Re: King Donald
On 2/9/2017, 2:59:51 PM, Caver1 <caver1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02/09/2017 02:51 PM, Disaster Master wrote:
>> On 2/9/2017, 2:41:20 PM, Caver1 <caver1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> The are many laws which there actions are not mentioned in
>>> the Constitution that are not unconstitutional.
>> Yes, and opinions are like... now how did that saying go?
>> Any law passed by Congress that is not pursuant to one of its few
>> enumerated powers is, by definition, unconstitutional.
> Congress is given the power to make laws.
> If those laws don't go against the Constitution then they pass muster.
So, you've never heard of a legislative body 'exceeding its authority'?
Can you tell me where this comes from:
> Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the only laws
> that the congress can pass are ones that are mentioned in
> the Constitution.
"The Congress shall have Power To ...make all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of
the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Care to guess where this is found?
> If a law goes against the Constitution then they can be
> ruled by the courts that they are unconstitutional., so it
> won't survive. No other entity has that power under the
No other entity has that power to do so formally and officially, but...
" The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators
bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S.
Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be
valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution
and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly
stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the
time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so
branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as
inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the
question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute
not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow
that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows
no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no
acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the
lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it."
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
>> That said, Congress does legislate over two very different jurisdictions.
>> Can you name these two different jurisdictions?
I see you cannot answer the question (not surprising).
I'll go ahead and answer for you...
The two different jurisdictions are outlined at Article 1 Section 8
Clauses 17 (Washington DC) and 18 (the states united by and under The
When legislating for Washington DC, Congress is not subject to the same
limitations they are when legislating for the 50 States.
>>> Being so federal taxes being unconstitutional is an opinion
>>> not a fact.
>> No, actually, in this case, it is a fact.
> Prove it.
No thanks, I could lay it out plain as day, and you'd just yell 'its
just your opinion'.
general mailing list