US Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48

Thread: US Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109

    US Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land

    I just got my account suspended on another internet gun forum for advocating following the constitution, lol....


    My argument was that the Supreme court itself has ruled that any law that contradicts the US Constitution is invalid and powerless.

    They are trying to say I am advocating anarchy by saying that we shouldnt have to follow unconstitutional laws.... (and that I normally dont)

    Two of the moderators (in the thread, not by a PM like their rules say it should be handled) warned me about breaking the rules (which I read, and DID NOT BREAK in my opinion, obviously not theirs)


    They are just as bad as the liberals they claim to be against, yet they do the EXACT SAME THING liberals do when someone say's something (even if it is true) that they dont like....

    Now, am I breaking the "rules" here by complaining/ridiculing them on this forum? (if I am, feel free to delete this thread, or at least have the decency to pm me about it, and let me delete it, lol)

  2.   
  3. #2

    I second that!

    While I may not know "specifically" what laws you are making a point of, I do understand what you're saying in general and I agree with you 100%. It should be pointed out, however, that they are in fact also NOT following the Constitution, since they are eliminating your right to free speech. Its funny how regardless of a person's political views, they only seem to see things from one side or the other and never from a neutral stance, which is of course the REAL problem with our country being so split on any issue. Common sense should always prevail and yet NEVER does.

  4. The US Constitution applies to limiting the actions of the government, not limiting the actions of private individuals. When you're posting in an Internet forum, it's akin to talking in someone's place of business or private residence--since they're paying for the webspace you're using. I don't think the Constitution would apply in that case.

    But I agree with the OP's overall notion. It would not surprise me at all if the vast majority of federal laws go beyond the scope of the Constitution.
    REPEAL THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL NATIONAL FIREARMS AND GUN CONTROL ACTS

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    They are trying to say I am advocating anarchy by saying that we shouldnt have to follow unconstitutional laws.... (and that I normally dont)
    That is ridiculous.

    Under their logic, if a law was passed saying that all black people no longer have civil rights, you saying the law should be ignored because it clearly violates the 13th, 14th, so-on and so-on amendments would be you advocating anarchy.

    When in fact.... it is you advocating the proper functioning of the constitutional framework of government.

    What crap.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
    The US Constitution applies to limiting the actions of the government, not limiting the actions of private individuals. When you're posting in an Internet forum, it's akin to talking in someone's place of business or private residence--since they're paying for the webspace you're using. I don't think the Constitution would apply in that case.

    But I agree with the OP's overall notion. It would not surprise me at all if the vast majority of federal laws go beyond the scope of the Constitution.
    +1

    The Constitution only restricts government actors... not private citizens.

    I could break into someones house, find evidence of murder, and turn it over to the police. The police could then use it lawfully in court. I am a private actor not constricted by the 4th Amendment.

    If they did it, it would be excluded from court as it was a violation of the Constitution.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
    The US Constitution applies to limiting the actions of the government, not limiting the actions of private individuals. When you're posting in an Internet forum, it's akin to talking in someone's place of business or private residence--since they're paying for the webspace you're using. I don't think the Constitution would apply in that case. You are correct in this statement... but I didnt state that it did in my post...

    But I agree with the OP's overall notion. It would not surprise me at all if the vast majority of federal laws go beyond the scope of the Constitution.
    I opened a new account on that site/forum so I could possibly get the moderator misdeeds undone (by PM)... They didnt like the new nick I used..... I dont blame them, it is "violatedbymoderators" although I had/have NO INTENTION of posting under that identity, lol

    I will give them credit though.... They just suspended all the privileges EXCEPT reading the forums with that name. At least they didnt kick me off completely... BTW, I didn't try to post with it, (that might still work) like I said, I created it only so I could have a avenue of communication with the mods....

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,004

    What?

    What gun blog would penalize anyone for referencing to and basing an opinion on their perception of the Constitution? Doesn't make sense to me.

    Perhaps this wasn't the first run in with perceiveded violation of the site rules? But then again, what do I know?

    What site was it that you were removed from? If they have that narrow view of freedom of speech maybe I don't want to go there either.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    As much as I would like to post the name of the forum, I believe that doing so WOULD violate the rules of THIS forum, so I will not reveal it. I will say that on that forum (when I am not suspended) I use the same name and sig line as I do here.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    The Constitution applies to everyone, government or individual. Even 42USC1983 acknowledges this. I can no more limit your rights publically than the government can at all. If you were on my property i can ignore the Constitution because your rights end where mine begin. You would either comply or leave. The government is limited even further than i am as they are not supposed to be permitted to limit my rights even on their property. I cannot search someone at a whim, nor can i force someone to not speak freely etc, on public land. As for the example of discovering evidence of a crime? First, you would be charged with a crime for breaking and entering, but you stating that you found evidence would be enough for LE to bypass the 4th and get a search warrent. Remember it says "unreasonable searxh". If you were invited in someones home and spotted a bunch of pot plants, you could go to the police and your testimony on an afidavit would be sufficent for a legal search warrent.
    One must be wary of the mentality creating the problem or the law creating the crime.

    I love America and the Constitution, if you don't then get out!

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Unfettered Might View Post
    The Constitution applies to everyone, government or individual. Even 42USC1983 acknowledges this.
    Wrong. 42 USC 1983 only applies to -state- actors.

    42 USC 1983

    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
    "Under color" means official act. This means that you cannot use the force of the state to restrict rights. Acting as an individual, apart from the state, the --> Constitution <-- does not serve as a restriction on your actions. LAW (which must comport with the Constitution) does.

    I can no more limit your rights publically than the government can at all.
    As a private citizen you have no rights to limit anything in public WITHOUT using the government in the first place.

    If you were on my property i can ignore the Constitution because your rights end where mine begin.
    You can only limit rights insofar as state/federal law allows you to. A state could pass a law saying you could kill someone who accidentally steps onto your property, and you could, because you are not acting on behalf of the government.

    A state could not authorize a state actor to kill someone under similar circumstances, because state actors are restricted by the 4th Amendment. Tennessee v. Garner clarifies the 4th Amendment's meaning regarding deadly force seizures.

    There is no constitutional analysis regarding actions of a private citizen.

    I cannot search someone at a whim, nor can i force someone to not speak freely etc, on public land.
    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.

    As for the example of discovering evidence of a crime? First, you would be charged with a crime for breaking and entering, but you stating that you found evidence would be enough for LE to bypass the 4th and get a search warrent.
    Correct. You could face criminal liability, but the state could use the evidence as it was not obtained contrary to the Constitution. It is impossible for a person to violate the constitutional rights of another person because, again, the Constitution only constrains the government.

    Remember it says "unreasonable searxh". If you were invited in someones home and spotted a bunch of pot plants, you could go to the police and your testimony on an afidavit would be sufficent for a legal search warrent.
    Amendment 4 only restricts the federal government (and states through the 14th Amendment) from unreasonable searches. NOT private citizens.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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