Another armed showdown w/ police.

[American123]

As shown in a prior thread, this is not true.

A law is not unconstitutional until the Judicial Branch rules that it is unconstitutional.

The pathway of that process is suit. The Court does not evaluate the constitutionality of any law unless a party with standing files suit against that law.

There is no other process or method. Only suit.

All laws created by the Legislative Branch are considered constitutional until ruled unconstitutional by the Judicial Branch.

LEO's are sworn to uphold the law. They are not empowered to decide whether a law is constitutional.

LEO's who refuse to enforce the laws of their state get fired.

What you propose is that every LEO be able to decide for himself which laws he thinks are unconstitutional.
In other words, every LEO can decide which laws he wants to enforce and which he doesn't.

You can see how that won't work. Right?

That's why we don't do it.

If a law is "ruled unconstitutional" that means it was always unconstitutional, it just means that it took a while for the system to catch up with the unconstitutional law because unconstitutional laws are put into practice with far more ease than they are removed, because inevitably it requires someone being personally damaged by the unconstitutional law before it can be sufficiently challenged and only then years later, after it has been argued back and forth, rescinded.

Don't mind that though, nothing ever bad has happened from people "just following orders."

 

[Alexx1401]

If a law is "ruled unconstitutional" that means it was always unconstitutional, it just means that it took a while for the system to catch up with the unconstitutional law because unconstitutional laws are put into practice with far more ease than they are removed, because inevitably it requires someone being personally damaged by the unconstitutional law before it can be sufficiently challenged and only then years later, after it has been argued back and forth, rescinded.

Don't mind that though, nothing ever bad has happened from people "just following orders."

While it is often sad, I don't see what the "solution is" here? Many want LEO's to refuse to enforce laws they "feel" are not in line with the constitution. Sounds really great except, how do we do this? Each LEO just on the fly makes up which laws they will enforce that day? Where is the line? Of course if told to line people up and shoot them no. Some guy opens his business when he was ordered not to and LEO is told to arrest him. Do it or say no and get fired? Sadly its kind of hard to fix this easily. At what point do the working Cops just say I quit? If a LOT of them do? What happens then?

 

[Cavedweller]

If a law is "ruled unconstitutional" that means it was always unconstitutional, it just means that it took a while for the system to catch up with the unconstitutional law because unconstitutional laws are put into practice with far more ease than they are removed, because inevitably it requires someone being personally damaged by the unconstitutional law before it can be sufficiently challenged and only then years later, after it has been argued back and forth, rescinded.

If anyone has ever wondered what a run-on sentence looks like, see above.

(Sorry Teach, I couldn't resist)

 

[American123]

If anyone has ever wondered what a run-on sentence looks like, see above.

(Sorry Teach, I couldn't resist)

Ha, that's good. I normally don't use the best grammar when typing from my phone.

 

[American123]

While it is often sad, I don't see what the "solution is" here? Many want LEO's to refuse to enforce laws they "feel" are not in line with the constitution. Sounds really great except, how do we do this? Each LEO just on the fly makes up which laws they will enforce that day? Where is the line? Of course if told to line people up and shoot them no. Some guy opens his business when he was ordered not to and LEO is told to arrest him. Do it or say no and get fired? Sadly its kind of hard to fix this easily. At what point do the working Cops just say I quit? If a LOT of them do? What happens then?

There is no easy, simple, or non-invasive way to handle a government that has outgrown the intent of the constitution. The decision for police isn't easy either, however (and I am not equating police with Nazi's) a lot of people look back at history and say "why did those Germans go along with that" - when the government is telling you to do something, and they also pay your paycheck, obviously the decision isn't so cut and dry.

Let's use prohibition as an example. How many Americans were killed by police "because they were enforcing the law" for what ultimately was completely rescinded later. To me what that shows more than anything is the pride of the state. Although I support police because they generally help reduce the amount of societal garbage. I also understand that when it comes to individual rights, the police are the boot the government uses to stomp on the individual.

Things don't have to be all good or all bad, my razor helps me shave but it still cuts me from time to time.

 

[baker3gun]

If a law is "ruled unconstitutional" that means it was always unconstitutional, it just means that it took a while for the system to catch up with the unconstitutional law because unconstitutional laws are put into practice with far more ease than they are removed, because inevitably it requires someone being personally damaged by the unconstitutional law before it can be sufficiently challenged and only then years later, after it has been argued back and forth, rescinded.

