Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 53

Thread: The Law Is The Law?

  1. #1

    Default The Law Is The Law?

    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?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    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.

  4. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    4,244

    Default

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

  5. #4

    Default 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.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus View Post
    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.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin

    "Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of his country ... by knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them."
    ~Chief-Justice John Jay, 1777


    U.S. Constitution

  7. #6

    Default

    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.
    ---
    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."

    - Voltaire

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus View Post
    Please point to the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to determine what chemicals may be ingested?

    What gives the constitution legitimate authority?

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian in Maryland View Post
    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.
    ---
    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."

    - Voltaire

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Kennedy View Post
    What gives the constitution legitimate authority?
    "We The People."
    ---
    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."

    - Voltaire

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drpiotrowski View Post
    "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"?

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drpiotrowski View Post
    "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?

  13. #12

    Default

    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?

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Kennedy View Post
    What gives the constitution legitimate authority?
    Nothing.
    The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state.

    Congressman Ron Paul 5/22/07

  15. #14

    Default

    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.
    ---
    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."

    - Voltaire

  16. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    4,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drpiotrowski View Post
    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.

  17. #16

    Default

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

  18. #17

    Default

    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

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drpiotrowski View Post
    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.
    Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

  20. #19

    Default

    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.
    *************************************


    Matthew Chapters 23 + 24

  21. #20

    Default

    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
    Become a Revolutioni.st! Support the DIRIGIBLEST CANDIDATE! And stop the Slander!

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Kennedy View Post
    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.
    Become a Revolutioni.st! Support the DIRIGIBLEST CANDIDATE! And stop the Slander!

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Kennedy View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Jeremiah; 01-12-2008 at 05:52 AM.
    "The solution to our problems is not more paternalism, laws, decrees, and controls, but the restoration of liberty and free enterprise, the restoration of incentives, to let loose the tremendous constructive energies of 300 million Americans." Henry Hazlitt

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Kennedy View Post
    What gives the constitution legitimate authority?
    This guy is a troll. Stop feeding him.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theczar1776 View Post
    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.
    Follow my blog at http://tirelessagorist.blogspot.com/
    Current commentary from a libertarian/voluntaryist/agorist perspective.

    Consistent Candidate - with Chainspell

    2007
    Ron Paul Landslide by Jake Kellen - Constitution Mix

    The vision of the helpful and protective state is the most pervasive and counter-productive ideology in the world today.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Kennedy View Post
    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.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theczar1776 View Post
    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.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Kennedy View Post
    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.

    You're a backer of
    Lavabit's Dark Mail Initiative


    by Ladar Levison

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    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.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VoluntaryMan View Post
    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...

    You're a backer of
    Lavabit's Dark Mail Initiative


    by Ladar Levison

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by misterbig View Post
    This guy is a troll. Stop feeding him.
    Note the thread title. This is evolving into an interesting discussion.
    Follow my blog at http://tirelessagorist.blogspot.com/
    Current commentary from a libertarian/voluntaryist/agorist perspective.

    Consistent Candidate - with Chainspell

    2007
    Ron Paul Landslide by Jake Kellen - Constitution Mix

    The vision of the helpful and protective state is the most pervasive and counter-productive ideology in the world today.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •