|
![]() |
|
|
TheFirearmsForum.com
FOUNDED: February 9, 2001 |
If you prefer to make a donation by check,
send an email to Support for the mailing address. |
|
|
#1 |
|
V.I.P. Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: People's Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 337
|
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/149817
The Validity Of The Constitution: SCOTUS Will Decide If Amendments Can Be Voided! Submitted by BleuCream013 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 20:07 in * Daily Paul Liberty Forum Yes, you all read that correctly, SCOTUS will soon rule on the very validity of the Constitution. Chalk another one down, in the CRAZY lunatics in the Fed.Gov. column. United States Supreme Court Will Soon Issue a Landmark Decision on the Validity of the Constitution Nov 13 01:55 AM US/Eastern "ATLANTA, Nov. 13, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The United States Supreme Court will soon issue a landmark decision on the validity of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will consider three petitions filed by William M. Windsor, a retired Atlanta, Georgia grandfather. The decision should be rendered by the end of the year. Unless The Supreme Court acts, federal judges will be free to void the Constitution. The Questions Presented to The Supreme Court by Grandfather Windsor are: 1. Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges? 2. Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants? 3. Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts? These questions are presented in three separate Petitions for Writ of Mandamus filed with The United States Supreme Court the first week of November 2010 (appeal numbers to-be-assigned).
-->
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,068
|
Since when can the SCOTUS decide that the Amendments to the Constitution are valid?
Do they have the authority? Does any branch of government have that authority? If you ask me, no. Not even the government is above their own laws. Let us not forget, the Constitution is a limitation of their power, not of the power of the people. Ruling that Amendments can be voided would incite a civil war.
__________________
Samuel Adams once said, "among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Former Guest
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,828
|
hogger, i wont forget that. but it seems most dont care in government. they dont know anything about the constitution or what it represents or how it's supposed to be used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Contributor
Posts: 1,447
|
This story will be worth watching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Former Guest
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,828
|
i dont think anyone in government has ever balanced a check book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
V.I.P. Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 287
|
The SCOTUS threw out the Tenth Amendment long, long ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,068
|
well maybe it's time for them to learn...
__________________
Samuel Adams once said, "among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NE Ar. W. of Black River
Contributor
Posts: 2,703
|
Does anyone know when was the last time, if ever that a writ of Mandamus was issued?
__________________
Psalm 12 verse 8: The wicked walk on every side when the vilest men are exalted. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Southwest Corner of the US, "Where no stinking fence will stop us!!"
Posts: 1,257
|
Well, there's lota of people out there in voterland who do know the Constitution. Any attempt would heralded very early on and I don't believe that everyone, including LEO's, Armed service personnel of all ranks (they are sworn to UPHOLD the Constitution) and even members of Congress itself, would not take to kindly to some government takeover. It would be very hard to get everyone to just hand over their property. It made not be a God given inalienable right for the Government to have precedence over the State, but to keep and bear arms is. TJ
__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Thomas Jefferson Last edited by Teejay9; 11-21-2010 at 01:02 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,612
|
Throw me under the bus if you will, But isn't this what the SCotUS does?
Interpret the Constitution? The amendments came after the Constitution. We trust them with the Constitution, but not to rule on the amendments? I don't get it. ![]()
__________________
^.^ A point in every direction is the same as having no point at all |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Former Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Moses Lake, WA
Posts: 10,344
|
Keep in mind that the first 10 amendments (The Bill of Rights) were required for the ratification of the Constitution. Therefore, they are a part of the original document, inseperable therefrom.
