“A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President."
Broad examples of unconstitutional laws..
I agree with this completely. If more Americans understood this critical fact, perhaps we would be in better shape as a nation with regard to individual liberty. The people need to realize that the founders were wise beyond their years. They left ways in which the states and the people could nullify unconstitutional and immoral laws. A jury can nullify a law or act too, by the application of the original intent behind the bill of rights. In other words, a person could be pulled into federal court for a violation of the National Firearms Act and a jury of peers could find the defendant not guilty on the basis that the NFA directly violates the 2nd amendment. Furthermore, they could find that the NFA places an unlawful tax on a protected inherent right which is also unconstitutional. Just one example of many.
States also can't be forced to cooperate with NFA, just last year 3 more officially withdrew their 90% share of LEO resources from enforcing any new implementation.
Missouri went all the way and banned any cooperation with any federal gun law that is not on the State's books. This is working as the Feds and the silver taking LEOs are quite upset with Missouri as they are being forced into breaking all sorts of contracts with the AFT.
Effectively forcing the ATF to either put 10 times more resources into Missouri to enforce their laws or abandon the state all together.
@monorprise Exactly. I agree with everything you said. States can even up their resolve to protect their citizens by ordering the arrest of any federal agent caught enforcing such laws or acts as nullified by the state. Elected sheriffs would do this well in many places. It would obviously get ugly but the state would be well within its right to do so. Frankly I think this is the next step toward restoring and preserving liberty.
@PositiveFlight Arresting federal agents thou possible Is what I call interposition. Confusingly people get interposition and nullification mixed up.
Regardless that measure to actively arrest federal usurpation of our rights would put the State into a military conflict with the federal goverment.
This only happened a few times in our history:
1: The first the State of Ohio backed own peacefully.
2: The 2nd time most family called the nullification crisis of 1833 the State of South Carolina came to a compromise resulting in the effective reducing of the disputed tariff of abomination and backing down.
3: The 3rd time the Civil war broke out.
it nearly happened again in the 1960s however the States in question backed down too quickly
@PositiveFlight If we are going to actively defend our rights again we would be better off being assholes about it and forcing the states controlled by those opposed to our rights to bankroll everything. To basically make ourself money pits for them to sink enormous amounts of their hard earned resources into controlling for no gain.
A 2nd civil war no matter how it is fought might never end and could result in millions of innocents dead.
If the far left wants slaves then let them make slaves of themselfs first in the efforts to enslave others first. Before you attempt to make their efforts to command said slaves dangerous.
I wish everyone knew this. Then again, there are those who disdain the Constitution and think it's out of date. Funny, though, those are the people who want to restrict, not expand, rights. They don't respect the rights of others.
The people who disdain the Constituiton do not wish people to know the truth about its nature as reviled in this case.
Because they want an unlimited goverment not the consent of the governed much less great freedom which you might expect should the other 2 oath taking branches and levels of goverment be required to all agree an act is constitutional.
As demonstrated in this case, that is why even when they themselfs site the case as justification for the court's power OVER the constituent they consistently omit the fact that the Court thought Marbury was entitled to the writ.
That it was in fact the elected Executive NOT the court which nullify the act as unconstitutional and the court was FORCED to acknowledge that fact.
Opinion
11Opinion
Yes, Nullification... it happens all the time, a common example is weed. Federal law says it is illegal but states do whatever the hell they want, which is fine.
It should be used more when the federal government tries to do things it has no business doing.
This is why sheriff's are awesome as around here, they will not enforce federal laws... if they disagree with them, after all they've been told not to arrest and detain illegals, so if someone commits a federal crime only, they apply the same logic to it. Naw, we aren't going to arrest them, cause you told us to not enforce federal laws.
The best time was when a sheriff, refused to allow their jails to hold criminals that the feds arrested, nope... not here.
Something people don't think about is there isn't a lot of federal jails, so they use local ones to temporarily hold people until transport and if locals refuse, they have to figure something else out.
When it comes to rights, things are different than privilege's. This is why it is dumb when libs compare Gun control to drivers licenses, they are comparing a right to a privilege.
It is also why, some area's... DUI check points can be avoided, you don't have to go through them but doing so means you give up the privilege of driving as that is not protected by the constitution.
Which I can see how that works, since it isn't a right... it is not protected by the constitution, you can refuse, they can't force you, but doing so you forfeit your privilege. As you agree to these things when you get a drivers license.
