[syntaxerrorsix]

Judicial review doesn't exit. We are allowing the SCOTUS to rule from the bench by our inaction.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Bren

All of the parts. That is the nature of constitutions and laws. Cases are written in detail to account for things that have already happened. Laws are written generally, to try to account for future possibilities. The higher the levle, the more general it is - the constitution being the highest level of all and being written appropriately for that level. In fact, nobody has managed to write one on par since, for the very reasons argued about here - because they try and make it more clear and specific, which leads to unforseen future problems. We only have forseeable future whiners who don't get what they want.

While I generally respect your opinion even when I disagree with it, this is patently wrong. The Bill of Rights is incredibly clear and specific. It was written in the language of the day, but not written in an unclear manner or vaguely.

Where is this vagueness?

Congress shall make no law

shall not be infringed

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law

shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall

In all criminal prosecutions

shall exceed twenty dollars

Excessive bail shall not be required

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Please point out where the Bill of Rights is vague.

Lets look at the main body of the COTUS:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Vague?

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of
twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who
shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be
chosen.

Vague?

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but
shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

Vague?

You get my point.

The COTUS is a legal document that is very specific. Men with an agenda have muddied the water.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix

And that is the power that doesn't exist. That leads to legislation from the bench and is the root of all of our problems in regards to the COTUS.

Does the Executive Office get to interpret it's powers? How about the Legislative Branch?

No.

The power doesn't exist. It destroys our checks and balances. It allows for Presidents to sway power towards his political ideology by selecting Justices that can now do what we so dread.

If States want the SCOTUS to have that power we have an amendment process.

Same with federal laws that affect the States. Not commerce or interstate travel but directly affect the states and it's people because once again, they are not granted any such powers by the COTUS. FBI, FDA, DoA? Not provided for. Sorry, the powers of the Federal government are quite clearly laid out and none account for such agencies.

So, to recap, you don't think the Judicial branch should be interpreting the Constitution or laws made under authority ostensibly granted by it.

You think we should vote on it as a referendum? Every law? Or what, if not that? I'm unclear here as to exactly what it is that you are proposing.

Or if you are just saying, "If I say a law is unconstitutional, then that is the final word, and I don't have to obey it", then just admit that.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

In regards to some areas of drug conspiracy and smuggling.....but this could not be further from the truth on the statement you make.

The Constitution is not vague about the fed's role in drug smuggling either. Article I Section 8

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Very clear and specific. Not vague at all.

Heroin is as easy to get in Chicago as a pack of gum from a store. The junkie going through withdrawal that is breaking into your house looking for items to pawn is doing so for money....not because his heroin is illegal by the government.

Any ideas as to why the junkie needs so much money to buy his heroin? Are poppies rare? How much was a fifth of whisky during prohibition, adjusted for inflation. Was there crime associated with acquiring it?

Why are cuban cigars so expensive? Cost of production in cuba where they drive 1950's cars?

Easy as a pack of gum? The WOD is working wonderfully.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

The Constitution is not vague about the fed's role in drug smuggling either. Article I Section 8



Very clear and specific. Not vague at all.



Any ideas as to why the junkie needs so much money to buy his heroin? Are poppies rare? How much was a fifth of whisky during prohibition, adjusted for inflation. Was there crime associated with acquiring it?

Why are cuban cigars so expensive? Cost of production in cuba where they drive 1950's cars?

Easy as a pack of gum? The WOD is working wonderfully.

The problem with the War on Drugs is the same as the problem with the War on Terror. We are trying to make both crimes when both should be looked at as threats to national security and dealt with accordingly.

[RC-RAMIE]

Originally Posted by series1811

The problem with the War on Drugs is the same as the problem with the War on Terror. We are trying to make both crimes when both should be looked at as threats to national security and dealt with accordingly.

So you want to ramp up the Federal Government involvement in the WOD?

[series1811]

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

So you want to ramp up the Federal Government involvement in the WOD?

No, just the opposite.

[RC-RAMIE]

Originally Posted by series1811

The problem with the War on Drugs is the same as the problem with the War on Terror. We are trying to make both crimes when both should be looked at as threats to national security and dealt with accordingly.

Originally Posted by series1811

No, just the opposite.

Clear it up for me if you can, what would change that would make government smaller by switching it from a crime to a "threat to national security"?

[series1811]

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

Clear it up for me if you can, what would change that would make government smaller by switching it from a crime to a "threat to national security"?

Treat it as espionage instead of a crime. Carlos Lehder was a perfect example.

