Hucakbee the Health Nazi...

OrnotBitwise said:
The law can be wrong, certainly. It's just stupid to pretend it's not the law even when it is wrong.

Hey, I'm an old school lefty: I believe in civil disobedience. I believe even more in uncivil disobedience. The thing is, though, that when you're breaking the law you can't just turn around and claim that it's not really a legal law . . . or whatever.
Click to expand...

I have an allergy to jail.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
The law can be wrong, certainly. It's just stupid to pretend it's not the law even when it is wrong.
Click to expand...

That's a strawman. obody is suggesting that. While it might be useful as a protest, you'd have to be ready to accept the consequences.

Hey, I'm an old school lefty: I believe in civil disobedience. I believe even more in uncivil disobedience. The thing is, though, that when you're breaking the law you can't just turn around and claim that it's not really a legal law . . . or whatever.
Click to expand...

And this is where the people's right to judge the law and check the government should come in to play, i.e., fully informed jury.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
That's a strawman. obody is suggesting that. While it might be useful as a protest, you'd have to be ready to accept the consequences.

Hey, I'm an old school lefty: I believe in civil disobedience. I believe even more in uncivil disobedience. The thing is, though, that when you're breaking the law you can't just turn around and claim that it's not really a legal law . . . or whatever.
Click to expand...

And this is where the people's right to judge the law and check the government should come in to play, i.e., fully informed jury.
Click to expand...
It does come into play. You can press for amendments anytime you want to. Or you can start a revolution any time you want to. Heck, I might even join in, depending on the manifesto. Probably not but you never know.

I have neither time nor patience for people who yammer about "activist judges" or claim that federal powers judged constitutional by the Supreme Court are somehow still not constitutional. This is what the Supreme Court is for. Hence the "supreme" modifier.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
It does come into play. You can press for amendments anytime you want to. Or you can start a revolution any time you want to. Heck, I might even join in, depending on the manifesto. Probably not but you never know.

I have neither time nor patience for people who yammer about "activist judges" or claim that federal powers judged constitutional by the Supreme Court are somehow still not constitutional. This is what the Supreme Court is for. Hence the "supreme" modifier.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your argument amounts to, don't worry about your rights, the government will take care of it.

If we do not cherish our rights, the government sure as hell will not. We should be denouncing their acts that violate their written charter, whether or not it is the status quo.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
<*sigh*> You just don't get it, do you? The constitution itself vests the power of arbitration in the courts. Not in the citizenry nor in Congress nor the executive branch. Read Article 3, Section 2. Where controversy arises between citizens of different states, or between the United States (e.g. the federal government) and any other entity, the courts are granted power to decide such controversy. End of argument.
Click to expand...
Yet the people we elect appoint the judges. If we ensure we only elect people who respect the document they will appoint people who respect the document.

We have more power than you imply, and we can actually do something about it.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
<*sigh*> You just don't get it, do you? The constitution itself vests the power of arbitration in the courts. Not in the citizenry nor in Congress nor the executive branch. Read Article 3, Section 2. Where controversy arises between citizens of different states, or between the United States (e.g. the federal government) and any other entity, the courts are granted power to decide such controversy. End of argument.
Click to expand...


Didn't see this earlier. Our founders and the court (see John Jay) envisioned fully informed juries. The President certainly has power to decide the constitutionality via his veto and through his enforcement powers. Congress can withhold votes from unconstitutional laws and funding. And members of the court can be impeached.

You are arguing a strawman, as if I am some nut claiming that we should convene a court and demand that the state abide by our rulings. I have argued nothing of the kind. I am saying we use the powers available, an important one being the power of free speech to denounce unconstitutional acts by the government.

Your idea is to sit around, do nothing, trust and obey the government, while deriding any critics as illegitimate to the great state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top