Gun Hub Forums banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,804 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
HERE'S a link to a thread on The High Road. Well worth our consideration and concern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Methinks said law, if (unlikely) passed...will be most quickly and ironically...declared unconstitutional!

The heck with it...let's just remove ALL the checks and balances in place in our government!!

Sad part is, the majority of the herd would go for it, and head straight for that slippery slope...

Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,298 Posts
SubSonicSquid said:
Sad part is, the majority of the herd would go for it, and head straight for that slippery slope...

Dave
I tend to agree. I find it highly ironic that if "the herd" were to get this, they would find that the "slippery slope" would turn into a sheer drop through a blizzard of razor blades into a tub of Mercurochrome; and that would be the FUN part! :evil:
 
G

·
actually, you know, the Constitution doesn't

say one damned WORD about the Supremes being able to rule on the 'Constitionality" of any legislation at all. Justice Marshall just MADE up that bs, out of the whole cloth, a century ago, and we've all just let it stand, ever since. The Founding Fathers never agreed to any such thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
973 Posts
Re: actually, you know, the Constitution doesn't

jumpy said:
say one damned WORD about the Supremes being able to rule on the 'Constitionality" of any legislation at all. Justice Marshall just MADE up that bs, out of the whole cloth, a century ago, and we've all just let it stand, ever since. The Founding Fathers never agreed to any such thing.
So, if Congress were to enact a statute prohibiting written criticism of itself, the President or the Supreme Court, with a mandatory 1 year sentence, and no jury trial, we either revolt or show up in court with a toothbrush?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,298 Posts
FWIW:

If I could redo the whole thing, here's how it would work:

The SCOTUS would NEVER rule on the Constitutionality of a law, because there would be NO unconstitutional laws passed. It would merely serve as the final authority on rulings in either criminal or civil cases.

Change the rules of Parliamentary Procedure as follows for the US Congress:

Every bill submitted MUST be accompanied by a preamble. The preamble may be no longer than one standard typewritten page. It must explain, in plain language that could easily be comprehended by a 10th grader, the intent of the bill. The bill with preamble would then be presented to a Constitutional Review Board. They would have a set of objective guidelines which would explain what constitutes an actual right. Nothing in the preamble or bill itself can violate any rights. Everything in the preamble must match everything in the legalese portion of the bill. If there are any discrepancies, the bill gets returned to the author for clarification. If anything in the bill or preamble is judged to be a violation of ANY rights, it is sent back to the author with an official memo describing what is unconstitutional and why. If the author chooses to resubmit the bill with no changes, this would qualify as High Treason, and would constitute automatic proof of such. He/she would then be summarily arrested, tried, and executed, all within 48 hours.
If everything is kosher with the bill/preamble, THEN it gets presented to the proper house for consideration. ANY changes or additions automatically send it back to The CRB. No more last minute riders stuck on to good legislation.
Once everything is kosher with both houses, a voice vote will be taken. NO ONE MAY ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON ANY BILL. This will constitute dereliction of duty, and will result in that individual's automatic and immediate dismisal from his/her position, with the added penalty of never being allowed to serve in government at ANY level (Federal, State, County, City,) regardless of whether said office is elected, appointed, or a civil service job.

No more "professional politicians." One or two term limits for every elected office. Appointed officials can serve no longer than 6 years. Civil servants may be easily immediately dismissed by one valid complaint from any citizen for any rudeness or incompetence.

Another big change: a judge's first duty upon calling court to order for the begining of a jury trial would be to inform the members of the jury of the facts of jury nullification. Failure to do so constitutes Double High Treason, and the Balliff has full authority to put a bullet into the head of the judge right hen and there. Jurly nullification is how We, the People, can actually keep this government being one of, by, and for the people. Pols will get the message real quick when juries are constantly ruling laws themselves to be either unconstitutional, unfair, or being unfairly applied.

In short, anyone outside the military that draws a paycheck from government funds should live in ABSOLUTE TERROR of either losing their job in a hearbeat, or finding themselves facing a firing squad in short order.

[ramble mode off]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,804 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
JR said:
So, if Congress were to enact a statute prohibiting written criticism of itself, the President or the Supreme Court, with a mandatory 1 year sentence, and no jury trial, we either revolt or show up in court with a toothbrush?
Look up the old Alien and Sedition Act. Many were sent to prison for doing just as you supposed.

Things really turned to sh** under Lincoln. Many Northern papers were siezed and closed and their editors locked away without so much as a kangaroo court much less a real trial.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top