>people should step down for making unconstitutional laws
I'll quote you on that one: "where does it say that"
I agree, but that's never going to have any traction, perhaps a direct-democracy initiative
should be done by someone to create such a law? But by who...
>alas only legislative branch can make laws
um...no....that's just what they teach us in public education, absolutely wrong. See the CFR:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Federal_Regulations
also see case law. Row v Wade? Where does such law come from? The high court, and where does it say you can do that? nowhere except in case law
Constitution provides language that laws are to be constitutional, yes, but no where does it provide any authority for the actual judicial review itself. I challenge you to point to where the Constitution specifically says you can review a law for constitutionality.
That came directly from the first High Court itself:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
I applaud and agree with you on the Second Amendment, Mikie. But you are dead wrong about how complete or clear the Constitution is to just about everything most in particular our rights.
You do know they tried very hard not to supply any Bill of Rights at all? They almost didn't. In the Articles, there are only 2 actual rights: the right to habeas corpus (not be jailed without de process) and the right to declare bankruptcy. These are spelled out because the colonists were sick and tired of being kidnapped in the night, and being sent to debtor's labor camps.
>people who misinterpret the law
Oh you mean Justices of the High Court. Maybe, that happens because it's folks like the orange man who have always placed crooks on the High Court, for example Gorsuch. Goes on and on about "not making law" as though that isn't the high court's job (it is, else there would be no judicial review process for constitutionality at all) and then he does exactly that, make new law by blatantly committing the most egregious sophistry imaginable to "misinterpret" (more like downright lying) what the words say.
No, none of our rights are clearly stated.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If the Framers wanted this shit to be crystal clear, they wouldn't have used a goddamned fucking comma in between completely separate sentences. That "militia" is so linguistically indistinct from "right to bear" is a huge problem, in spite of how much reading on the wording style of the time it's clear as mud whether it's militias or people they mean (the intent writings of the time confirm it's suppose to be people, yes but the words of the second amendment are the worst possible English as far as ambiguity) and further, just saying "arms" is even worse. It's amazing to me that no one has tried to ban guns saying that "arms" is satisfied by crossbows or some shit. However, "arms" needs to be combined with other wording to be clear that the Framers intended "arms" to mean "arms sufficient to defend against the best the government might abuse against citizens" so, my conclusion stands that the wording of the Constitution including the Second Amendment is absolute trash that would get an F for ambiguity in any basic essay-writing class.
It's clear this ambiguity was not because they were piss-poor writers. They were top-notch writers and they knew better. This was done on purpose, so they could spin it any way they wanted to get slave-states who were terrified of rights and some non-slave states who were afraid of the "mob" of their free citizens, to ratify the Constitution in the first place. See Bacon's Rebellion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon%27s_Rebellion
The Framer's knew their Constitution was a piece of shit full of holes, but it was the best they could put past the kind of people they needed to sign off on it, to make it actually become real. It's not clear, not at all, and it was supposed to be unclear. If it was clear, it never would have been ratified. That's because things having gotten worse is another modern lie: things were always like they are today. Nothing has changed. This starry-eyed rose-colored imagining that things were better then is just bread and circuses.
This post was edited by its author on .