US Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land - Page 2
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48

Thread: US Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land

  1. 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!

  2.   
  3. #12
    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.
    The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday

  4. Quote Originally Posted by bob16066 View Post
    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?

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Seeya View Post
    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.

  6. bob might be token some of that Medical Maryjane. Please excuss him.
    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."Frederic Bastia

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by wooddoctor View Post
    bob might be token some of that Medical Maryjane. Please excuss him.
    Well, he sure isnt tripping on reality, lol

  8. 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.

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    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:

    ARTICLE VI
    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.
    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.
    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.


    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....

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    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.

  11. #20
    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?

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast