The know-it-all trolls are everywhere. They are too smart for their own good.
We are dealing with absolutes here.
A law that violates the constitution is not constitutional. It doesn’t matter if Congress, the President, or even the Supreme Court make a mistake, if a law violates the Constitution, it is not constitutional.
1/1/2010 - Congress passes a law declaring all guns illegal.
2/1/2010 - The President signs it.
6/1/2010 - The Supreme Court rules the law is constitutional.
7/1/2011 – The Supreme Court rules the law is unconstitutional.
So according to your logic, the law was constitutional until 7/1/2011, when it became unconstitutional. This is not the case. The law always violated the constitution, and as such, was not constitutional. It was mistakenly ruled to be constitutional prior to 7/1/2011, but that did not make it constitutional. The only way that a law can in actuality be constitutional at one point in time, and unconstitutional at another point in time, is by a change in the Constitution.
Things have substance. “A is A.”
But, according to you, people shouldn't be allowed to question the government. This "behavior" is deemed as "unpatriotic" by you.
The Court has NO POWER to overturn a law no matter what anyone thinks.
In the final analysis, the People determine whether a law is Constitutional as it is up to the People to effect the Founder's design of self governance. Case in point is homosexual marriage in California. The People passed a law to prevent homosexuals from marrying. The California court overturned that law. (I have no idea if the California constitution provides that power to their court. I KNOW the Federal courts have no such power.) The People then amended the California constitution to prohibit the judges from infringing on the inherent rights of the People.
It is the responsibility of the People to choose the laws they prefer to live under. That is the essence of self governance and it has nothing to do with any supposed 'rights.'
I think most people can agree the farther the government is moved from the local level the less people are able to understand and influence it. Everyone has their own jobs and its too hard for them to keep track of every issue. The original idea was you would make it your state government's job to keep track of national issues and ensure they are in line with the peoples ideas within their state. If they do a bad job you vote them out, the new people vote out the people at the national level.
The founding fathers also had the foresight to help balance the states power by giving the general populace a direct vote on part of the legislature we now know as the house of representatives.
This whole system sounds like it was set up to ensure the people got a government accountable to them. This frame work is slowly being subverted with arguments that seem fair on the surface but create real problems and in-balances in power in favor of the far removed national government. The crowning pieces of subversion are the czars built upon the subversion of the continued addition of agencies that are empowered to make their own regulations without input from the legislature.
As for the constitutional issues discussed I think there is a disconnect between us between constitutional in effect and constitutional in fact. There are many things that are and have been constitutional in effect but not in fact. Self defense is correct that it is the people's responsibility to ensure compliance with the constitution because the founding fathers instructed us that the government will try to take as much power as it can because that is its nature. "We have given you a republic if you can keep it"
I admit this post is highly political but I do not believe its partisan. Republicans and Democrats are guilty of these incursions and it is not clear to me how to fix the problems since so much of the power has been removed from the people at this point. I do not think the militia movement is justified at this point however. I do not think it is unconstitutional or unpatriotic to criticize the government or its constitutionality. I also do not think it would be unconstitutional to remove that government by what ever means if it subverts the constitution to the point where the right of vote is removed or basic rights are violated. (see the American Revolution from the eighteenth century for guidance).
If you are referring to others I say let them express their opinion as long as its not insulting ( I try to keep it respectful). Its educational to see how some people think (however wrong many of us think they are). I found the following especially insight full.
"But even in the K- 12 schools, most of our problems have less to do with who is running them than with who is going to them and what we expect from them. The mean IQ is 100. One third (the bunch with a
roughly 90 or lower IQ) are not capable of learning much and we waste our resources attempting to force them through to a HS degree, let alone have any expectation that they attend college. If we had realistic expectation of our kids, and didn't try to turn hopelessly brainless into scholar, many of the problems would disappear. But that discussion is for another time."
combined with the below statement I am starting to see a picture.
"It beats anarchy and it beats having the least aware, least involved, least familiar with issues, and least of us, messing with the rules--precisely what the founders feared even as they set up a limited democracy that pretty much kept us riffraff out of the game."
The only thing that annoys me about them (if you are referring to who I think you are) is that once they have run out of rebuttals they start grumbling about "off topic" or "too much politics on the board" and "the thread should be closed". Especially since over half the thread is filled with their posts. If they don't think that politics should be discussed then they should not engage in the discussion and make political statements. If you want to have a debate I am all for it, but don't try and shut it down 10 pages later after you get the last word.
Anyway, you articulated the following very well, "As for the constitutional issues discussed I think there is a disconnect between us between constitutional in effect and constitutional in fact. There are many things that are and have been constitutional in effect but not in fact. "
There is no disagreement here between us as I had used the word "presumetively" to modify the word constitutional. Laws passed by Congress and signed by The Executive are presumetively constitutional.
The problem of course is that we can not allow individuals to rage against government, urge on rebellion, talk sedition to our troops, and form potentially violent militias based ON THEIR OWN personal interpretations of constitutionality. To do so would be to bring anarchy on ourselves and the destruction of our society.
As things stand now, we have constitutional governance and laws are presumptively constitutional 'in effect' as you refer to it. If we can persuade a court, or enough critters, that something is "not in fact" constitutional, more power to us. That is what happens in a free democracy, persuasion of those in power to take one course or another.
The one choice we don't have is violent
rebellion, at least not as things currently stand. Because as long as the courts function, The Executive honors their rulings, and the legislative bodies meet, we have constitutional governance. That is why I refer to those who urge rebellion, urge sedition among the troops, and urge others to rage against government as unpatriotic. Indeed they are advocating violation of the law (against forum rules btw) as well as rebellion against the very constitution they claim to be upholding.
And yes, this isn't partisan politics in my opinion too.
"The stress of a poor economy and a liberal administration led by a black president are among the causes for the recent rise, the report from the Southern Poverty Law Center says".
Why do liberals always have to bring race into the equation? What parts of the statement from the Southern Poverty Law Center really makes sense? If militia groups are growing, it would mostly be I believe due to the perception that this country is moving more towards totalitarianism and maybe being governed by some global group(s) than anything else. If race was a factor, then wouldn't the media be reporting lots of stories about racial confrontations and oppression in general (I can bet they're salivating for that chance)?
There's certainly terrorist groups out there and maybe some are taking the opportunity to make some headway, and for that we all need to stay alert. But all this talk about race being a factor..excuse me, my eye is twitching...
OH BOY, Here we go again! I remember back in the 90's when last this topic reared it's ugly head in the media. I was teaching middle school and eating my lunch quietly and alone in the teachers lunchroom when one of the female commies stuffing her face YELLED at me from across the room: "HEY MR______, you're a gun nut ex baby killer, are you a member of a MILITIA?"
To which I responded as the entire room went dead silent and the 40 odd teachers turned to stare at me. "Well, no. But it's not because I disagree with their goals or philosophy. Actually they can't teach me anything NEW!" As she fled the room screaming, I resumed eating and so did the other faculty. I've had a similar question posed over the years at other schools and expect I'll get it this year (school begins next week) and I usually respond with the above quote or something along the lines of: "Those wusses are too liberal for me...."