government is derived out of the people, people are not derived out of the government. And so long as people have guns in their hands, it's the people that will ALWAYS have the final word. And that is a fact.
A citizen may not have a legal right, perhaps. But legal rights are fickle, and not always morally right. Even you, in your delusions, should be able to accept this fact. However, given that legal rights are derived from the people, it's the people that have always have the final say.
It's the winner of a conflict that finishes the story. The british crown said the same thing about us 240 years ago. And yet through force, action, and the firing of guns, we have established a new system which you now ironically declare the people have no right to ever overthrow. If using guns is an invalid (nay... impossible, non-existent, false) exercise of a right, then what is our nation? Please explain this. If our actions were invalid and we had no legal right to overthrow the crown, then why are you supposedly defending the constitution?? Shouldn't you be defending the british crown instead? YOUR SUPPOSED ACCEPTANCE OF OUR CONSTITUTION DEMONSTRATES ACCEPTANCE OF THE METHODS WE USED TO OBTAIN IT.
The point is jury nullifcation exists, even if you don't like it. It would only be a mistrial if a jury member stood up and announced with they did out loud. They can easily use the practice silently, and they do. Just because something isn't explicity sanctioned, does not mean it isn't real. Your problem is you continue to deny reality in pursuit of what you would like the world to be, rather than what it actually is.
And since not a shred of power was granted to government through that Constitution to even form an opinion about the personal arms of the private citizen, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was held out from the powers granted to government. That the right was then doubled-down on, and redundantly re-secured by an express prohibition of government to exercise a power it was not granted, the right is doubly guaranteed from infringement.
Any action of government that impacts the original, pre-existing, never surrendered, fully retained right of the people to keep and bear arms is on its face illegitimate and must be fought for with strict scrutiny applied.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Wasn't it you that said you would never get a gun?
i dont' really have a use or need for one. Also to buy lots of guns to shoot soda cans doesn't seem like a practical use of my money. Maybe one day I'll get a cool revolver or something though, just to stick it to the anti-gun fascists. I also might get the chance to shoot a criminal.
But to answer your main question, unlike most hypocrites and self serving selfish individuals, I don't need a right to directly affect me in order to feel passionately about it. Maybe you should try it sometime.
Then I'm assuming that you don't think that the USA was established by a charter of conferred powers, powers that "We the People" possessed and granted to government, retaining all not conferred?
And I guess you don't think that a fundamental maxim of conferred powers is that the government established by them only exercises those powers with the consent of the governed?
Given all that you are willing to deny, I can see why you don't think that the right to rescind that consent exists.
Interesting . . . not surprising, just interesting.
Disillusioned
New member
Ah see now we get to t he heart of the matter, we won our independence, that is our freedom to kill as many indians as we like and keep pushing boundaries the brits had set to keep the peace, through a couple flukes of history. The first of course being the french intervention that actually let us win, ask any historian, no french, no successful revolution, the second being the Irish revolt at the same time that the British chose to put down harder.
So if you really want to secure your freedoms apparently you have to maintain good relations with france and ensure that any time your rights are threatened the irish rebel.
Americans really need to get over their fascination with the revolution, it was hardly world changing and wasn't won because the americans were plucky and had guns. Here's the funny bit besides, the same people that are in love with the Amurikan Rev'lution are the same people who go after france as whimpy for losing to Germany in WW2. Armchair generals and less than knowledgeable historians.
Fundamental rights such as the right to assembly, free speech and conscience exist because no power was ever granted to government to impact them.
Rights, in the lexicon of the founders / framers were 'EXCEPTIONS OF POWERS NOT GRANTED' . . . they don't exist because of any enumeration in law, they exist outside the powers of government because they depend on no law.
Disillusioned
New member
The problem with that statement is that it works logically but not realistically. The power to impact religion and press, etc is something that governments take unless they are strictly prohibited from doing so which is what the constitution does. Should it merely have not addressed Fundamental Rights, then the first amendment would be nothing since governments can always grant themselves new rights later on.
What if the entire foundantion for establishing the law and expressly and exactingly defining the powers of government was to secure the original, pre-existing, never surrendered, fully retained, completely excepted out of the powers of government, rights of the people.
The contract (the Constitution) is founded on the recognition of the inalienable (not transferable) rights of the people that are creating the government.
"Inalienable rights", as a philosophical concept of politics, is meaningless and an absurdity if a government is not being created to not surrender those rights to . . .
For someone who wraps himself in the mantle of "not rewriting history' your positions seem to be completely reliant on doing just that.
Exactly.
That would be all well and good if the humans who become legislators and executives understood that no law can be created that exceeds the express grants of power conferred by the citizen.
That law CAN be created that exceeds the legitimate powers of the government means that said law is illegitimate and no one is bound to obey it. Disobeying said law is not a violation because the law is "not law".
That is the fundamental principle of written constitutions, at least according to SCOTUS.
"The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. . . .
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.
This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. . . .
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure. . . .
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. . . .
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.
This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. . . .
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure. . . .
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
Mitt's no Yankee.
There are no absolutes either, except in your post.
Because he is liberal.
Bullshit.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
nemo is advocating positivism, or the theory of positive rights. The theory that the only rights we have, are ones that are written by law, enforced by law, and are at the whim of the government. reality is much different, but whatever. it certainly displays the total failure of the statists and pro government types.
Please don't quote my posts anymore, unless you stop being irrational.
No. Your quotes be true but you opine interpretation, not facts.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
we haven't amended the constitution lately, so modern law and jurisprudence is irrelevant to anything. and I didn't say government was a failure, I said statists and pro government types were failures. that would be you.