The Law Is The Law?

[Kalash]

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?

Just to touch on this...

It is, "The law should be enforced..." under the SUPREME Law of the Land.

Individual rights are paramount.
Congress MAY NOT infringe upon those rights - to do so is unconstitutional.

An unconstitutional law/statute/dictum/etc is not a law/statute/etc...
It is not binding upon anyone.
No one has to obey it.
No court has to/is capable of enforcing it.


The claim and exercise of a protected right cannot be converted into a crime.

How is the possession of property you bought/paid for/contracted for consensually - with another adult - NOT a protected right?


The problem with illegal immigration - as always - is that it is a byproduct of our welfare state.
If there is going to be a criminal protection racket PAYING for special services for special groups of people...

There HAVE to be laws preventing unauthorized groups from taking the goods/services/STOLEN MONEY that they have not contributed to.

If they want to become a victim of the criminal protection racket (i.e. taxation - for more, see http://adventuresinlegalland.com - Marc Steven's site) by becoming a LEGAL immigrant and paying their protection money (taxes), that's fine.
If NOT, in order to give what's been promised to the victims of taxation, illegal immigration MUST be stopped.

Government benefits are PRIVILEGES.
Not rights.

Denying someone these privileges is not a crime.
Therefore the law is valid.


Possession of property, which you own, is a RIGHT.
The allegation that you are in possession of property - without any claim that the property is NOT yours... no claim that ANYONE owns the property...
It cannot be a crime.

Prohibition of property possession/use - so long as the rights of another are not infringed upon - is NOT a power of the Federal Government.
See the 18th and 21st Amendments.

If they HAD the power to prohibit in the constitution, the 18th amendment would never have been written.
If the 18th amendment was still in effect, one could argue for drug prohibition. The 21st amendment takes care of that.

The federal government does not have the authority to deprive you of your rights.

And now, we're back at http://revolutioni.st/ivc.html - Individualism v. Collectivism.

The Constitution prohibits the government from implementing collectivist concepts as law.

The Constitution does nothing more than LIMIT the government to ensure that all sovereign citizen's RIGHTS are not infringed upon by the government.

That's it.


You do NOT have a SINGLE constitutional right... As this implies that the constitution grants you rights.
You have constitutionally PROTECTED rights - superior to and existent prior to the creation of government.

For fun, check out U.S. code Title 18 Chapter 13 sections 241 and 242.
A quick google search will pull them up.

 

[Jeremiah]

What gives the constitution legitimate authority?

I am not an American but I believe the answer to your question is God and the People as expressed in the founding documents of the nation of the United States of America.

According to the Declaration of Independence, individual human beings, the People, receive unalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of virtue (happiness) which are endowed by their Creator, and the government is instituted to protect these rights. From this Declaration, which established the United States of America as a nation amongst the other nations of the world, flows the Constitution which was the legal foundation and structure of the new nation. (If you wish to Amend the Constitution then there is a proper procedure to do so requiring the consent of the People.) Following on from the Constitution is the Bill of Rights which are the first ten Amendments to the Constitution further elucidating the natural rights of the individual members of the nation. Other amendments followed over the years to enunciate and clarify the application of the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution in the historical life of the nation.

This is my understanding of the source of the legitimacy of the Constitution. I am not a lawyer or a judge but I can read and understand plain English. This was the intent of the men who established the United States of America, that ordinary citizens could understand and apply their founding principles and thereby hold the officials of their government to account. This is also the purpose of the Ron Paul Revolution, to restore these documents and these principles to the People.

 

[misterbig]

What gives the constitution legitimate authority?

This guy is a troll. Stop feeding him.

 

[FreeTraveler]

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.

Well, the best argument IS that it's a stupid argument, but if you can't use that one, point out that the Constitution guarantees us free passage between states, so allowing states to set immigration policy would allow one state to effectively set the policy for all states.

 

[VoluntaryMan]

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?

Why is it that his opponents have no problem looking the other way or granting amnesty to non-citizens who break of immigration laws, laws that represent the 1st mandate of any nation, the duty to ptotect it's national borders, but they are willing to lock citizens up in a dungeon with sodomites, because those citizens are guilty of nothing more than growing plants on their on property? It's my understanding that Dr Paul wants to overthrow ALL unconstitutional laws, even if he has to use pardons and encourage civil disobedience (i.e., non-violent resistence to bad law) to do so. I see no contradiction in that.

 

[VoluntaryMan]

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.

