe that doing so WOULD violate the rules of THIS forum, so I will not reveal it. I will say that on that forum (when I am not suspended) I use the same name and sig line as I do here.

 

[Unfettered Might]

The Constitution applies to everyone, government or individual. Even 42USC1983 acknowledges this. I can no more limit your rights publically than the government can at all. If you were on my property i can ignore the Constitution because your rights end where mine begin. You would either comply or leave. The government is limited even further than i am as they are not supposed to be permitted to limit my rights even on their property. I cannot search someone at a whim, nor can i force someone to not speak freely etc, on public land. As for the example of discovering evidence of a crime? First, you would be charged with a crime for breaking and entering, but you stating that you found evidence would be enough for LE to bypass the 4th and get a search warrent. Remember it says "unreasonable searxh". If you were invited in someones home and spotted a bunch of pot plants, you could go to the police and your testimony on an afidavit would be sufficent for a legal search warrent.

 

[Highline]

The Constitution applies to everyone, government or individual. Even 42USC1983 acknowledges this.

Wrong. 42 USC 1983 only applies to -state- actors.

42 USC 1983

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

"Under color" means official act. This means that you cannot use the force of the state to restrict rights. Acting as an individual, apart from the state, the --> Constitution <-- does not serve as a restriction on your actions. LAW (which must comport with the Constitution) does.

I can no more limit your rights publically than the government can at all.

As a private citizen you have no rights to limit anything in public WITHOUT using the government in the first place.

If you were on my property i can ignore the Constitution because your rights end where mine begin.

You can only limit rights insofar as state/federal law allows you to. A state could pass a law saying you could kill someone who accidentally steps onto your property, and you could, because you are not acting on behalf of the government.

A state could not authorize a state actor to kill someone under similar circumstances, because state actors are restricted by the 4th Amendment. Tennessee v. Garner clarifies the 4th Amendment's meaning regarding deadly force seizures.

There is no constitutional analysis regarding actions of a private citizen.

I cannot search someone at a whim, nor can i force someone to not speak freely etc, on public land.

You cannot control public land, because it does not belong to you. The government controls public land through various legislative enactments. All of these laws must comport with the Constitution.

As for the example of discovering evidence of a crime? First, you would be charged with a crime for breaking and entering, but you stating that you found evidence would be enough for LE to bypass the 4th and get a search warrent.

Correct. You could face criminal liability, but the state could use the evidence as it was not obtained contrary to the Constitution. It is impossible for a person to violate the constitutional rights of another person because, again, the Constitution only constrains the government.

Remember it says "unreasonable searxh". If you were invited in someones home and spotted a bunch of pot plants, you could go to the police and your testimony on an afidavit would be sufficent for a legal search warrent.

Amendment 4 only restricts the federal government (and states through the 14th Amendment) from unreasonable searches. NOT private citizens.

 

[bob16066]

All laws should be obeyed whether they are "Constitutional" "Moral" "Ethical" or not.

The truth (and the problem) is that nobody agrees what is Constitutional, Moral, or Ethical.

Even the US Supreme Court doesn't agree on what is "Constitutional." Or haven't you noticed that most US Supreme Court votes are 5-4. That means one more Nomination may change that 5-4 vote to a 4-5 or 6-3.

The US Supreme Court is just a Democracy with a very limited Franchise as to who gets a vote. And they don't agree on much of anything.

It's an exercise of your 1st amendment rights to say: "The Law is wrong and should be changed." It's Criminal to say "Ignore the Rule of Law." You should be charged with: Conspiracy to Commit....

If you advocate "Not obeying the law." You are dangerous and should be Shunned or Imprisoned.

Even a body of Unconstitutional/Imoral/unethical Laws are better than anarchy. At least you know where you stand most of the time!

 

[Seeya]

Highline, "You cannot control public land, because it does not belong to you. The government controls public land through various legislative enactments. All of these laws must comport with the Constitution."
You forget that, We the People/Citizen own all public lands, we are the goverment. Elected servants are just that.

 

[Highline]

All laws should be obeyed whether they are "Constitutional" "Moral" "Ethical" or not.

Are you really serious?

You advocate supporting what the Nazi's did in the 1930's-1945? You advocate supporting slavery?

Are you sick?

The truth (and the problem) is that nobody agrees what is Constitutional, Moral, or Ethical.

How about laws that victimize people in the first instance are bad laws. Laws that address people who have been victimized by another are good laws.

It's an exercise of your 1st amendment rights to say: "The Law is wrong and should be changed." It's Criminal to say "Ignore the Rule of Law." You should be charged with: Conspiracy to Commit....

There are many laws that should be ignored today. There were many laws that should have been ignored throughout history.

If you advocate "Not obeying the law." You are dangerous and should be Shunned or Imprisoned.

The year is 1944. I advocate "not obeying the law" because I don't think 6 million jews should be exterminated pursuant to law. According to you I should be "Shunned or Imprisoned."

The year is 1850. I advocate "not obeying the law" because I want to hide black people in my house so that US Marshals don't drag them back to the horrors of chattel slavery. According to you I should be "Shunned or Imprisoned."