It is a very clear line between a right and non right but many people like to think of them as the one and the same.
It is why I often say, the exact same requirements to register to vote, should also apply to buy a gun... after all if voting is a right and so secure there is no fraud, then libs should have no issues with a voter registration being used to buy a gun.
I don't agree DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional as there is no clause in the Federal or I dare say state Constitution that forbid them. Indeed the very idea of such is rather silly given States can and do still outlaw alcohol.
Remember what nullification is:
Nullification is simply the refusal to cooperate with the enforcement of an act an oath taking individual finds unconstitutional. If you happen to be a legislator that means not passing any law to fund or support it. If you happen to be an executive it means not giving any orders to carry out any act to support it. If you happen to be a judiciary (including both jury member and Judge) it means finding anyone charged with violating said act to be innocent regardless.
The default position in our system of goverment is liberty which taken too far can indeed lead to anarchy. However such anarchy would require all 3 branches of the Federal Goverment to conspire against the states such as they have done on DUI check points in enforcing the Court's claim of jurisdiction over the enforcement of State domestic laws.
Hence the real problem with DUI check points being unconstitutional is not that the check points are legitimate uses of power but rather their prohibition are a dangerous federal conspiracy of power against the people's right to vote with their ballots and their feet.
Modern courts, judges, and politicians who like to use them for political cover tend to claim the Court has the power to define the Constitution "forcing their hand".
In doing so they overlook 1 critical fact as illustrated by this 1 critical line:
"It is, then, the opinion of the Court [that Marbury has a] right to the commission; a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy."
The fact is Marbury never got his writ, as the court later explained the court even thou they thought he had a right the writ. Under a Constitutional system of checks and balances the court DOES NOT have the power to force the executive to give him such a writ.
As such the Court does NOT have the only word on the Constitutions, even if their word is the last in the process. The other elected branches and levels of Goverment take the same oath and each independently wield the same power.
As such the court did not nullify the act but rather recognized the executive in the form of James Madison did.
Who decides if a law is repugnant to the Constitution? The Supreme Court of the United States, that's who. So, no, none of those things you listed were, because SCOTUS decided they weren't.
Of course, the current Republican SCOTUS may well decide that they are, despite the decades or centuries of precedent they all promised to respect, but don't be surprised if We the People tell them to stuff their 18th century mindset.
One further point: Chief Justice Marshall was essentially establishing the right of the Supreme Court to make those decisions despite that not being one of their enumerated powers in the constitution. (Also, I believe Congress is entitled to pass laws that specifically exclude judicial review, if they so choose.)
@Juxtapose, don’t entertain this foreign piece of shit. Every country he’s been a part of has gotten its ass kicked by the US. He’s just bitter.
don’t stop believin’
If you ever made an argument that had merit, I might consider it.
You are a government sycophant. You do not believe in freedom. You believe in the right of pedophile psychopaths to rule over people rather than people self-determining how they live their lives.
Obviously not the court thought Marbuy was entitled to the writ,
"It is, then, the opinion of the Court [that Marbury has a] right to the commission; a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy."
The fact is Marbury never got his writ, as the court later explained the court even thou they thought he had a right the writ.
Under a Constitutional system of checks and balances the court DOES NOT have the power to force the executive to give him such a writ.
As such the Court does NOT have the only word on the Constitutions, even if their word is the last in the process. The other elected branches and levels of Goverment take the same oath and each independently wield the same power.
As such the court did not nullify the act but rather recognized the executive in the form of President Thomas Jefferson via his Secretary of State James Madison (Who also happen to write the same Constitution) did, and the court had no power to do anything about it.
This was a key feature of our system of goverment designed to insure goverment by consent of the governed. All parties involved had to agree an act was Constitutional or the action simply didn't take place.
The Federal Court could NOT make the executive Thomas Jefferson agree.
@monorprise That's very interesting, but it seems to me that you're arguing more against @Juxtapose's position than mine.
By the time a law gets to be considered by the Supreme Court, it must have been thought constitutional by the legislature and the executive because the former passed it and the latter signed it into law. Right?
SCOTUS doesn't have the "only word" on whether a law is constitutional, but it does have the final word (which is all I claimed).
Because of that power, for two centuries it was considered vital that every Supreme Court Justice was acceptable to a vast majority of the Senate. (RGB, for example, was elected 96-3, John Roberts 78–22).