Now, reading the document shows that all other amendments are, also, inseperable parts of the Constitution, by declaration. Void one, void all. Pops |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Former Guest
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Contributor
Posts: 17,622
|
Pops but thats the idea .... to void them all this was discussed at the Un new world socialists conference in April last year , how to remove the constitution of the United states to allow the US to join the new world order...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 | |
|
Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Northern piedmont of Va. and Middle of Nowhere, West Virginia
Posts: 1,013
|
Quote:
And, yes, that principle could, and did incite civil war (or as I call it, the War between the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia). Let's not forget that, although the issue was a bad one to have to argue in the particular case, the question was who gets to decide what constitutes "property"? The U.S. beat the People and their States fair and square, and now occupies the Constitution by right of conquest. What real difference will it make what the S.Ct. rules in that case, since the U.S. has already persuaded the People through the public school propaganda that the Constitution is merely an honored historical artifact?
__________________
===== Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 | |
|
Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Contributor
Posts: 1,447
|
Quote:
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/72-don%...about-history/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains
Posts: 6,838
|
I am not sure that there is ANYTHING that the federal government could do, to incite a civil war. MANY people today are so apathetic and complacent, they would dig their own grave, without a fuss.
__________________
The gene pool needs chlorine |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 | |
|
Former Guest
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Contributor
Posts: 17,622
|
Quote:
i thought they did it as a way out of the horrors inflicted by socialists maybe it's the same in the US ... Last edited by jack404; 11-20-2010 at 10:46 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Former Guest
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,828
|
well lets say the supreme court decides we no longer have the "right" to bear arms. and that they can be regulated or taken away from us at will. what will you do about it? are we going to fight a revolution or just give up our guns? theres a lot of gun owners that dont feel the 2nd amendment is worth killing for frankly speaking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 | |
|
Former Guest
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Contributor
Posts: 17,622
|
Quote:
that wont object to oppresion or servitude a free society is a armed society , a armed society is a polite society and unarmed society is property Last edited by jack404; 11-20-2010 at 11:22 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Contributor
Posts: 1,447
|
I guess I'm a dinosaur, the Constitution still means something to me.
They can punch my ticket if they want to, I don't want to live in their New World Order. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Former Guest
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Contributor
Posts: 17,622
|
dont put your head on their block
come on over, we got enough stashed to last a few generations better to go out fighting than on your knee's a slave |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Former Guest
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,828
|
there are some gun owners that put human life on a pedestal. the wouldnt want to take another life for anything, even freedom. i know some that would give up their handguns if required, saying at least we still have our rifles.
we already have begun the downward slide by giving up our short barreled rifles/shotguns and machineguns. i know of no one that would be willing to fight for the right to own a sbs or sbr or machine gun. pretty much all gun owners that desire such things see it as a battle we cant win. at least thats my take i know there are some gun owners that dont see owning those as part of your rights and would be uncomfortable with ordinary citizens being able to own such without licenses. people cant see past what they want, their own opinions, to what is right |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Former Guest
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,828
|
even some people on this forum would have some problems with total melt down of all gun laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Contributor
Posts: 1,447
|
Thanks Jack, but my place is here, just like your place is in Australia.
They might have a hard time getting my head onto the block. Will that change the ultimate outcome? Probably not. But if there's a "final reckoning", it ought to count for something..... |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 | |
|
Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Northern piedmont of Va. and Middle of Nowhere, West Virginia
Posts: 1,013
|
Quote:
They've already said that! Heller said that the phrase, "shall not be infringed" means "subject to reasonable regulation." If it's subject to regulation, it's not a "right", it's a "privilege". By the way, the Court's analysis applies to the entire bill of rights. In other words, the United States has already decided that you have no "rights". Time to pull the rug out from under that puppy!
__________________
===== Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Advanced Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Contributor
Posts: 1,447
|
It interests me that the three questions were framed in a Writ of Mandamus, and I'm wondering how the SCOTUS will respond. The questions seem "rhetorical" to me; I would be astonished if they openly declared themselves to be above the Constitution.
On the other hand, these are crazy times we're living in. The federal government is on the fast track toward becoming the American public's worst enemy. We sometimes hear about military coups in other countries - I wonder if it might happen here? |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|