Who enforces the constitution?

[Crimefree]

I think we need to be focused on a lot more than gun control because if we put all our attention there, we will lose everything else and there won't be anything left to defend. To me, the key is the courts. If we get that right we won't have to worry about our Second Amendment rights.

You cannot win in government courts. You keep forgetting the courts and government are not the final arbiters and believe the courts can stop the people getting what they want. That is not possible even dictatorships will fall.

Gun control has the worlds best experts money can buy and have no intention of losing. If one could win in the courts do you think gun control would not be pounding on that door?

I did not say the country would be focused on a single issue nor would every citizen. With perhaps a few in control and a fair number of helpers say about 1000 one can make an impression way out of proportion to size simply by inundating the media with adverse responses to every gun control publication. I know it can be done. What I am saying is an organisation opposing gun control has to be focused on winning using proven strategy only. The danger is those who insist on failed ideas and cannot think beyond the box.

The only objective needed is to educate people so they value their rights.

How much are those rights worth now? A person watches from a distance a miscreant walk up to his vehicle and start to undo the tire valve caps. What is the reaction? Yet that same person with sit doing nothing when government steels their rights. A tire valve cap is worth more to the majority of citizens than their rights. Is that how it should be?

One starts with the most useful right that protects all others and if that is not reason enough what is?

 

[Crimefree]

The dollars spent is interesting, but not a true indication of the success or failure of various lobbying efforts over the years.

Just a hunch, but my bet is that lobbyists for companies belonging to, for example, the US Chamber of Commerce, have been far more successful in getting favorable legislation passed than have lobbyists for, say, ACLU or other "liberal" organizations.

Johnston in his several books makes it very clear how legislation written by various corporations has negative effects on society at large.

I'm not sure what the mission statement is for Open Secrets, but Johnston makes a very compelling case. Anybody taking the time to read all the fine print in his credit card agreement will understand what rights he has surrendered for that card.

A lobbyist cannot succeed if there is strong public opposition. There is no politician unless retiring that will risk their career on an issue. Lobbying on its own is near useless.

The banks simply hold one to ransom. You don't have to have a card and a contract legally gives them the power. Is it constitutional? Did the people object as they should have? Until they do it will be LEGAL.

 

[Thoreau72]

A lobbyist cannot succeed if there is strong public opposition. There is no politician unless retiring that will risk their career on an issue. Lobbying on its own is near useless.

The banks simply hold one to ransom. You don't have to have a card and a contract legally gives them the power. Is it constitutional? Did the people object as they should have? Until they do it will be LEGAL.

You are naïve, and I never said it was illegal. Quite the opposite--it is perfectly legal, and that is so because the rules were written as requested by the special interest, in this case the bank/card issuer.

That's the point--it's legal because they wrote the law that applies.

It is not fair, and it is not just, but it is perfectly legal. Shades of fascism have been evident long before Trump took office.

 

[Crimefree]

But the unscrupulous have learned to use the courts effectively for their unscrupulousness (is that a word?) When federal laws in 1964 and further expanded in 1976 allowed those suing in civil rights cases to collect lawyer fees and some other expenses, the ACLU was scouring the countryside to find somebody with standing who would say that a historical cross on a government shield or a religious piece of art was offensive to them so they could sue. It became extremely lucrative for them. And now with a hugely leftist court system in place, it is almost impossible for common sense to prevail in almost any social issue.

So it is entities like the 9th Circuit et al who work hand in hand with the opportunistic leftists to dismantle anything traditional or seen as non-'progressive' and thereby slowly are making progressivism the law of the land.

Government is in the ideal position to manipulate the courts and it does. I'm pretty sure the founding fathers being politicians had a pretty good idea of what and where politics and politicians would take any government. Did they just leave this usurping of power open ended or does it have a control mechanism? If it does have a control mechanism who operates it, how does it work?

 

[Rucker61]

It is not fair, and it is not just, but it is perfectly legal.

Is anything fair and just?

 

[calamity]

Is anything fair and just?

Depends on how you define fair and just. I bet there is not a single prisoner in a penitentiary anywhere in the country that believes he was treated fairly and justly. Ironically, I bet the same can be said about each of their victims.

Funny how that works.

 

[Crimefree]

Depends on how you define fair and just. I bet there is not a single prisoner in a penitentiary anywhere in the country that believes he was treated fairly and justly. Ironically, I bet the same can be said about each of their victims.

Funny how that works.

Very little is when it comes to government and citizens. Everything is done by threat of force. Much of it unconstitutional. That is illegal for government to do but it appears government can do that with impunity. A law unenforced or policed is no law at all.

 

[calamity]

Very little is when it comes to government and citizens. Everything is done by threat of force. Much of it unconstitutional. That is illegal for government to do but it appears government can do that with impunity. A law unenforced or policed is no law at all.

Most--hell, almost all---people in prisons are not there because government is unconstitutional. They are there because they committed some kind of crime. Even the stupid laws against drugs, when broken, are a crime, and 100% constitutional.

 

[AlbqOwl]

My bet is that the lobbyists representing special interests "on the right" are far more numerous, sophisticated, well-heeled and influential than any group of lobbyists "on the left".

If you want to read an excellent book about corporate (right) control of the legislative and rule-making process, read "The Fine Print" by David Cay Johnston.

We weren't discussing lobbyists. Or I wasn't anyway. We were discussing what is the role of the court.

And I haven't read Johnston's book, but I would guess that I would strongly disagree with him that there is any corporate (right) control of the legislative process as most corporations lean pretty strongly left at least in their political affiliations. But as for control of the corporations on the legislative process, I would recommend Peter Schweizer's book Extortion which hits Republicans and Democrats equally as hard for how they shake down corporate heads for cash and fully exposes the unholy alliance that exists between government and big business. And believe me it is not a one way street.

You can read an excellent book review here:
Book review - Extortion by Peter Schweizer
but I recommend the book itself to get the full picture of how it is all done. It is a quick read.

One reason Trump is so hated not only by the left, but by members of Congress in both parties, is that he has been there and he KNOWS how it is done and how the corporations have to work the system to keep government off their backs as much as possible. And he wants to clean that up which of course is done by eliminating all the unnecessary laws, rules, and regulations that allow Congress to be able to make criminals of anybody and thereby control everybody.

If Trump could succeed, he could end a lot of the ability of those in Congress to be able to buy their seats year after year after year. And we might start electing true public servants instead of career politicians of the permanent political class again. And government at all levels might start working for the people instead of for their own benefit again. And in turn, judges who judge according to law instead of ideology would be appointed and confirmed again.

And when that happens, the executive, legislative, and judicial branch will all again be enforcing the Constitution again instead of finding ways to circumvent it to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

 

[AlbqOwl]

You cannot win in government courts. You keep forgetting the courts and government are not the final arbiters and believe the courts can stop the people getting what they want. That is not possible even dictatorships will fall.

Gun control has the worlds best experts money can buy and have no intention of losing. If one could win in the courts do you think gun control would not be pounding on that door?

I did not say the country would be focused on a single issue nor would every citizen. With perhaps a few in control and a fair number of helpers say about 1000 one can make an impression way out of proportion to size simply by inundating the media with adverse responses to every gun control publication. I know it can be done. What I am saying is an organisation opposing gun control has to be focused on winning using proven strategy only. The danger is those who insist on failed ideas and cannot think beyond the box.

The only objective needed is to educate people so they value their rights.

How much are those rights worth now? A person watches from a distance a miscreant walk up to his vehicle and start to undo the tire valve caps. What is the reaction? Yet that same person with sit doing nothing when government steels their rights. A tire valve cap is worth more to the majority of citizens than their rights. Is that how it should be?

One starts with the most useful right that protects all others and if that is not reason enough what is?

Well we need some people who are focused on single issues I suppose so I wish you well. I am a strong advocate of the second amendment but I think there are others at risk that need attention too.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Government is in the ideal position to manipulate the courts and it does. I'm pretty sure the founding fathers being politicians had a pretty good idea of what and where politics and politicians would take any government. Did they just leave this usurping of power open ended or does it have a control mechanism? If it does have a control mechanism who operates it, how does it work?

We have a government and court system that does not work for the people anymore. It works for itself and is entirely self serving in Congress, in the Executive branch (until now), in the bureaucracy, and in the courts. Almost all are there for no other purpose than to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth and they oppose anybody or anything that would presume to mess that up for them and do their damndest to destroy the intruder who would attempt to change things. They don't care about the debt or the long range effect of anything. They throw the people just enough bones to keep them quiet and returning to the polls to vote for them.

That is why Donald Trump is so hated. He doesn't intend to play that game. And as a result he is hated by the left who want the federal government to have all the power, he is hated by those in government at all levels, and is receiving strong resistance from the Republicans in Congress who don't want their gravy train derailed either.

 

[Crimefree]

Most--hell, almost all---people in prisons are not there because government is unconstitutional. They are there because they committed some kind of crime. Even the stupid laws against drugs, when broken, are a crime, and 100% constitutional.

I have absolutely no idea of why you are babbling about irrelevancy and your point appears to be some manifestation of delusion. I am not even sure what yiu are actually addressing. "a crime" is not automatically constitutional. Where did you get that idea?

There are many drug laws which are clearly unconstitutional.

Constitutional Protections | Drug War Impacts | Drug Policy Alliance[/URL]

 

[Crimefree]

We have a government and court system that does not work for the people anymore. It works for itself and is entirely self serving in Congress, in the Executive branch (until now), in the bureaucracy, and in the courts. Almost all are there for no other purpose than to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth and they oppose anybody or anything that would presume to mess that up for them and do their damndest to destroy the intruder who would attempt to change things. They don't care about the debt or the long range effect of anything. They throw the people just enough bones to keep them quiet and returning to the polls to vote for them.

That is why Donald Trump is so hated. He doesn't intend to play that game. And as a result he is hated by the left who want the federal government to have all the power, he is hated by those in government at all levels, and is receiving strong resistance from the Republicans in Congress who don't want their gravy train derailed either.

Nothing could be more true than the people get the government they deserve.

But criminals have rights organisations
Woman have rights organisations
Gays have rights organisations
Workers have rights organisations
......

And firearm owners who really need at least one bull dog with a pair of balls to challenge gun control propaganda and the smearing of the good name and record firearm owners have have what? The NRA that can be found mostly in bed with government and gun control or sleeping on the job sending out lawyers to do their fighting. It's the clean hands approach and the dumbest way of fighting there is costing huge sums of money for little or no gain. That dumbest sets the example others follow.

Firearm owners without leadership, sound strategy to take back their good name and record and gain public acceptance instead of being the whipping boy are simply doomed as has been the case of every other country that has fallen for gun control madness. US citizen may think they are different but they are not. Their apathy is the same and their firearm organisations are equally toothless, incompetent and uncaring.

 

[Crimefree]

You are naïve, and I never said it was illegal. Quite the opposite--it is perfectly legal, and that is so because the rules were written as requested by the special interest, in this case the bank/card issuer.

That's the point--it's legal because they wrote the law that applies.

Good grief that is what I have just said. "Is it constitutional? Did the people object as they should have? Until they do it will be LEGAL."

It is not fair, and it is not just, but it is perfectly legal. Shades of fascism have been evident long before Trump took office.

If you want to look for iniquity try the IRS and many other branches of government. While government can dazzle people with handout and false promises government can usurp what it wants. Government does not owe people education on its tricks and ways of gaining power. That is the peoples job

 

[calamity]

I have absolutely no idea of why you are babbling about irrelevancy and your point appears to be some manifestation of delusion. I am not even sure what yiu are actually addressing. "a crime" is not automatically constitutional. Where did you get that idea?

There are many drug laws which are clearly unconstitutional.

Constitutional Protections | Drug War Impacts | Drug Policy Alliance[/URL]

You may believe they are, but they are being enforced and have been upheld. Hence, they are constitutional, for now at least.

 

[Crimefree]

You may believe they are, but they are being enforced and have been upheld. Hence, they are constitutional, for now at least.

Government does not have the power to make what is not constitutional constitutional. Where is the power derived?

 

[calamity]

Government does not have the power to make what is not constitutional constitutional. Where is the power derived?

In the Constitution and from the people who elected them into office. This should not have to be explained.

 

[Crimefree]

In the Constitution and from the people who elected them into office. This should not have to be explained.

Nope you are going to have to explain directly in terms of the constitution. A quotation would be nice. BS will do you no good here.

 

[calamity]

Nope you are going to have to explain directly in terms of the constitution. A quotation would be nice. BS will do you no good here.

The Constitution explains quite well who does what and how. Read it.

 

[Crimefree]

The Constitution explains quite well who does what and how. Read it.

Nope you quote it, your claim your proof and stop with you BS avoidance and deflections.

 

[calamity]

Nope you quote it, your claim your proof and stop with you BS avoidance and deflections.

Article 1 through 3 should do. It's too long to quote, but it does lay out exactly how the constitution is enforced. Articles 4 through 6 are helpful too. A 7, not so much.

Here
http://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

read

 

[haymarket]

Government does not have the power to make what is not constitutional constitutional. Where is the power derived?

And who decides what is constitutional in our system?

 

[Crimefree]

And who decides what is constitutional in our system?

Look at the title.

 

[calamity]

And who decides what is constitutional in our system?

He clearly does not get it.

 

[haymarket]

Look at the title.

So what is your answer? In our system who is it that decides issues of what is constitutional and what is not constitutional?