Abandoning that precedent for political power is a major reason 58% of the population now disapprove of the court, 16 points up on two years ago and twice as many as 20 years ago.
@goaded I agree with @Juxtapose that the court having the only word on the Constitution would require a revolution. As such unchecked power would make the court un-elected and unaccountable court's 5 member majority Oligarch OVER the Constitution.
Your overlooking what actually happened in this case and thus also the other 2 branches and levels consent/ involvement required.
The previous executive had already signed the act in question it was the new executive who thought it unconstitutional. Just like it was the new legislator who refused to provide funding for it, and in other cases involving the States on like the Alien and Sedition acts the State legislators and governed who refused to support it.
So no the consent of the executive is an ongoing requirement as is in most cases the consent of the legislators in the form of their funding. Dito the States where they are involved.
This was the whole point of how our system was designed to work as the objective is never a reliable goverment but reliable liberty.
@monorprise Once again: Nobody is saying SCOTUS has the "only" word on the constitution.
Not @Juxtapose, not me, and not you. We all (and the government) agree that it has the final word: the ability to strike down laws as unconstitutional.
Like you say, the executive can refuse to enforce a law, and the legislature can choose not to fund enforcement. Any one of the three branches can stop a law from being enforced (but SCOTUS at least has to have a good argument that the law is unconstitutional).
@goaded None of the parties require a particular good argument for the people alone to the extent we have a say are the judges of said arguments. (They regularly don't have good arguments)
Nor is it simply the 3 oath taking branches of the Federal goverment which have a say but the oath taking branches of the States have the same say wherever they are involved, which is generally the case in issues directly effecting we the people.
Nice cherry picking, retard. As usual, you ignore the first half of the second amendment: "A well-regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state" is the half you ALWAYS ignore. That's the part you Trumptards always ignore, because you are not educated enough to even be alive, let alone what it means. Not even going to dignify the rest of the4 post with a response, you belly rubbing school shooter living fuckhead.
Everyone with a positive IQ knows that amendment was meant for the militia, i. e. the police and military, to have the right to bear arms.
Jury Nullification is a vastly underused exercise of rights.
@joeldalton Jury nullification is a wonderful right of the Common law system.
We Americans however also have executive and legislative nullification at the federal and State level.
Today for example Federal laws on pot, gun, real ID, are all being nullified by significant numbers of states. So many states have over the last decades repealing against pot, the Feds having long been unable to enforce it in most of the union are now talking about repealing the act all together.
American are only starting to do the same thing on guns.
An argument could even be made about national parks outside of D. C. or territories, as the provision in the Constitution for federal ownership inside of states seems to be limited to forts (military installations), ports, and support buildings purchased from the states with the consent of legislatures thereof (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17).
I would agree with that, as would a great many angry westerns that have had much if not most of their State's land and resources effectively denied them along with lot of their freedom to use the neighboring lands.
On the account that the Federal tyrants in black robes can claim jurisdiction over said acts on the possibility of it effecting their precious lands.
It's like the Bible, whatever you want to ban or justify there's a passage to match. America is held hostage by the morals of a time they still burnt witches.
Yes. Those evil Christians with their do gooding and loving their enemies and loving their neighbors as themselves. They must be stopped.
We should shove all these people with their over active consciences into ovens like Hitler did with the Jews.
Christian nationalism, whatever that is, is truly the scourge of our times.
@Exterminatore You do know that it's referring to the people who want to shove Jews and Muslims into gas chambers, right?
@purplepoppy Actually what is being said recognized in this case by the court about the nature of our Federal Constitutional system and thus the protection of our liberty is quite profound.
In summery all parties in their respective capacity must agree an act of Goverment is Constitutional for it to proceed NOT just the court.
We know this because Marbury never got the writ to which the Court and legislator believed he was entitled to.
The Constitution is not merely supreme it is not exclusively held in 1 person or group of persons hands.
As a non- American, could someone please explain why “shall not be
infringed” is absolute and non-negotiable. But “well regulated Militia” can be disregarded?
Well regulated - meaning operating well.
The common man is the militia here. Militia are non professional soldiers. A major reason behind the right to bear arms is to carry out the duties of a militia. According to the founding fathers writings they considered the common man to be the militia and wanted him armed well enough to be able to fight on a modern battle field.
The militia acts of 1792 and 1794 mandated every able bodied male own a rifle, ammo a knapsack and other equipment common to the soldier.