The year is 1961. I advocate "not obeying the law" because I allow black people to drink out of the white water fountains on my property. According to you I should be "Shunned or Imprisoned."

Even a body of Unconstitutional/Imoral/unethical Laws are better than anarchy. At least you know where you stand most of the time!

Are you really that devoid of moral judgment that you advocate blind obedience to words on paper that cause the death, harm, enslavement of your fellow man?

You're fine with the fact that you would have been a Nazi dropping Zyklon-B into the ground to exterminate innocent human beings because some law said that is what you are to do?

 

[Highline]

You forget that, We the People/Citizen own all public lands, we are the goverment. Elected servants are just that.

I understand the argument you are making... but just because you are "the people" does not give you the right to act on behalf of "the state." Only appointed or elected bureaucrats can do that. When they do, they must follow the Constitution.

 

[wooddoctor]

bob might be token some of that Medical Maryjane. Please excuss him.

 

[Axeanda45]

bob might be token some of that Medical Maryjane. Please excuss him.

Well, he sure isnt tripping on reality, lol

 

[bob16066]

If you don't obey the Law; just 'cause you don't like it (or any other reason); you ARE a criminal. Criminals can't work to CHANGE Laws they disagree with.

Criminals are useless to the cause because they end up in Jail.

We right wrongs in a civilized society. By changing the law. Not by becoming criminals.

Just because Slavery is the Law of the land. You don't have to own a Slave.

And just because Der Furer is President AND Chancellor doesn't mean you have to join the Gestapo.

Just because Abortion is the law of the landn doesn't mean you have to have an abortion.

"How about laws that victimize people in the first instance are bad laws. Laws that address people who have been victimized by another are good laws."

Although every one may agree with this statement. A lot of people would disagree as to what constitutes Victimization.

Some people think Abortion Victimizes the unborn baby. That doesn't mean they should shoot abortion doctors. Others think Abortion Liberates the mother and prevents her from being the slut that she is.

Some people think taxes victimize the people that are taxed. That doesn't give them the right to not pay the taxes. Some people think you and I should pay more taxes so they don't have to be victimized by getting a Job.

Some people think that when someone advocates lawless behavior on their web forum it victimizes them and opens them up to civil or criminal suits. Some people think they're victimized because they can't advocate the overthrow of an Evil Corrupt government on someone else's web forum.

Everybody draws the lime between Help and Victimize in a different place.

That's why we work to change the laws rather than only obeying the laws we want.

I don't want to go to jail. I want to change the laws. I can't do that if I'm a criminal. People just don't take criminals seriously.

 

[Axeanda45]

bob16066,
Wow, where to start, your posts on this thread are wrong on so many levels.....

You argue that we need to follow ALL laws, even if they are unconstitutional... bob, do you actually know what unconstitutional is? It means it is against or not in line with, void, not enforceable, not a law at all.... So you are arguing that we need to follow NON-LAWS..... Those that are NOT VALID... so your argument is rubbish to begin with...


You stated that I (we) would be a criminal if I (we) follow the supreme law of the land. Before you go and try to deny that you didnt say this.... think about it... You stated that anyone that breaks ANY law is a criminal, right?


How could I be a criminal, or a "lawbreaker" if I am FOLLOWING / OBEYING the highest level of law there is in this country?

If, while following/obeying the SUPREME LAW OF THIS COUNTRY....... I am "breaking" a void "law", then what am I guilty of bob?

Am I now a criminal? You said I was in your prior posts......... I would be breaking the void/non law, would I not?

Your logic is fatally flawed, I just proved that beyond ANY SHADOW of doubt..... burying your head in the sand or stomping your feet is NOT going to change that fact either....

The real "lawbreakers" in this situation are the criminals that passed the UNCONSTITUTIONAL and Void Laws in the first place.


Here is something you need to read bob:

[FONT=&quot] ARTICLE VI
[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the severa1 State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.[/FONT]


Hey bob, did you see that bolded part? It say's that in order for laws to be valid, they have to comply with the Constitution...., that is what is meant by "in pursuance thereof" Or, to simplify it for you... that means in accordance with....

 

[Nightmare45]

Just a point every single person that enters this country illegally is a criminal by law as such they should be arrested. Enforce the law. Now some laws get broken every day, speeding, failing to stop for a stop sign but not everyone gets caught, if they do they face consequences.

 

[Spideynw]

So, by claiming all laws should be obeyed, you are making a legal argument, which should be resolved in a court. If I don't pay taxes, the opposing party is generally the "State". For example, if I don't pay Federal taxes, the opposing party will be the United States. Who is the United States? The United States is either all employees of the United States government or the United States is all people considered U.S. citizens. In both cases, the judge is a part of the United States, and hence a part of the opposing party. Do you think a trial is fair if the judge is part of the opposing party? If so, then would you have a problem with me holding a trial, accusing you of stealing from me, with me being the judge?

If it is not fair for the judge to be a part of the opposing party, then do you think I should get a fair trial? If so, how can I get a fair trial? If not, why have trials at all?