some other questions i've always wanted to ask a constitutional scholar:
1. How did the founders intend for the constitution to be enforced?
as in (when they asked Jefferson how do we know we will always be ruled by good men, and jefferson responds, speak to me not of good men, but speak to me about binding men down with the chains of the constitution. if we were to bind the men in dc down with a piece of paper, how did they intend for us to do that when the mechanism of checks and balances were collectively ignored by all branches?)
2. did the founders ever mention in their writings the possibility of criminal or civil punishment for failing their oath of office?
3. If our government is suppose to derive its powers from the consitution, yet, they do not uphold the constitution, where then, do they derive their powers?
follow-up: Is the current federal government now a power unto itself?
4. Has anyone ever challenged the constitutionality of our current FRNs?
If gold and silver are to be legal tender, how can the government force us to use money that isn't backed by gold or silver?
Which leads to my signature, and his thoughts on it.
His thoughts on this passage from American Jurisprudence:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its 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 ... An unconstitutional law is void. - American Jurisprudence 2nd Edition, Volume 16, Section 178
Does he believe that would be an effective argument to use in a court when being prosecuted by unconstitutional laws like federal drug laws.
_RJ_