Well regulated is disregarded by both the federal and state governments who consider the national guard to be the militia. They are not. They are formally trained and equipped. It says US Army on their uniform. The founding fathers considered a large standing army “the bane” of liberty.
You know what the best thing about living in a country where you can own guns is? You can shoot back.
Yes, I know, I know. The mass shootings. The solution is simple. Exercise your rights to keep and bear arms and shoot back.
@Exterminatore beautifully answered man!
@Exterminatore
Do you believe today’s America is what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they choose their words?
Well regulated as you understand it does not mean to limit or to regulate, in historical context that meant to have a well functioning militia.
@Exterminatore The 2nd amendments wording makes more sense if your afraid congress would abuse Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16. As such it basically strips congress's power to disarm the State's militia.
The state's regard their entire male population as part of their unorganized militia which historically what happens.
@orally
I do not. I don’t think the founding fathers would have considered porn free speech and condoned sex change operations.
No, America now is not what they envisioned.
@Exterminatore
We are talking about guns my friend.
Do you believe today’s American gun culture is what the founding fathers envisioned?
It doesn’t matter if it’s today or in the past. The founding fathers of America envisioned the common every day people to be able to be as well armed as military and police for two major reasons… 1. So their government could never become a dictatorship and therefore place citizens as subjects. 2. It is an inherent right of all people (American and non-American alike) to be able to protect oneself and family from tyranny and harm. So to answer your question, no I don’t think what you see currently in America is what the founding fathers envisioned. What you see currently going on in America is that the peoples rights to arms are being infringed upon with invalid laws. If you were to truly see what the founding fathers envisioned, anyone who wanted could go purchase a fully automatic machine gun or grenade launcher just as the military currently has.
@orally
I know what you’re talking about. You’re trying to say the founding fathers could not have conceived of automatic and semi auto weapons.
I’m saying: nor could they have conceived of gay marriage, trannies, porn as free speech, or “environment inequality.”
The premise of your point is foolish to the max. Your speaking about men who took up arms and revolted against the most powerful empire in the world at that time. 1/3 rd of those living in the colonies were loyalists, 1/3 rd didn’t care, and 1/3 rd were revolutionaries. So a max of 1/3 rd volunteered to revolt, and your asking if I think they would have envisioned gun culture? Men who participated in an armed and extended revolt? Really? Of course they would!
I already cited the militia acts of 1792 and 1794. Look them up on Google. They MANDATED all able bodied males be armed, and still you ask if this is what they would have envisioned? Your point is nullified.
You are only free to the extent you are not at the mercy of others and require no assistance from others. They did not say: “muskets are for the military, you can only be armed with pistols and swords.” That’s the same as saying “assault rifles are only for the military.” What do you think a militia does dear? Insult the enemy to death? Cry them to death?
Oh I know mass shooting scare your sensitive self so much you’d never exercise your rights and carry arms. Instead you want to take away everyone else’s guns and think your safe.
Freedom is for the strong, slavery and servitude are for the week. You display your weakness by your desire to limit what firearms can be owned or take them all together.
I say to you what the Spartans said to the Persians at Thermopylae: “molon labe.” Come take them if you want them. Come take them yourself, not through legislators and elected representatives and by voting them out.
Perhaps if stopped telling children they are descended from apes they would fear judgment in the next life and not murder.
@Exterminatore
LMAO.
You know, I asked you specifically because your first answer was thoughtful and informative. Notice you are the only one I responded to. I see now that was a mistake.
“Oh I know mass shooting scare your sensitive self so much you’d never exercise your rights and carry arms. Instead you want to take away everyone else’s guns and think your safe.” Did you really get all that from one simple question?
@orally
Then I must beg your pardon. I perceived you wrongly apparently, to be anti 2nd amendment. You used the words “gun culture” which is phrase usually used by detractors of the 2nd amendment and usually used by hippie and communist wanna be types.
Let me give you a more constructive answer since my first answer was rather sarcastic in tone.
I do think this is what the founding fathers envisioned. They favored liberty above all else and favored secondly the ability to ensure freedom.
2 quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
The only tool anyone has against tyranny is the ability to resist it. Without guns this is not possible.
Other quotes regarding the 2nd amendment:
A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington
Note, Washington defines the people there as the militia.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson also intended all to own arms.
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason
George Mason defined all the people as the militia.
