SB 400 is sort of a State’s Rights nullification effort, making it a crime for state officials to assist federal officials where the state official “knows or should know” the federal action violates the federal or state constitution. It passed the Senate by a vote of 31 – 17. I have been advised that it was heard in the House Committee on Courts and Criminal Code but failed for lack of a motion. In other words, after a bill is heard, a committee member has to make a motion that the bill be passed out of the committee in its current form or as amended in a particular way. None of the committee members made such a motion, so it didn’t receive a vote.
I don’t know when the committee deadlines are or have a good recollection of the procedural arcana, but my guess is that because it didn’t receive a vote, the committee could still make such a motion at a later date and vote it through. But, if it didn’t receive a motion on the day of the hearing, it seems doubtful that it would be passed out of committee later. In any event, my opinion is that the federal Supremacy Clause makes this a dicey proposition at best.
It strikes me, as a non-lawyer, that this is a criminal solution to a judicial problem. In other words, violating the Constitution is not a crime per se, but certain actions can be both criminal and unconstitutional.
I suppose it could work if the State Official were required to only so act if the US Supreme Court had in fact ruled on the constitutionality of the ‘federal action.’ I admit inserting that would make the proposed law silly, but in Indiana you occasionally applaud silly because it isn’t both silly and stupid.
This seems to put a pretty big burden on state officials since the Supreme court routinely splits 5-4 on interpreting the Constitution and they are like, you know, experts or something.
When do we get criminal penalties for knowingly introducing or voting for Unconstitutional legislation?
Amen from the chorus.
Something needs to be done to government employees who act against the Constitution.
You go to the court and get an injunction. If the court disagrees with you, you’re probably wrong.
That’s funny, and so deeply arrogant that it makes me wonder whether some ever see the world unfiltered. Further, your response ignores the argument that government employees need to be punished for acting against the Constitution, necessarily meaning that government employees cannot sit in judgment of other government employees.
Courts are rarely right. Courts are merely government employees who serve their bosses, being paid fantastically and receiving a lifetime of pay and benefits in exchange for serving their bosses well. Indeed, courts don’t measure themselves against right and wrong but against what they can claim the state of jurisprudence allows them to rule. You have faith in this system?
It would be a far better system to have each case judged by someone drawn at random from the populace than to have full-time government employees sitting on every case, installed to ensure that someone is always present to look out for the government’s interests.
The government is us, dickhead. It is not some disembodied entity that you hold in contempt. But you are always free to engage in armed rebellion and die at the hands of my government’s representatives.
The government is not “us,” you vapid, naive, unlearned fuckface. The government is the plaything of a very small group who use it control a really big group. You like it like that, because there’s less in your way to controlling a lot of people.
Your obstreperous unexamined histrionic bleatings continually evince that law school is among the shallowest, least rigorous and least enlightening disciplines universities allow on campus.
You are going to look funny sucking my dick after I knock all the teeth out of your head. I am a nonviolent person by nature, but your mental illness probably only reacts to threats of violence.
And you never did followup with the proctologist for SSRI’s did you.
If you tell me where you live I can ask a public health officer to confine you for observation.
You want me to suck your dick? I’m unfamiliar with overtures from your side of the gender preference side. Should I feel flattered at this revelation of this desire?
Sadly, I don’t think you have the nerve to act on your desires, but it is nice to see that the leftist act is the thinnest of facades. Your nature is anything but nonviolent. The libertarians have little company in preaching the Non-Aggression Principle.
You’re deeply angry and deeply sown with hate, thus your relentlessly meddling politics. You like imposing your will on others. Nay, you need to impose your will on others. Confining you to your own affairs does the greatest harm to you, as there’s little of you, and such restraint strips your life bare. You’re consumed with the affairs of others.
I had a little trouble understanding the exact rationale for the previous post and why I am supposed to think it is more reasonable than the previous one. I get the impression that it’s advocating some kind of anarchy.
Are there varying conditions of anarchy?
I suspect so.
You’re in need of etymology.