Lehder, an early member of the Medillin Cartel, was a dedicated communist and advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government. His primary motivation in shipping massive amounts of cocaine to the U.S., by his own admission, was that it would be more effective than an atomic bomb in destroying America.

Why did we look at that as a crime and devote millions of dollars in trying to prove it as a crime? There were much cheaper ways of dealing with Lehder available to us.

So, why did we do it and why do we continue to do it?

[syntaxerrorsix]

Originally Posted by series1811

So, to recap, you don't think the Judicial branch should be interpreting the Constitution or laws made under authority ostensibly granted by it.

You think we should vote on it as a referendum? Every law? Or what, if not that? I'm unclear here as to exactly what it is that you are proposing.

Or if you are just saying, "If I say a law is unconstitutional, then that is the final word, and I don't have to obey it", then just admit that.

I think that if we are to grant a power to a branch of the Federal government the States should ratify it. Currently Judicial Review as we have accepted it is not a power of the Judicial Branch of government. Those laws and interpretations belonged to the States.

I don't think that ANY government should have the power to interpret it's own limits and power.

To your second point, yes, an unconstitutional law or order is invalid and I believe it's our DUTY to right it.

[syntaxerrorsix]

Originally Posted by series1811

Treat it as espionage instead of a crime. Carlos Lehder was a perfect example.

Lehder, an early member of the Medillin Cartel, was a dedicated communist and advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government. His primary motivation in shipping massive amounts of cocaine to the U.S., by his own admission, was that it would be more effective than an atomic bomb in destroying America.

Why did we look at that as a crime and devote millions of dollars in trying to prove it as a crime? There were much cheaper ways of dealing with Lehder available to us.

So, why did we do it and why do we continue to do it?

Take his power away. Make it legal.

[certifiedfunds]

While the libertarian in me believes people should be free to destroy themselves, I agree with Series1811 here.

The U.S. Government has the full Constitutional authority to regulate the import of products into the country. I don't think an influx of foreign cocaine is good for our society and it is within the purview of the feds to control the importation. If that determination is made it should be done with a degree of resolution that will make it successful, or not done at all. The U.S. government is powerful enough to stop it if desired.

Likewise, the federal government should protect U.S. methamphetamine manufacturers from unfair trade practices of the Mexican cartels.

[syntaxerrorsix]

In case anyone was interested this isn't a new debate. It's simply contrary to what a lot you were taught and what you see today. For those that feel it's the Judicial systems job to review law I say put it to the amendment process. If not it should be left to the State courts to decide as most Federal laws and agencies are unconstitutional to begin with and the SCOTUS isn't lawfully allowed to interpret change or alter the BOR.

Lew Rockwell Judicial Review v Constitutional Government

Mises.Org Taking the Constitution Away From the Courts

The Heritage Foundation The Transformation of Judicial Review in America

[syntaxerrorsix]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

While the libertarian in me believes people should be free to destroy themselves, I agree with Series1811 here.

The U.S. Government has the full Constitutional authority to regulate the import of products into the country. I don't think an influx of foreign cocaine is good for our society and it is within the purview of the feds to control the importation. If that determination is made it should be done with a degree of resolution that will make it successful, or not done at all. The U.S. government is powerful enough to stop it if desired.

Likewise, the federal government should protect U.S. methamphetamine manufacturers from unfair trade practices of the Mexican cartels.

I agree with his international point as well. After all that sort of trade and commerce is the purview of the Federal Government However I've not seen a lot of success in regards to the WoD. We already legitimately fight that war and we are losing. At what point do we change tactics I don't know.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix

I think that if we are to grant a power to a branch of the Federal government the States should ratify it. Currently Judicial Review as we have accepted it is not a power of the Judicial Branch of government. Those laws and interpretations belonged to the States.

I don't think that ANY government should have the power to interpret it's own limits and power.

To your second point, yes, an unconstitutional law or order is invalid and I believe it's our DUTY to right it.

So, if as a law enforcement officer, I think that the law against intercepting wireless cell phone transmissions (Title III), which are passing right through my body, and which I feel the Constitution puts these conversations in my lawful possession, is unconstiutional, it is okay for me to start listening in on these conversations already in my possession?

Or, is this law constitutional because you feel it is, regardless of what I feel?

[syntaxerrorsix]

Originally Posted by series1811

So, if as a law enforcement officer, I think that the law against intercepting wireless cell phone transmissions (Title III), which are passing right through my body, and which I feel the Constitution puts these conversations in my lawful possession, is unconstiutional, it is okay for me to start listening in on these conversations already in my possession?

