The Law Is The Law?

[John T. Kennedy]

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

Anti-Paul? I thnk Paul's obviously the best candidate by far, and all the other candidates are monsters. I'm not pro-constitution though, so naturally I have some questions.

Dr. Paul is running as the champion of the Constitution. Surely it's fair to ask why he thinks it should have authority, no?

 

[John T. Kennedy]

Our federal government is a public service body authorized by the consent of the governed.

Dr. Paul holds that the confederacy was free to withdraw it's consent to be governed under the Constitution. Wouldn't any individula have the same right? In fact I don't so consent any more than the Confedercy does.

Would President Paul allow me to secede?

 

[johngr]

I can't believe none of you legal experts in 5 pages has come up with the right answer.

The Presidental pardon power outlined in Article II, Section 2 is virtually unlimited. Two ways it is limited are the he can't pardon people who have been impeached and he can only pardon US citizens.

By the way presidents can pardon people wholesale. The pardons by President Washington of the Whiskey Rebels were challenged to the supreme court and they upheld the power of the president to pardon classes of people in US v. Klein.

 

[John T. Kennedy]

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.

Fine, but what makes the Constitution binding on Americans? The Constitution grants the government with various powers over me - the power to tax, etc.

Why is that binding on me?

 

[Melissa]

I can't believe none of you legal experts in 5 pages has come up with the right answer.

The Presidental pardon power outlined in Article II, Section 2 is virtually unlimited. Two ways it is limited are the he can't pardon people who have been impeached and he can only pardon US citizens.

By the way presidents can pardon people wholesale. The pardons by President Washington of the Whiskey Rebels were challenged to the supreme court and they upheld the power of the president to pardon classes of people in US v. Klein.

Ok I read them all and there was some great replies but I would have to bet this is the best answer so far.

 

[John T. Kennedy]

I can't believe none of you legal experts in 5 pages has come up with the right answer.

The Presidental pardon power outlined in Article II, Section 2 is virtually unlimited. Two ways it is limited are the he can't pardon people who have been impeached and he can only pardon US citizens.

Setting aside the question of why the Constitution has any binding authority, where does it say he can only pardon citizens? In Article II, Section 2, I read: "...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Where does it say he can only pardon US citizens?

 

[Dave Pedersen]

Dr. Paul holds that the confederacy was free to withdraw it's consent to be governed under the Constitution. Wouldn't any individula have the same right? In fact I don't so consent any more than the Confedercy does.

Would President Paul allow me to secede?

Ok then if you are not in any way in contract with the federal government what difference does it make? You only benefit from the constitution. The constitution does not impose anything on the individual and so you only fail to recognize the rights which the constitution secures on your behalf. I think every state should secede from the federalis as a way to come out from under the effects of their habitual breach of contract.

 

[Gilby]

Fine, but what makes the Constitution binding on Americans? The Constitution grants the government with various powers over me - the power to tax, etc.

Why is that binding on me?

It's not binding on you. They do not have any powers over you.

The constitution is a contract that charters an entity and lays out it's purpose and powers. Those who formed the contract can not give any more powers to this entity than they have. In a free society, they can be given no powers over you. It's a contract between the states, therefore it is only binding between the states, this new entity, and anyone that contracts with this entity. You are simply a beneficiary of this contract just like you may be a beneficiary of a corporation.

They do not have the power to tax you directly. They have the power to tax the states directly. They have the power to tax your use of their property.

The government does not follow natural law anymore. Ron Paul wants to restore that.

 

[Sey.Naci]

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.

What he said.

I'm a Canadian but think that in this case, our systems work similarly. Immigration is partly a defense issue, in which case, it makes sense to be under federal authority. But social issues such as education and health are under provincial (state) authority.

Canada also has its War on Drugs, not quite as bad as you have up there, but nearly so. Our neanderthal government is trying to take us backwards from where we had progressed in terms of how we view marijuana. It had been the case that, while possession of marijuana was still considered as a crime in the courts, our police forces would look the other way if they found someone in possession of the dreaded weed. Now, thanks to our Harper government, there has been a concerted crackdown. Not coincidentally, this crackdown has come largely at the behest of the U.S., which has been in a tizzy over the export of marijuana seeds to its fair shores.

 

[John T. Kennedy]

The constitution does not impose anything on the individual and so you only fail to recognize the rights which the constitution secures on your behalf.

Doesn't the constitution claim authority for the federal government to tax me?

What if I want to let a Mexican citizen come live with me in Nevada next week? Dr. Paul seems to claim authority for the government to prevent that, but I don't see how you can say it's not interference with my property rights.

Doesn't the Fifth amendment say my property may be taken by the U.S. for public use?

 

[John T. Kennedy]

They do not have the power to tax you directly. They have the power to tax the states directly.

The 16th amendment is unconstitutional?

 

[Dave Pedersen]

Doesn't the constitution claim authority for the federal government to tax me?

What if I want to let a Mexican citizen come live with me in Nevada next week? Dr. Paul seems to claim authority for the government to prevent that, but I don't see how you can say it's not interference with my property rights.

Doesn't the Fifth amendment say my property may be taken by the U.S. for public use?

It does not interfere with your property rights just as if you decided to detonate a nuclear bomb on your property it would not interfere with your property rights to stop you. Rights supersede other rights based on effect. Rights are only rights to the extent they do not infringe on other people's rights.

If you bring an illegal across the national border you infringe on the rights of everyone who is protected by the national constitution since the authority to restrict border crossings is presumably granted to the national level of government as a portion of their responsibility to protect our borders from invasion. You would be participating in an invasion of one person or 30 million people contrary to the authority and responsibility of the federalis to prevent this from happening in the interest of national sovereignty and national defense.

 

[Gilby]

The 16th amendment is unconstitutional?

No, it authorizes the government to tax you for using their property or power by using the income produced from that use as the basis for how much to tax you. If you are not using their property or powers, then you are not liable to pay income taxes to them. The amendment is valid, but the application of it is unconstitutional.