An = without
archos = rulers
There’s not varying levels of absence.
I’m not an expert, so I checked Wiki, and it looks like the writer agrees with me who says “There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive” and cites a source. You can check it out. It’s more than literal word-splitting.
Do aim higher than Wiki. When I speak, ’round here, anyways, that’s the authority, unless you can summon the spectre of John Locke.
Somalia is nice this time of year.
To clear up any misunderstanding, in my last post, I meant to say that I had trouble understanding the exact rationale for Freedom’s post and why I am supposed to think it is more reasonable than the one by Carlito. I get the impression that Freedom’s post is advocating some kind of anarchy.
Stuart, my post was not meant to be reasonable. It was a personal attack on Freedom engendered by his ongoing personal attacks on me and others. It was vulgar, untempered and visceral. And it felt good.
But I should have used better judgement, and I ask Doug if he will pull it down. It has no place on this forum.
You let your true hypocritical self emerge, and you’re hoping the moderator will drop your indiscretion down the memory hole, as the left is wont to do, regular attackers of free speech, they.
He permits yours. He’s earned some credit there.
There is not hypocrisy. I have utter and complete contempt for your vituperous and vacuous claims and your never ending personal attacks on long-time posters.
So if you want my threat to stand, little dude. please consider it my greatest of desires to kick your teeth out of the back of your head.
“Long-time posters,” the fallacy of the Appeal to Popularity and the Bandwagon fallacy.
I don’t suppose they covered Logic and fallacies of relevance in law school, did they?
You make this too easy. Your arguments have failed, so you’re now seeking cover in the protection of the group.
That last sentence is funny. Ever thus with the Left. They’re a nasty, violent, intolerant bunch. Hitler, Stalin, Carlito, they’re all the same, and their impact merely depends on how much power they hold. The animus is identical.
I’m not sure what country or planet Freedom can find where his ideas are being implemented. I know there are about 1000 Greek Islands, and maybe he could find one where he could establish his own happy society until someone else moves in. For sure, I disagree with some court rulings, but I’m not about to advocate some sort of overthrow.
Sometimes, venting does feel good, though.
In such a sad state of ignorance we find do our country. The “overthrow” was committed by John Marshall.
So overthrow is a tradition started by people we have always thought were patriots?
WHO?
EVER?
CONSIDERED?
JOHN MARSHALL???
A
PATRIOT?
Dear freaking heavens, Man. Take stock of all that you were fed in those classes and jettison it, right quick.
The man is and was loathed by patriots.
My offer for the proctologist and mental health intervention still stands, little dude.
Sadly, law review is little more than your vapidities.
By the way, you’ve tonight fantasized about me using the penis and anus as applications of your fetish and fixation.
You’ve got more issues than Reader’s Digest.
Marshal established the tipatrite system of government that can only truly enforce the checks and balances patently obvious in the structure of the Constitution.
Which patriots loath him? Militia manics like yourself?
Sometimes, you know that a discussion is finished when one of the parties jumps off the cliff. I think Mr. Freedom has done it. Evidence-free history sort of brings things to an end.
Stuart, if you’re going to be a groupie, find a more formidable hero. Carlito isn’t that intelligent, so I regularly wipe the deck of both him and you with one shot, so little is the cover he affords you.
Read what Jefferson thought of Marshall:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s16.html
In denying the right they usurp of exclusively explaining the constitution, I go further than you do, if I understand rightly your quotation from the Federalist, of an opinion that “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.” If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se. For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scarecrow; that such opinions as the one you combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also, by detachment, not belonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line they are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted with impeachment. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes.
You’ll have particular affection for this link, Stuart:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_did_Thomas_Jefferson_say_about_judicial_review
This business about who decides something is unconstitutional reminds me of a story my Civil Procedure professor told me about three umpires discussing their calls.
The young one says, “I call ’em like I see ’em.”
The middle age one says, “I call ’em like they are!”
The old one says, “Boys, they ain’t *nothin* until I call ’em.”