Or, is this law constitutional because you feel it is, regardless of what I feel?

You continue to miss the point, but I suppose if you can listen to phone transmission as they enter your body more power to you.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix

You continue to miss the point, but I suppose if you can listen to phone transmission as they enter your body more power to you.

So, you're okay with me violating Title III and listening to your phone calls because I think the federal law against that is unconstitutional?

[syntaxerrorsix]

Originally Posted by series1811

So, you're okay with me violating Title III and listening to your phone calls because I think the federal law against that is unconstitutional?

This is the point you miss. The US Government doesn't constitutionally own the airways just as the FCC isn't a constitutional agency.

My phone call on my cell phone bounced of Verizon towers should be the private property of the company that funds it's transmission and myself. Therefore it would be our responsibility to reliably secure communications or to accept the fact that they could be intercepted.

Two things are going on here, either concepts discussed here are too advanced for you or you are being deliberately obtuse.

If you're so comfortable in your false construct of how things currently work despite how they are supposed to work fine.

You are part of the problem, you and folks like you are responsible for the massive over reach of federal powers because you accept them at face value and don't questions the motive or legality of it.

You're a good slave.

[Bren]

syntaxerrorsix, let's say a guy with no particular legal training or experience decided that he could understand the law better than the entire body of American lawyers going back to the beginning of the country and he approached that as if it was silly for anyone to doubt he was the greater authority. Let's say that was you, for example. Would he expect people to take him seriously?

I would expect people to regard him as a crackpot or conspiracy nut and dismiss what he has to say.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix

My phone call on my cell phone bounced of Verizon towers should be the private property of the company that funds it's transmission and myself.

And, by what authority do you send your transmissions through my body? What if I think it is a violation of my rights?

Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix

Two things are going on here, either concepts discussed here are too advanced for you or you are being deliberately obtuse.

I got a 3.5 in Federal Jurisdiction and Consitutional Law I and a 3.0 in Con Law II in law school.

How did you do?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Bren

syntaxerrorsix, let's say a guy with no particular legal training or experience decided that he could understand the law better than the entire body of American lawyers going back to the beginning of the country and he approached that as if it was silly for anyone to doubt he was the greater authority. Let's say that was you, for example. Would he expect people to take him seriously?

I would expect people to regard him as a crackpot or conspiracy nut and dismiss what he has to say.

You mean the people with a financial interest in scrambling things up?

It doesn't take a lawyer to read the founding documents or the founders writings about them. It isn't some special code that only lawyers can possibly understand. Lets be honest, becoming a lawyer is about one of the most common things a person can do today.

The highest lawyer in the land just effectively re-wrote a law before him to find it constitutional and did it for political purposes. Consider me unimpressed.

[syntaxerrorsix]

Originally Posted by Bren

syntaxerrorsix, let's say a guy with no particular legal training or experience decided that he could understand the law better than the entire body of American lawyers going back to the beginning of the country and he approached that as if it was silly for anyone to doubt he was the greater authority. Let's say that was you, for example. Would he expect people to take him seriously?

I would expect people to regard him as a crackpot or conspiracy nut and dismiss what he has to say.

Don't take me seriously, or my links from doctors and lawyers and institutes dedicated to preserving liberty. Just sit back and complain about how the your rights are violated by the government and the people in charge of it. Do nothing useful.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by Bren

syntaxerrorsix, let's say a guy with no particular legal training or experience decided that he could understand the law better than the entire body of American lawyers going back to the beginning of the country and he approached that as if it was silly for anyone to doubt he was the greater authority. Let's say that was you, for example. Would he expect people to take him seriously?

I would expect people to regard him as a crackpot or conspiracy nut and dismiss what he has to say.

Although he does make a great example.

Perpetually, but ineffectually, angry.

[syntaxerrorsix]

Originally Posted by series1811

And, by what authority do you send your transmissions through my body? What if I think it is a violation of my rights?

The same authority that allows you to breath my exhale. Just as damaging but alas uncontrollable.

Originally Posted by series1811

I got a 3.5 in Federal Jurisdiction and Consitutional Law I and a 3.0 in Con Law II in law school.

How did you do?

And in all that somehow you missed the part about judicial review and it's controversy?

Get your money back.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix

And in all that somehow you missed the part about judicial review and it's controversy?

Yeah, I did. But, we didn't have the internet back then, so none of us knew as much about the law as people do now.

(Thanks to the internet, I am an expert in seventeen different fields that I had no formal training in.)