I apologize. I thought onlyrp was a man. Turns out I was wrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmKJ66X0QvM
If you've been paying attention, we've been around the world. In my opinion (as in American jurisprudence), silence is consent. Despite what one poster keeps trying to have you believe, I was the first on this thread to show that a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution is racist per se. We began tracing the racist roots of America in post #440 of this thread. We covered more of this in post # 463 and it continued into post # 465.
In post # 470 a summation was provided for what had been discussed and now over a hundred posts later, you have the same whiner - who has not responded to
over a hundred questions asked of her.
That brings us back to where we started. By a poll, you are being asked to decide the fate of someone else. Over 35 percent of the respondents have shown that they are guided more by majority rule than by the rule of law. Some people believe if there is a law - and even if there is not a law, some people should go to jail, be deported, be beheaded, or whatever simply because a mob finds one or a few others to be offensive. The
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT opined:
"
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
The only way to fairly address this issue is to answer a few questions. They are rhetorical and you can expect one lady to "
cherry - pick" if an answer is even forthcoming. You will have to answer for yourself.
1) What Right do YOU have to infringe upon the Liberties of another?
2) From
WHERE do Rights originate if the United States Supreme Court says that government does not grant Rights?
3) If the law demands that people do something "
properly" and does not create the "
proper" method, how do we justify infringing upon the Liberties of other Americans in order to enforce laws that deny to certain segments of society their constitutionally guaranteed "
equal protection of the laws?"
4) Is life so sweet or peace so dear that it must be purchased at the price of chains?
5) The guy staying across the street is from Alabama. He is staying with some other people and has an Alabama driver's license. Should I be mad that he is working a job here that I don't have as a resident of Georgia? Should I falsely accuse him of not paying taxes or accuse him of being a criminal without proof?
6) Is racism more important than freedom?
