Thursday 13 - #5
Published Thu, May 24 2007 3:30 PM
Thirteen Things about Laws, Law Enforcement, and Courts
- A law authorizing the construction of a border fence that does not include the funding for a border fence is useless other than as political fodder to indicate that the politicians that voted for it are "tough on illegal immigration" without having to actually be "tough on illegal immigration".
- A law that isn't enforced is useless.
- Congress seems to believe it is above the law.
- Congress can pass a law that violates the first amendment rights of average citizens, and have it pass judicial scrutiny, as long as they say that "everyone" is corrupt.
- Some laws are just plain frivolous. A law written by a local city council that expresses local opinion about international relations is a perfect example.
- The legislature is meant to write laws, not the courts.
- It doesn't make a lot of sense to establish laws, establish agencies to execute those laws, and then bend over backwards to accommodate people that violate those laws while punishing the people enforcing them.
Remember the border patrol agents?
- "Hate crimes" laws that are based on crimes against a presumed underclass are a violation of the 14th amendment to the Constitution.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
These laws are simply a sop to political correctness.
- According to the Constitution, Federal Law trumps State Law in all cases.
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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This means for example, that State laws authorizing the medicinal use of Marijuana are unconstitutional, no matter how popular they are.
- Nothing in the Constitution, nor in the Laws of the United States gives the courts the power to determine whether a law violates the constitution or not.
- Despite the "independence of the courts" spoken of by certain justices, Congress has the power, granted by the Constitution, to determine just what jurisdiction the courts have, except where the Constitution specifically grants the courts jurisdiction.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
- Even though there is a tradition in the U.S. that the accused is "innocent until proven guilty", nothing in the Constitution, nor the amendments to the Constitution says that.
- Congressional investigations into acts that are perfectly legal, and that don't fall under Congress' jurisdiction in the first place are a waste of time, and a distraction from the real business of Congress. Meanwhile, not one of the many agenda items that the incoming Congressional Leadership promised to deliver in their first 100 days has been delivered.
Links to other Thursday Thirteens! (My trackback filter won't let you trackback unless you link to this post, so you can leave a comment I will add you as I get time today.):
- David
- Jeannine
- Kristen
- Your name here...
Get the Thursday Thirteen code here!
The purpose of the meme is to get to know everyone who participates a little bit better every Thursday. Visiting fellow Thirteeners is encouraged! If you participate, leave the link to your Thirteen in others comments. It’s easy, and fun! Be sure to update your Thirteen with links that are left for you, as well! I will link to everyone who participates and leaves a link to their 13 things. Trackbacks, pings, comment links accepted!
View More Thursday Thirteen Participants
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=727
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2007/5/24/727.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
David responded with:
 | "A law that isn't enforced is useless."
Worse: a law against genuinely harmful, predatory behavior that used to be punished justly (and harshly) is no longer enforced, while laws enacted in order to control citizens, limit their freedoms, hamper responsible behavior, etc., are enforced.
It's called anarcho-tyranny: failing to capture and punish outlaws (because, well, that's difficult, dangerous and not usually profitable to the political elite) while simultaneously outlawing once perfectly legal (and still often moral and ethical) behavior in order to beat citizens into subjects. |
Jeannine responded with:
 | Interesting TT!
I never understood why individual states need to have their individual laws...
Either we are one nation or we are not! |
Perri Nelson responded with:
 | Individual states need their own laws because we are a Federal Republic and not a Democracy. According to the original plan as laid out in the Constitution, the States were intended to govern the people, while the Federal Government was to represent the States to the world and to protect them. The Federal Government was never intended to directly govern the people.
This gradually became corrupted with the 12th, 14th, and 17th amendments. |
Kristin responded with:
 | I have never understood why those poor border patrol agents were arrested for doing their jobs. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the Constitiution does not offer any rights to people not legally a part of the U.S.
Great thought provoking list! |
Comments to this entry are closed.