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster
Webster here states his thoughts on bearing arms.
TBC
@orally
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee
Lee also defined the common man as the militia here.
The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams
Adams was quite adamant in his statement about possessing arms.
It must be understood that the British attempted to limit the owning of arms by the colonists. They had just finished fighting a lengthy war and greatly feared the power of government to be used tyrannically. They wanted to ensure the people always had the ability to resist tyranny.
The purpose of the Constitution was to limit the power of the federal government and define the rights of the states. However the Bill of Rights, which is comprised of the 1st 10 amendments of the Constitution also grants the rights to bear arms.
The Constitution can be altered by a 2/3rds vote of the states if I’m not mistaken. Those who oppose the 2nd Amendment would be wasting their time to alter the 2nd Amendment as the Bill of Rights also grants the right to keep and bear arms and that is inalterable.
I hope this was educational for you. I apologize if I misread your intentions by your inquiry.
Sure, in theory. In fact, if you ignore laws that are repugnant to the Constitution and the Feds decide to act you will find yourself compelled by force of arms to obey the repugnant laws or face punishment.
No, just found this out now.
Yes, legally it is true but in reality if the democrats like a law it does not matter if it is constitutional or not. To them the constitution is just a suggestion.
Be fair now. Both sides are equally guilty of this same thing. Trying to find loopholes. Upset when it doesn’t work that way for them.
@exitseven Your missing a key fact in this opinion Marbury NEVER got his writ. NOT because the Federal Court didn't think he was entitled but because the Federal court knew they couldn't force the executive in the form of Thomas Jefferson via his Sectary of state James Madison (who happen to write the same Constitution) to give it to him.
That all parties involved had to in fact agree it was constitutional or no action could happen.
This is the KEY fact about Not this Case but the nature of our Constitutional system James Madison had designed 16 years earlier. The default is the freedom that result from no action. NOT the presumption goverment must do what it leaders think is right.
But rather the presumption goverment may only do what all parties not just it's un-elected court agree is constitutional.
Yes. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution states the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and no states shall nullify what is in the Constitution.
Correct, but the constitution doesn’t limit peoples rights, it’s what keeps the federal government in check to preserve individual liberty. So the supremacy is really about placing restrictions on the federal government, and not the people or the states
The Supremacy clause and the 10th amendment have 1 thing in common, they both require the federal goverment to specifically and legitimately have a power in the Federal Constitution.
What this case Demonstrated (it does not proclaim anything that wasn't already true), is the meaning of said constitution is NOT in the hands of any 1 man or group of men regardless of outfit.
Rather this act demonstrated ALL parties together must agree in their respective capacities an act is constitutional.
It wasn't as such the court who first nullified the law granting Marbury his writ but rather the executive. The court simply recognized they could not force the executive to agree, thus Marbury never got his writ.
I don't know how the law works in America but it seems to me the government could just change the constitution. Checkmate!
@Juxtapose Exactly. Look at the ERA.
That requires the cooperation of 38+ states, its soo difficult that after 200+ years its only been done 27 times 11(including the 27th) of which were originally agreed to as Conditions to ratify the Constitution
@Juxtapose @Jamie05rhs The main problem with the amendment process it is in fact too easy as ERA and frankly the 14th Amendment demonstrate. Congress can pass an amendment which fails to get the required 3/4th of states to approve immediately and then just wait until enough State eventually agree selectively choosing only to accept ramification, not rejections or withdrawing of ramification.
Basically giving supporters an unlimited amount of time and tries and only needing to succeed once per state.
When ERA was proposed Congress at least had the decency to put a time limit on it, which is why it was never ratified as too many states rejected it right off the bad. (Frankly for good reason given the near unlimited power claimed by the unaccountable Federal court under similar language in other amendments).
By the time progressive had concentrated their money and votes in enough of the remaining states to get them to each one by one temporarily flip and ratify the amendments time limit ran out.
@Juxtapose The amendment process has been done that way, you might argue the Constitution of 1787 was only ever not amendment va convention. Althou it was itself created by such.
As far as process, the 14th amendment was defiantly rejected by the required number of states before Congress decided to ignore such rejection and allow them to keep voting until eventually they approval 1 time (never the same time) from 3/4ths of the states.
@monorprise You mean ratification.
@Jamie05rhs Yea sorry a bit dyslexic
No problem.
SCOTUS needs to rule on these laws before their constitutionality is decided.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions