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

[Methusala]

[quote='notsure' pid='141622' dateline='1299437854']

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.

Bingo, you just made my point. Those laws were held by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. That's how it's done. Not by people running around yelling "The sky is falling." So, do you like that process, or you don't like it? Up above, you complained about the Marbury v. Madison decision.

Thank you for an interesting post.

meth, u lost me. you said "We have good laws and we have bad laws, but we don't have unconstitutional laws." and I said "of course there are unconstitutional laws." and then gave some examples. I'm not sure how that proved your point of there not being unconsitutional laws. Am I misunderstanding your point of that statement.

M&M did open the the court to hear cases that the consitiution doesn't list as specific jurisdiction. they gave themselves that power of review. yea it's been hundreds of years, its not going to be overturned ever, but that is fact.

I have no problem with the process. It's the best we got. but I can't just accept that every law congress makes is proper on face value. sometimes civil disobedence in necessary, hell just to get standing to fight a shit law.

btw, who are you talking about when your talking about chicken little in a uniform???

my concern is the sovereingty of the states from the fed. I see the consititution originally as a direct way to hinder the groth of the fed and keep the state (the local govt) strong so the fed could never become like the crown that we had just battled for independance from.

Yes, I agree that I introduced some ambiguity into the discussion by saying "we don't have unconstitutional laws" and I apologize for doing so. You are right.

What I should have said is that people are free to challenge any law's constitutionality by a process that has been in place for hundreds of years. We don't need a revolution to do it, and those who argue or imply that it is something that has to do with the election or defeat of any one or group of congressmen or senators is simply wrong.

Challenging the constitutionality of any laws passed by Congress is a function of the judicial process, not the legislative process or the electoral process.

So those who don colonial outfits and march around with signs about allegedly unconstitutional laws either don't understand the process or are deliberately attempting to mislead others as to the process to be followed.

I'm sure there are many highly competent constitutional lawyers around Washington who would be glad to accept employment to handle their cases. :B