Because that would have the effect of militarizing the borders between the states, something of forefathers sought to avoid. Besides, it is the duty of the national gov't to defend the national border, even if that border also happens to be a state border.

 

[torchbearer]

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?

To Pardon is apart of the law too.

 

[VoluntaryMan]

To Pardon is a part of the law too.

Good point. In fact, it's part of the balance of powers, to allow the executive to correct a legislative or judicial error.

 

[torchbearer]

Good point. In fact, it's part of the balance of powers, to allow the executive to correct a legislative or judicial error.

I make a few good points every now and then...

 

[FreeTraveler]

This guy is a troll. Stop feeding him.

Note the thread title. This is evolving into an interesting discussion.

 

[torchbearer]

Note the thread title. This is evolving into an interesting discussion.

I find trolling threads to be good opportunities to educate through calm logical debate.

 

[VoluntaryMan]

I find trolling threads to be good opportunities to educate through calm logical debate.

It would make an interesting poll, to discover how many RP supporters started out as trolls on this forum. I'd make that poll myself, if I only knew how.

 

[torchbearer]

It would make an interesting poll, to discover how many RP supporters started out as trolls on this forum. I'd make that poll myself, if I only knew how.

Over my tenure here.. I've had several former troll/agents pm me with their conversion... one guy was actually a tancredo supporter... i remember that... because it struck me as odd.

 

[VoluntaryMan]

Over my tenure here.. I've had several former troll/agents pm me with their conversion... one guy was actually a tancredo supporter... i remember that... because it struck me as odd.

I would think that a Tancredo, Keyes, or Hunter supporter might be a more likely convert than any of the others. Maybe I'm missing something, though.

 

[Deborah K]

What gives the constitution legitimate authority?

I can't believe you asked that but since you did, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

 

[torchbearer]

I would think that a Tancredo, Keyes, or Hunter supporter might be a more likely convert than any of the others. Maybe I'm missing something, though.

I thought it was odd because I didn't think Tancredo had any supporters...

You are right about Tancredo supporters. they were easier to convert, which makes sense why that troll was slain so easily.
He was a supporter, just didn't know it yet.

 

[nickcoons]

What gives the constitution legitimate authority?

The method of answering your question, I suppose, depends on where you are headed with this.

Your end goal may be to say that the Constitution has no legitimate authority, therefore the federal government is not bound by it. If so, then my response would be that the Constitution is what gives the federal government its legitimate authority. Without the Constitution, there is no federal government.

Or you may be heading towards the other side, which is that the Constitution, like other contracts, can only bind those that have voluntarily taken part in it, and that the "limits" implied on the people by the Constitution (powers that the federal government has) do not apply to those of us living today. If this is where you're headed, then the answer is a bit more complex.

But the short answer is this. The original 13 states agreed to the Constitution, and each new state entering into the union thereafter has agreed to it, so the Constitution is binding upon the states to give the federal government the powers that are specifically enumerated.

Starting from a clean slate, anarchy (which doesn't mean chaos, it simply means no government), the people endow the states with certain powers, and the states use some of that authority to endow the federal government with far fewer powers. This last process manifest itself in the form of the Constitution.

 

[torchbearer]

The method of answering your question, I suppose, depends on where you are headed with this.

Your end goal may be to say that the Constitution has no legitimate authority, therefore the federal government is not bound by it. If so, then my response would be that the Constitution is what gives the federal government its legitimate authority. Without the Constitution, there is no federal government.

Or you may be heading towards the other side, which is that the Constitution, like other contracts, can only bind those that have voluntarily taken part in it, and that the "limits" implied on the people by the Constitution (powers that the federal government has) do not apply to those of us living today. If this is where you're headed, then the answer is a bit more complex.

But the short answer is this. The original 13 states agreed to the Constitution, and each new state entering into the union thereafter has agreed to it, so the Constitution is binding upon the states to give the federal government the powers that are specifically enumerated.

Starting from a clean slate, anarchy (which doesn't mean chaos, it simply means no government), the people endow the states with certain powers, and the states use some of that authority to endow the federal government with far fewer powers. This last process manifest itself in the form of the Constitution.

Bravo!
Cliff's Notes even. I love it. I want to publish it!

 

[VoluntaryMan]

I thought it was odd because I didn't think Tancredo had any supporters...

You are right about Tancredo supporters. they were easier to convert, which makes sense why that troll was slain so easily.
He was a supporter, just didn't know it yet.

Fair enough.

 

[torchbearer]

//