What you wrote was almost entirely nonsensical, what evidence did you think you provided?
Let me just shorthand it to you from your own 'conclusions'.
Sure.
We sure didn't, you quoted an out of context piece from a law textbook. I was unaware that such things were considered binding legal precedent, but I'm not a lawyer. I do happen to know of a whole bunch of lawyers that make up the supreme court however, and they've issued lots of rulings over the years that absolutely show it should not be literally interpreted, and in fact never has been.
So really right there your argument has been destroyed.
Wrong. did you miss the Marbury v. madison case buddy? I think you did. You only skimmed it. Also explain how anything before or after the quote invalidates the argument? Here READ this, not skim.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 - Supreme Court 1803
Marshall argued that the "distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation." Marshall continued:
It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act
. Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it
. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
For Marshall, the idea that an unconstitutional act of legislature could "bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect" was "an absurdity too gross to be insisted on." Thus, Marshall concluded that congressional legislation contrary to the federal Constitution is null and void and cannot be enforced by a court of law.
Goodbye "opinion" and recognize Supreme court ruling. You would have to be an idiot to assume that the Constitution wasn't the supreme law or that the above from a Supreme Court Justice is of no effect.
I found this to be interesting as it directly contradicts your previous point. If the constitution is to be literally interpreted then there is no leeway to 'liberally construe' anything.
You miss it. It is to be literally interpreted, however if it is to be construed, it is to be liberally construed in the favor of the people. No other direction is provided.
16 American Jurisprudence 2d Sec. 97
"Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property"
"Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary"
Great so this is invalid because
you say so. Sorry, you are going to have to prove that the Constitution is not a contract for the benefit of the people. You simply cannot do that. Your argument is destroyed before you even start.
That's not what the 9th amendment says. At all.
Prove otherwise. Saying it means nothing. Supply evidence to contrary. You cannot do this either.
Not exactly, it just restates what was already said earlier.
You'd have to be a moron, or think the founders to be morons to repeat themselves in consecutive amendments.
None of which is at issue here.
Of course it is. All of it is at the issue of
jurisdiction. You simply fail in understanding that simple concept.
By your definition of infringement any restriction whatsoever is unconstitutional. This is clearly, facially false and has been shown to be so by any one of at this point probably hundreds of supreme court decisions.
That wasn't
my definition of infringement. It is the
literal definition.
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
16 American Jurisprudence 2d Sec. 155
"Since the Constitution is intendant for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement (again!) by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgement of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment."
Irrespective of their opinion! BTW, American Jurisprudence is the standard of study for judges. So to imply that they carry no weight would be idiotic. But you've always displayed contempt for the rule of law so thats not surprising.
Your argument relies on a bad assumption, attempts to base its legal footing on a LAW TEXTBOOK, and then draws absurd conclusions. The main difficulty in responding to your argument was unraveling your chain of logic because it was frankly pretty incoherent.
I imagine anyone who regards the Bill of Rights as privileges of the people would hold your ignorant view. Yet it's quite clear the intent was to limit government. I don't expect you to understand, really, because that would be in direct conflict with your political allegiance. Sorry buddy, but rights are not to be at the whim of the majority or judicial activism.
What I found most telling about your response was that of the 9th amendment. Could you clarify this for us? Cause you only made your opinion known and didn't supply any facts or definitions to the contrary.
Facebook
Twitter