The Law Is The Law?

[John T. Kennedy]

Yesterday on CNN I heard Ron Paul say he would pardon all those convicted of non-violent drug crimes. But at the debate when illegal immigration came up he said "The law is the law and it should be enforced".

Which is it? Why should some laws be enforced and others be gutted by pardon?

 

[Brutus]

Please point to the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to determine what chemicals may be ingested? An amendment was required to make Prohibition pass Constitutional muster. Federal drug crimes are therefore non-crimes. He wouldn't be able to affect State laws or pardon people convicted in State courts.

The Federal lack of authority for controlling the borders isn't as clear.

Also, this is similar to the problem of Social Security. It ought not to be, but the social chaos caused by removing it is considered to be too great without transition (some argue that cutting the chord suddenly is a better solution quite convincingly, but this is Dr. Paul's position) to allow social structures to resume their functions.

I don't speak for Ron Paul.

 

[danberkeley]

Because some (read most) federal laws are unconstitutional... in other words, federal drug laws are unconstitutional, while the federal governement has jurisdiction over immigration,

 

[theczar1776]

good point

Good point, but still, why not leave it up to the states to decide on immigration. This is a stupid argument, of course, but i still am curious what arguments may be made for or against it.

 

[Brian in Maryland]

Please point to the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to determine what chemicals may be ingested? An amendment was required to make Prohibition pass Constitutional muster. Federal drug crimes are therefore non-crimes. He wouldn't be able to affect State laws or pardon people convicted in State courts.

The Federal lack of authority for controlling the borders isn't as clear.

Also, this is similar to the problem of Social Security. It ought not to be, but the social chaos caused by removing it is considered to be too great without transition (some argue that cutting the chord suddenly is a better solution quite convincingly, but this is Dr. Paul's position) to allow social structures to resume their functions.

I don't speak for Ron Paul.

Why wouldn't a president be able to pardon a person convicted of a state crime?
If a person's rights are being violated they are being violated.
The purpose of a government is to protect the rights of the people.

 

[drpiotrowski]

Immigration is an issue that the federal government has authority to deal with, as provided by Article I. Section 8:

"[Congress shall have the power] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

You mention non-violent drug criminals. The federal government has no authority to pass any laws regarding an individual's chemical choices, therefore federal law is not "the law" here, but is rather null and void.

Hope this clears things up.

 

[John T. Kennedy]

Please point to the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to determine what chemicals may be ingested?

What gives the constitution legitimate authority?

 

[drpiotrowski]

Why wouldn't a president be able to pardon a person convicted of a state crime?
If a person's rights are being violated they are being violated.
The purpose of a government is to protect the rights of the people.

From what I gather, the President only has the power to pardon those who have committed crimes against the laws of the United States (i.e. Federal Laws).

Article II. Section 2.
"and he [the President] shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Normally, when "United States" is written in the constitution, it refers to the federal government. Usually, if individual states are included within the definition, the words "or each individual state" are added.

This is merely my hypothesis. More research into the corresponding federalist papers would be helpful here. I'll look into this later, because I'm interested, too.

 

[drpiotrowski]

What gives the constitution legitimate authority?

"We The People."

 

[John T. Kennedy]

"We The People."

Who would that refer to? At the time of ratification only a very small fraction of Americans were even allowed to vote, and not all who had the vote supported the Constitution. Women, slaves, native Americans and even most men without property had no say in the document. Hard to see how it could be binding on them. And even among voters there were plenty of dissenters; why would it be binding on them?

And what would their agreement have to do with us today anyway?

Who is "We The People"?

 

[John T. Kennedy]

"We The People."

If the Confederates were free to withdraw from this supposed agreement, as Dr. Paul holds, then isn't any American equally free to do the same?

 

[dougkeenan]

Alright, no Confederates are to be pardoned for the drug crimes. Oh waitaminute... that batch of lies bundled as a Drug War wasn't inflicted on "We the People" back then.

I suppose - if you want to be a dick about it - your argument might preclude President Paul from pardoning women, blacks, and Indians along with white men. But don't you think it's better for our candidate to exonerate all victims of this ridiculous farce equally?

 

[NMCB3]

What gives the constitution legitimate authority?

Nothing.

