Comments on: “Unconstitutional Law” is an Oxymoron

By: Ernest Young

Ernest Young — Sun, 22 May 2011 22:36:39 +0000

Even if a law is constitutional to whom does it apply? Not people! Why? Supreme court said in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, people are not subject to law for they are the authors of law.

Law is fiction. To bring a action under the rules of civil procedure a complaint must be well grounded in fact, not in fiction and a answer must also be well grounded in fact.

If your complaint is well grounded in fact there can be no answer well grounded in fact. So? You win automatically. If they answer they are in contempt of court for claiming a untruth as a fact. If no answer if filed you win by default and have a right to judgment by default or a right to summary judgment for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

By: farmer

farmer — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 04:09:21 +0000

the big question is- where does the federal government get any enforcement power? what if we are somehow presumed to have contracted into that jurisdiction?

By: Amer1can

Amer1can — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 03:06:08 +0000

"LIKE!"

By: London Bridges Are Falling Down! – Pensacola Tenth Amendment Center

London Bridges Are Falling Down! – Pensacola Tenth Amendment Center — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:11:09 +0000

[...] â€œUnconstitutional Lawâ€ is an Oxymoron (Full Article Here) [...]

By: Larry McNeilis

Larry McNeilis — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 04:09:11 +0000

'We The People' can choose to excercise their duty to resist the usurpations of the Federal Gov't, regardless of which branch or branches are committing the usurpations by excercising their right of jury nullification.

A single juror can halt the Govt's attempt at overreaching by refusing to convict anyone charge with violating the 'law' they are charged with breaking! Since "Federal actions taken outside the scope of federal power are not laws…the states and their people are not bound to obey them", the proper action for jurors to take when the States fail to intercede and the gov't tries to convict someone of violating one of these so-called 'laws' is to find any person accused of violating it "Not guilty"! If the Gov't cannot find a jury willing to convict a 'violator' of the so-called law, the law becomes effectively null, void and unenforcable!

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:13:25 +0000

I actually interpret the NandP clause the power to make a law. You must remember that the constitution gives the congress powers. A power is simply the ability to do something and the NandP clause gives them the power to create a piece of legislation. Without this power they can't even pass a law.

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:03:52 +0000

I think it matters what the people who signed it thought it meant. They say it means this and the voters agreed. They agreed to what they thought it meant and not what we think it meant. Its kind of like fraud to actually change the meaning of any legal document and its even worse for the government to do it. Imagine if the government altered the meaning of the law whenever it wanted to. Would you, as a citizen, be able to restrain the government? How would you know where the boundaries between the public and private sphere exist if the govt. can alter that boundary at will simply by re imagining that boundary whenever it suits its needs?

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:58:28 +0000

Those are two different powers. One is the power to regulate a very narrow and select range of commerce wich is commerce between two parties who happen to live on different sides of state or national borders. That is the movement of goods across those borders. That doesn't include the inner workings of a business nor commerce (trade) within a state itself. If I wanted to sell wheat, bullets, or even dope and that transactions was within the confines of the state borders then their is nothing the federal government can do about it.

Even if the seller got the product from another seller in another state and is selling that product to anther person as in a wholesale/retail situation the federal government would have no say over that particular transaction because it did not cross state boundaries. However, they can have say over the transaction between the retailer and the retailer's wholeseller who he happen to buy that product in another state. That transaction crossed state lines.

Its also the control of movement across state lines and not the inner workings of a business.

By: DerekSheriff

DerekSheriff — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:20:31 +0000

Thank you Daily Tea Party!

By: DerekSheriff

DerekSheriff — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:16:02 +0000

Asking any one of the branches of the federal government if what they are doing is reasonably necessary to one of their enumerated powers is like asking a dog if he's hungry. They will always invent some new incidental or implied power. The agent (federal government) cannot be permitted to act as the final judge as to the scope of the powers delegated to him by the principal (the people of the several states). I repeat the first resolution referenced by Bob above that was adopted by the Virginia House in 1829:

"That the Constitution of the United States, being a federative compact between sovereign States in construing which no common arbiter is known, each State has the right to construe the compact for itself."