Re: King Donald
On 2/9/2017, 3:54:44 PM, Caver1 <caver1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02/09/2017 03:12 PM, Disaster Master wrote:
>> 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.
> As I stated.
>> 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).
> It's amazing that you didn't even give me a chance.
You responded to the email, but ignored the question.
> We receive the rights we have as citizens from the constitution.
Wrong, our Rights are Natural Rights, some say bestowed by our Creator,
but definitely pre-dating The Constitution.
Ie, the Rights to Life, Liberty and Property.
The Constitution does not bestow Rights, it RESTRICTS THE GOVERNMENT.
Maybe, just maybe, it is time for you to actually go and read it?
> Being said you have no right to drive a car. Cars are not
> mentioned in the Constitution.
No, but the Right to Travel is, and that Right has been adjudicated to
include the right to travel in an automobile.
I'll wager you believe that when you are in your own private automobile,
traveling down the public way with a friend at your side, that you are
'driving', and that your friend is a 'passenger'.
Wouldn't it be interesting if those words had a very special legal meaning?
> Just because something isn't mentioned in the Constitution
> doesn't in itself make it unconstitutional.
Again, The Constitution sets up the structure of our government, and
lays down some very rigid restrictions on what the government can and
Any law that is passed by Congress that is not in pursuance of one of
its enumerated powers is unconstitutional - or only applicable in
general mailing list