 

[drpiotrowski]

Who would that refer to? At the time of ratification only a very small fraction of Americans were even allowed to vote, and not all who had the vote supported the Constitution. Women, slaves, native Americans and even most men without property had no say in the document. Hard to see how it could be binding on them. And even among voters there were plenty of dissenters; why would it be binding on them?

And what would their agreement have to do with us today anyway?

Who is "We The People"?

Your response is the exact reason why I said "We The People." There's really no authority behind the constitution other than the value a society decides to place upon it. If we give it authority, it has it. If we don't, it doesn't. "We The People" applies to the original drafters and signers of the constitution, but also us if we choose to acknowledge it.

If the Confederates were free to withdraw from this supposed agreement, as Dr. Paul holds, then isn't any American equally free to do the same?

This starts entering into the very interesting realm of social contract theory. Read Locke or Rosseau. This is not so much a matter of law as it is individual convictions. The constitution doesn't seem to take a stand on it either way.

 

[danberkeley]

This is merely my hypothesis. More research into the corresponding federalist papers would be helpful here. I'll look into this later, because I'm interested, too.

Much of the Federalist was written by Alexander Hamilton who wanted strong "national" government versus a strong "federal" government. This fact causes confussion when reading the Federalist because the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

 

[Zym]

Troll alert, don't bump, search all his posts, all anti-paul. he's trying to stir the pot.

 

[driller80545]

When presidents and congressmen etc are sworn in they swear to uphold the constitution for whatever that's worth. Sounds like a potential perjury charge to me

 

[pdavis]

Immigration is an issue that the federal government has authority to deal with, as provided by Article I. Section 8:

"[Congress shall have the power] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

You mention non-violent drug criminals. The federal government has no authority to pass any laws regarding an individual's chemical choices, therefore federal law is not "the law" here, but is rather null and void.

Hope this clears things up.

Immigration and nationalization are not the same thing.

 

[Dave Pedersen]

I found Badnarik's seven hour video seminar on the constitution very helpful. Our individual rights are determined based on the premise of private property rights. Our federal government is a public service body authorized by the consent of the governed. The constitution is a contractual agreement between all who enter public service and the original signers of the constitution. We the people inherit the benefits of that contract and we only need to ensure compliance of the public servants to uphold their oath of office.

Easier said than done but we are a nation of laws and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any legislation passed contrary to the constitution is null and void and does not apply and is not enforceable.

Today legislators are in the habit of simply ignoring the constitution and its restraints on the government. They simply mirror the general public's habit of ignoring the constitution. Without thorough constitutional education as the top priority to teach every generation our nation continues to be in peril.

Only one remedy exists and that is constitutional education which must be instilled in our culture and institutions at every opportunity throughout all generations. This objective alone can solve our problems and without it no effort no matter how well intended can provide lasting relief. Ron Paul can become president and many constitutionally educated people can become legislators but if we fail to establish constitutional education as being more imperative than the learning of mathematics we will only have forestalled the inevitable loss of our Republic.

 

[Kalash]

More on Badnarik et al;

http://revolutioni.st/cclass.html - I have his 7 hour class in mp3 format if anyone wants them.

http://revolutioni.st/liberty.html - The Philosophy of Liberty Expanded - with narration (and less annoying music) and commentary about how our government has faltered over the years.

http://revolutioni.st/drugs.html - The views of the different candidates

http://mike.revolutioni.st - my current case, comments on constitutionality, fairness...
And a 2 1/2 hour radio show that I did with an 18 year retired Law Enforcement officer - and we agreed on nearly EVERY point (I don't think Marijuana is less dangerous than MDMA. That's the only thing we didn't agree upon...)

I had a BIG personal win in court today.

I retained my counsel - as standby counsel - and claimed/asserted/was granted the privilege of exercising my right to demur in Federal court (despite Federal Court rule 12 (a)1 - which abolishes Demurrer's in Federal Criminal (and civil - same rule number) court.)


In English...
The court is allowing me to break the rules in order to file my motions challenging the laws as they are written.
I can file motions, talk to the court, all without the hindrance of an attorney that refuses to bend certain non-binding rules in order to assert an unalienable right. (While retaining him to fall back upon if my motions fail.)

The trial date was pushed back to April 8th (from Jan. 29th) and I have opened communications with the court.

I'm on my way to liberation from these insane, unconstitutional statutes!
=D