Johnny S. Clarke & Lisa Straub- young Ohio couple murdered

[notsure]

While you took a hot bath, I had a nice hot shower.
And a good thing, too.
Because it looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I am amazed by this malarkey now in vogue, about us living under myriad laws which have to be reversed because they violate the Constitution.

Just because some people dress up and run around wearing colonial clothing doesn't mean they know anything about how the Constitution has been interpreted and applied over the years to test each and every law which has been passed.

Since Marbury v. Madison, it has been held that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of whether or not laws which have been passed are in conflict with the Constitution, and they have done their job. That's what they do. People have been taking their complaints to the Supreme Court, about whether or not laws are Constitutional ever since. In addition, if you think a law violates your rights under the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, and cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you, as ruled in the Gideon case.

Just because some unemployed plumber here in Toledo yells "Socialist" after reading one book he found in his attic doesn't mean that he knows what he's talking about. Along with individual freedoms, the constitutional expressly states that it was written to, among other things, provide for the common welfare. These people in their pseudo-colonial uniforms are like a group of Rip Van Winkles who seemingly have just woken up, missed reading about all the cases taken to the Supreme Court over hundreds of years, which have tested and determined which laws are constitutional and which are not, and are running around yelling "Save the Constitution" like a bunch of ninnies, IMHO.

They are the "sheeple" to which you have alluded elsewhere.

We have good laws and we have bad laws, but we don't have unconstitutional laws. This is a myth.

Nevertheless, I respect their right to think otherwise. They are free to take all these cases back to the Supreme Court all over again. Let them.

As for the laws which now require people who seek the help of the courts to provide evidence (DNA) in support of their paternity cases, there is nothing new in the concept that states and courts can require parties to prove their cases, based upon the current state of scientific knowledge. There is a case for that too:

"Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." Frye v. United States."

By the way, I don't mean to imply that you, ShitStorm, are one of those unthinking ninnies. It is obvious that you have done a lot of thinking about this subject and I admire the extent of your reasoning and argument. I just think that you are making a mistake buying into the notion advanced by that group.

I will have to stand on the side of shit

A. In marbury v. madison the sup court gave themselves the power to be the final review and if memory serves (its been many years since I read the case...the whole fucking case) they made themselves the final review of State law! State law! States have their own supreme courts to deal with it, but no! The feds can do it better. In the consititution the three branches of govt are plainly explained and their powers are listed. these powers are not vague, they are plain black and white. Read the section covering the powers of the supreme court. Again I haven't looked in a long time, but the sup court covers cases between states, maritime case etc. They aren't the supreme judges of the country. just a court to deal with the cases that either state courts would have a bias and conflict if they adjudicated the case or cases that would never fall in the jurisdiction of one of the states. Note also that the congress can pass law on only a very narrow set of issues including interstate commerce or health and welfare (talk about vague). If you review most fed laws it will have what is called a jurisditional hook. a jursidicitional hook includes the interestate commerce or health and welfare language in an effort to 1. make it consititutional, and 2. broaden their powers.

Second a lawyer is only appointed in criminal cases, that involve a penalty of prison and only from the point of arraignment on to conviction (and you get one appeal for free). This doesn't include civil. when the aclu brings cases to challenge the constitutionality of a law it is through civil court. ONly when it defends a person for a crime that is unconsitutional do they get that free attorney.

Frye v. us was regarding polygraphs which are not allowed as evidence at trial.

Last: of course there are unconstitutional laws. Jim crow laws were held unconsititutional. criminal laws regarding inter-racial marriage. unconstitutional. Brown v. board ring a bell. state v. lopez (fed law for gun-free school zones) held unconstitutional (b4 you shit, the court said that making such a law falls to the states, not the federal govt. to get their nose into state schools and state criminal codes etc.) Those are the ones that jump out at me. There are others.

The point is our society only elects people to represent us in maintaining our society. They only hold the power that we give them, nothing more. When they go beyond that power it is up to that same society to reel them back in (usually through the civil court {where you have to hire and attorney, or get the aclu to take the case}). If the elected officials cant be reeled back in, and they continue to fail to maintain the society the individuals are then left to survive any way they can. why, because there is no more society. or to put another way society (through it's elected agents) breached the social contract with the individuals in that society.