Our system of government was designed to operate slowly.
Bicameral legislatures, executive approval or veto, and a slow justice system that allows time for intelligent prosecution and fair defense.

Slow, constrained, deliberate govt is better than rash, unconstrained govt, right?

"Urgency" is always the justification for bad policy.

So. It takes a long time to get a law passed, and just as long or sometimes longer to get one struck down.

SCOTUS is not empowered to arbitrarily attack laws passed by the elected legislatures or direct democracy (ballot initiatives).
The only time SCOTUS can consider the constitutionality of a law is when a party with standing files suit.
This prevents an imbalance of power between the branches.
If the JB could arbitrarily attack and strike down any law, it would hold more power than the LB and EB combined.

The process of striking down a law is slow, but it can be sped up.

The Judicial Branch is not immune to public opinion, not even SCOTUS.
Example links:
https://ajps.org/2015/02/23/the-sup...es-fear-nonimplementation-of-their-decisions/

https://journalistsresource.org/pol...esearch-roundup-supreme-court-public-opinion/

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2013/06/28/how-the-supreme-court-responds-to-public-opinion/

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Will_of_the_People.html?id=V004NCn4Vm8C

If a state passes an unpopular unconstitutional law,
suit and certiorari and a ruling tend to happen quickly because significant political support favors that course of action.

If a state passes a barely unpopular unconstitutional law, certiorari and a ruling seem to be less likely because there is less political pressure.

Maybe that's not right or fair, but it is real.
It's how our current system works.

Simple solution: create more political support for constitutional law.

There are 80 million people in America over age 55. 38 million people pay for membership in AARP.
There are ~85 million gun owners in America. Less than 5 million pay for membership in our largest advocacy organization: NRA.

The right to arms gets less respect from SCOTUS than other rights because citizens organize less political support for the right to arms.

Don't mind that though, nothing ever bad has happened from people "just following orders."

Which is better, a society based on the rule of law, or one that's not?

If cops independently decide which laws they will enforce and which they won't,
If citizens independently decide which laws they will obey and which they won't,
you have anarchy. The rule of law will have no purpose.

Civil disobedience is a legitimate form of protest, but is usually self-limited by reason.
It's not easy to get a large number of people to publicly commit to civil disobedience, and even harder when the planned behavior reaches unreasonable extremes.

Your latter comment is a pat answer commonly seen on gun forums.
For 20 years, gun forum posters have been rattling swords about civil disobedience, but so far no trend or influential behavior has emerged.

What seems to work better is a combination of actions such as peaceful assembly (Virginia), and lobbying (ILA), and lawsuits against objectionable laws (SAF).

IMO, it would all work much better if gun owners united in numbers closer to 30 million than 5 million.
We need to find a way to exert more political pressure so that we can obtain more intelligent behavior from every branch of govt.

 

[baker3gun]

... Things don't have to be all good or all bad, my razor helps me shave but it still cuts me from time to time.

Nice. I may steal that some time.

 

[American123]

Our system of government was designed to operate slowly.
Bicameral legislatures, executive approval or veto, and a slow justice system that allows time for intelligent prosecution and fair defense.

Slow, constrained, deliberate govt is better than rash, unconstrained govt, right?

"Urgency" is always the justification for bad policy.

So. It takes a long time to get a law passed, and just as long or sometimes longer to get one struck down.

SCOTUS is not empowered to arbitrarily attack laws passed by the elected legislatures or direct democracy (ballot initiatives).
The only time SCOTUS can consider the constitutionality of a law is when a party with standing files suit.
This prevents an imbalance of power between the branches.
If the JB could arbitrarily attack and strike down any law, it would hold more power than the LB and EB combined.

The process of striking down a law is slow, but it can be sped up.

The Judicial Branch is not immune to public opinion, not even SCOTUS.
Example links:
https://ajps.org/2015/02/23/the-sup...es-fear-nonimplementation-of-their-decisions/

https://journalistsresource.org/pol...esearch-roundup-supreme-court-public-opinion/

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2013/06/28/how-the-supreme-court-responds-to-public-opinion/

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Will_of_the_People.html?id=V004NCn4Vm8C

If a state passes an unpopular law,
suit and certiorari and a ruling tend to happen quickly because significant political support favors that course of action.

If a state passes a barely unpopular law, certiorari and a ruling seem to be less likely because there is less political pressure.

Maybe that's not right or fair, but it is real.
It's how our current system works.

Simple solution: create more political support for constitutional law.

There are 80 million people in America over age 55. 38 million people pay for membership in AARP.
There are ~85 million gun owners in America. Less than 5 million pay for membership in our largest advocacy organization: NRA.

The right to arms gets less respect from SCOTUS than other rights because citizens organize less political support for the right to arms.


Which is better, a society based on the rule of law, or one that's not?

If cops independently decide which laws they will enforce and which they won't,
If citizens independently decide which laws they will obey and which they won't,
you have anarchy. The rule of law will have no purpose.

Civil disobedience is a legitimate form of protest, but is usually self-limited by reason.
It's not easy to get a large number of people to publicly commit to civil disobedience, and even harder when the planned behavior reaches unreasonable extremes.

Your latter comment is a pat answer commonly seen on gun forums.
For 20 years, gun forum posters have been rattling swords about civil disobedience, but so far no trend or influential behavior has emerged.

What seems to work better is a combination of actions such as peaceful assembly (Virginia), and lobbying (ILA), and lawsuits against objectionable laws (SAF).

IMO, it would all work much better if gun owners united in numbers closer to 30 million than 5 million.
We need to find a way to exert more political pressure so that we can obtain more intelligent behavior from every branch of govt.

After the Virginia rally, several of the proposed gun restriction related
measures still were voted on and passed without issue. The rally made the news, but that was about it.

 

[Cavedweller]

It takes a long time to get a law passed...

Not when there is a manufactured crisis which plays on the emotions of a gullible populace, whipped into hysteria by demagogic politicians aided by a deceitful and compliant mass media. Our legislators have laws already written, just waiting for the right time to ram them through on a wave of public emotion. How many times has this happenned in recent years?

 

[Flopsweat]

Not when there is a manufactured crisis which plays on the emotions of a gullible populace, whipped into hysteria by demagogic politicians aided by a deceitful and compliant mass media. Our legislators have laws already written, just waiting for the right time to ram them through on a wave of public emotion. How many times has this happenned in recent years?

You've just described almost every gun law I've ever heard of.

 

[baker3gun]

"Urgency" is always the justification for bad policy.

Quoting myself.

I don't disagree with Cavedweller.
Many times on this board I have lamented the folly of running the world's most advanced society on the basis of lies & emotion rather than evidence & reason.

Our system of government has been derailed.
We repeatedly elect unqualified uncaring people to public office. Often because no one else runs.
Many of our politicians have zero respect for the gift of freedom, and zero concern for the well-being of this society.
What they are focused on is accumulating power, protecting their career, and partisanship.

These aren't flaws caused by the original design of this government.
They are abuses perpetrated by idiots that we re-elect over and over.
Who's fault is that?

This thread includes suggestions that cops should arbitrarily refuse to enforce some laws, and that the legal process of striking down unconstitutional law is inferior to people just choosing to ignore law.
It's been a good discussion.
I'm satisfied with my responses to those suggestions.

 

[American123]

I don't disagree with Cavedweller. Many times on this board I have lamented the folly of running the world's most advanced society on the basis of lies & emotion rather than evidence & reason.

Our system of government has been derailed.
We repeatedly elect unqualified uncaring people to public office. Often because no one else runs.
Many of our politicians have zero respect for the gift of freedom, and zero concern for the well-being of this society.
What they are focused on is accumulating power, protecting their career, and partisanship.

These aren't flaws caused by the original design of this government.
They are abuses perpetrated by idiots that we re-elect over and over.
Who's fault is that?

This thread includes suggestions that cops should arbitrarily refuse to enforce some laws, and that the legal process of striking down unconstitutional law is inferior to people just choosing to ignore law.
It's been a good discussion.
I'm satisfied with my responses to those suggestions.

The public has been bribed with the treasury, even despite the last 30 years of democrat run failure in Seattle, the zealots who vote a color no matter what wouldn't elect "a better candidate" if they had the opportunity, so further down the toilet we spiral.