Civil disobedience cannot be discussed on RPF...

[ChristianAnarchist]

"Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power"

This is exactly what I was promoting under my tread "Break a Law today". That thread was locked because it supposedly violated the "rules" here at RPF so I'm letting everybody know that talking about "civil disobedience" (see above) here is a no-no. Don't discuss breaking any "laws" even if they are as minor as running a stop sign or jaywalking because that is AGAINST THE RULES!

[/PublicService]

 

[Theocrat]

A Thought

Why can't you discuss your calls for civil disobedience in the Hot Topics forum?

 

[RJB]

The banned thread was nothing like this.

 

[TheTexan]

Breaking the law is very illegal.

 

[Dr.3D]

The banned thread was nothing like this.

This one should be more interesting.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Civil disobedience usually has a specific action to protest a certain cause. A sit-in at a lunch counter. The March on Washington. Having a "break the law day" has no specific action it is protesting. What was the goal you wanted to achieve?

 

[fedupinmo]

​​So what happens if:

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
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 land, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

​​So what happens if:

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
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.

Old news. It's cool on paper, but it almost never works IRL. You also have the legal right to resist an unjust arrest, but you'd be quite foolish to exercise it unless you don't mind being beaten, maimed, or killed.

 

[wmmonk]

"Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power"

This is exactly what I was promoting under my tread "Break a Law today". That thread was locked because it supposedly violated the "rules" here at RPF so I'm letting everybody know that talking about "civil disobedience" (see above) here is a no-no. Don't discuss breaking any "laws" even if they are as minor as running a stop sign or jaywalking because that is AGAINST THE RULES!

[/PublicService]

We don't need civil disobedience, which is probably why the thread was locked. We need to get everybody here to VOTE HARDER.

Vermin Supreme could really use our help. How are we helping him?

 

[TheTexan]

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement.

Well actually, the Supreme Court's rulings are the supreme law of the land.

The Supreme Court themselves said so.

 

[staerker]

Civil disobedience usually has a specific action to protest a certain cause. A sit-in at a lunch counter. The March on Washington. Having a "break the law day" has no specific action it is protesting. What was the goal you wanted to achieve?

Some people exercise their rights, in order to get permission to do so from politicians. Others do so, because politicians have no say in the matter.

 

[TheTexan]

We don't need civil disobedience, which is probably why the thread was locked. We need to get everybody here to VOTE HARDER.

This. Thanks for being one of the few voices of reason in this thread.

Vermin Supreme could really use our help. How are we helping him?

I like his policies but he doesn't have a chance of winning, which is why I'm voting Trump.

 

[Dr.3D]

Well actually, the Supreme Court's rulings are the supreme law of the land.

The Supreme Court themselves said so.

Yeah, but since when can you trust a government court, when it comes to rulings against itself?

 

[torchbearer]

what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.

 

[TheTexan]

what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.

Yes, magazines are a great way of communicating ideas.

I like TIME magazine, myself.

 

[phill4paul]

I present the OP with an idea as to how best to promote an idea and this is what he turns it into. SMDH. Some are just born water-heads others seem to just grow into it.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Civil disobedience usually has a specific action to protest a certain cause. A sit-in at a lunch counter. The March on Washington. Having a "break the law day" has no specific action it is protesting. What was the goal you wanted to achieve?

Yes, and each day of our "protest" would have a VERY specific cause... To demonstrate that THE PEOPLE are the rulers, not the goons... I think it's a very VERY important cause...

 

[TheTexan]

It's very illegal to ask people to break the law.

It is however fine, to ask people to NOT break the law.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.

+rep

 

[wmmonk]

This. Thanks for being one of the few voices of reason in this thread.

Glad to be here!

I like his policies but he doesn't have a chance of winning, which is why I'm voting Trump.

He doesn't have a chance of winning, because that's what the MSM tells you.
If you vote hard, I vote hard, and everybody on this site votes HARD for Vermin Supreme, how can he not win?