The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Dennis · June 14, 2002, 07:51 PM

Zander,

When the "highest court" will not support the Bill of Rights (e.g. not hearing Second Amendment cases) it has earned some level of denigration.

Also, as for precedents in addition to slavery we have some 20,000 unconstitutional firearms laws, and we've been "blessed" (that's quotes again

) with such precendents as Waco; Ruby Ridge; U.S. Army cavalry charges against unarmed civilians (including women, children, babies and the handicapped) who were then termed communists and criminals; denial of promised medical care to military personnel hurt in the service of their country; and presidents who have been crooks, liars, and perverts--to just hit a few of the high spots. Illegal precedents don't validate future violations of the Constitution.

If a President successfully usurps powers not granted by the Constitution (and/or in violation of the Constitution) that does not make the precedent Constitutional.

If the definition of the term "legal" means "It ain't been outlawed by the Supreme Court......yet," then our government can be free of any restrictions so long as the Supreme Court refuses to hear any pertinent cases.

If the definition of the term "legal" is restricted to compliance with the U.S. Constitution, then our government is routinely illegal in its day to day activities.

Also, having Congress illegally delegate both authority and responsibility to the President in order to avoid blame (in the case of problems and failures) and/or claim credit (for successes both real and imagined) does not create compliance with our ruling document.

Most of all, just because we want something to be true (or legal) does not make it true (or legal, ie in compliance with the Constitution).

If we agree that our government can void the fourth and fifth amendments at their whim (citing "necessity") then we have NO argument to support the First, Second, Third (look it up) or any of the others.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William Pitt the Younger, 1759-1806, British statesman, Speech, House of Commons, 18 November 1783)

(By the way, I do admire your persistence if not your viewpoint on this subject.

)

June 14, 2002, 07:51 PM	#110
Dennis Staff Emeritus Join Date: November 23, 1998 Location: a small forest in Texas Posts: 7,079	Zander, When the "highest court" will not support the Bill of Rights (e.g. not hearing Second Amendment cases) it has earned some level of denigration. Also, as for precedents in addition to slavery we have some 20,000 unconstitutional firearms laws, and we've been "blessed" (that's quotes again ) with such precendents as Waco; Ruby Ridge; U.S. Army cavalry charges against unarmed civilians (including women, children, babies and the handicapped) who were then termed communists and criminals; denial of promised medical care to military personnel hurt in the service of their country; and presidents who have been crooks, liars, and perverts--to just hit a few of the high spots. Illegal precedents don't validate future violations of the Constitution. If a President successfully usurps powers not granted by the Constitution (and/or in violation of the Constitution) that does not make the precedent Constitutional. If the definition of the term "legal" means "It ain't been outlawed by the Supreme Court......yet," then our government can be free of any restrictions so long as the Supreme Court refuses to hear any pertinent cases. If the definition of the term "legal" is restricted to compliance with the U.S. Constitution, then our government is routinely illegal in its day to day activities. Also, having Congress illegally delegate both authority and responsibility to the President in order to avoid blame (in the case of problems and failures) and/or claim credit (for successes both real and imagined) does not create compliance with our ruling document. Most of all, just because we want something to be true (or legal) does not make it true (or legal, ie in compliance with the Constitution). If we agree that our government can void the fourth and fifth amendments at their whim (citing "necessity") then we have NO argument to support the First, Second, Third (look it up) or any of the others. "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William Pitt the Younger, 1759-1806, British statesman, Speech, House of Commons, 18 November 1783) (By the way, I do admire your persistence if not your viewpoint on this subject. )