Federal Laws Are Not Optional

John Manning

unread,

Jan 16, 2013, 5:27:36 PM1/16/13

to

From time to time, state and local officials may not like federal laws.

Maybe it's Democratic local officials objecting to Republican
policies, perhaps it's Republicans in municipalities who disapprove
of Democratic policies, but since the Civil War, there hasn't been
any credible debate about whether such laws are optional.

They're not.

The sheriff of an Oregon county sent a letter to Vice President Joe
Biden on Monday saying he and his deputies would not enforce -- nor
allow federal officials to enforce -- any new federal firearms laws
in his county, according to a copy of the letter posted on the Linn
County Sheriff's Office website.

"Politicians are attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent
victims by advocating for laws that would prevent honest, law
abiding Americans from possessing certain firearms and ammunition
magazines," Sheriff Tim Mueller wrote in the letter dated January
14, 2013.

"Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order
of the President offending the constitutional rights of my citizens
shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit
the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by
federal officers within the borders of Linn County, Oregon."

As Mueller sees it, it's apparently not up to courts
or judges to determine which laws are consistent with
Americans' constitutional rights; it's instead up to a local
sheriff. And if the local sheriff decides the law doesn't meet
the standards of his constitutional analysis, he just won't
enforce it.

To put it mildly, this is a problematic approach to a
functioning democracy.

Similarly, there are new measures pending in the
South Carolina and North Dakota state legislatures on
ignoring new federal gun policies -- before policymakers even
know what they are -- and Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (R) wants
state legislation that would make any "unconstitutional order" on
gun policy taken by President Obama "illegal to enforce in
Mississippi by state and local law enforcement."

And who would decide which policies are "unconstitutional"?

Bryant didn't say, exactly. If courts rule a law unconstitutional,
then it's a moot point -- no one enforces laws that are struck
down -- but if the governor and legislature think they're the
arbiters of constitutional analysis, there's a problem.

The rule of law still matters. So does separation of powers
and judicial review. I have no idea what, if anything, Congress
will pass to help prevent gun violence, but I do know state and
local policymakers should realize that they're not in a position
to pick and choose which laws they'll honor and which laws
they'll ignore.

Update: It looks like some policymakers in Missouri and Texas are
thinking along similar lines.

Links here:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/16/16548694-federal-laws-are-not-optional

Mitchell Holman

unread,

Jan 16, 2013, 10:05:14 PM1/16/13

to

John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in
news:nf2dnRTm2dPHtGrN...@giganews.com:

Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out from
insisting federal law trumps local laws when it comes to
"sanctuary cities" protecting illegal aliens to tell us
that federal law does NOT trump local law when it comes
to federal gun laws.

Warren Penn

unread,

Jan 17, 2013, 5:21:27 AM1/17/13

to

What does this have to do with the nigger and spic problem?

Joe Cooper

unread,

Jan 17, 2013, 11:48:08 AM1/17/13

to

John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in
news:nf2dnRTm2dPHtGrN...@giganews.com:

> From time to time, state and local officials may not like federal
> laws.
>
> Maybe it's Democratic local officials objecting to Republican
> policies, perhaps it's Republicans in municipalities who disapprove
> of Democratic policies, but since the Civil War, there hasn't been
> any credible debate about whether such laws are optional.
>
> They're not.

You mean like the federal law that requires Congress to pass a budget
every year? Is that what you mean, Manning?

You know, that pesky Congressional Budget Act of 1974?

From time to time, Empty Chairs may not like federal laws like that.

--
Enjoy Internet Freedom And Anonymity: http://hidemyass.com/vpn/r6995:5/

WangoTango

unread,

Jan 17, 2013, 2:09:57 PM1/17/13

to

In article <nf2dnRTm2dPHtGrN...@giganews.com>,
jrob...@terra.com.br says...

> From time to time, state and local officials may not like federal laws.

Yep, and there is no requirement that forces any state agency to enforce
or lend aid to enforce a federal law. If the feds want to enforce it
*THEY* can. If the locals will sell them food, fuel, and so on.

thomas p.

unread,

Jan 17, 2013, 2:40:36 PM1/17/13

to

"WangoTango" <Asga...@mindspring.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:MPG.2b62168ea...@news.east.earthlink.net...

Please note that he stated his intention of preventing the enforcement of
the law by federal authorities.

--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

FirstPost

unread,

Jan 17, 2013, 4:02:16 PM1/17/13

to

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:40:36 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"WangoTango" <Asga...@mindspring.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:MPG.2b62168ea...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>> In article <nf2dnRTm2dPHtGrN...@giganews.com>,
>> jrob...@terra.com.br says...
>>> From time to time, state and local officials may not like federal laws.
>>
>> Yep, and there is no requirement that forces any state agency to enforce
>> or lend aid to enforce a federal law. If the feds want to enforce it
>> *THEY* can. If the locals will sell them food, fuel, and so on.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Please note that he stated his intention of preventing the enforcement of
>the law by federal authorities.

Actually there is nothing on the books preventing a state from
enacting a law making it illegal for a fed to do something.
It may sound ludicrous but the loophole exists.

thomas p.

unread,

Jan 18, 2013, 1:27:40 AM1/18/13

to

"FirstPost" <AIOE_posters_...@AIOE.org> skrev i meddelelsen
news:tjpgf8dim4aoq50nt...@4ax.com...

Actually the Constitution exists.

SkyEyes

unread,

Jan 18, 2013, 1:52:35 AM1/18/13

to

On Jan 17, 3:21 am, Warren Penn <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What does this have to do with the nigger and spic problem?

Oh, looky: another brainiac heard from. <Spit>

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

FirstPost

unread,

Jan 18, 2013, 7:57:24 AM1/18/13

to

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 07:27:40 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>"FirstPost" <AIOE_posters_...@AIOE.org> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:tjpgf8dim4aoq50nt...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:40:36 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"WangoTango" <Asga...@mindspring.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>news:MPG.2b62168ea...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>>> In article <nf2dnRTm2dPHtGrN...@giganews.com>,
>>>> jrob...@terra.com.br says...
>>>>> From time to time, state and local officials may not like federal
>>>>> laws.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, and there is no requirement that forces any state agency to enforce
>>>> or lend aid to enforce a federal law. If the feds want to enforce it
>>>> *THEY* can. If the locals will sell them food, fuel, and so on.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Please note that he stated his intention of preventing the enforcement of
>>>the law by federal authorities.
>>
>> Actually there is nothing on the books preventing a state from
>> enacting a law making it illegal for a fed to do something.
>> It may sound ludicrous but the loophole exists.
>
>
>Actually the Constitution exists.

So how's that working out for the federal drug law in Colorado?

thomas p.

unread,

Jan 18, 2013, 10:41:15 AM1/18/13

to

"FirstPost" <AIOE_posters_...@AIOE.org> skrev i meddelelsen

news:2khif81m0g479akcd...@4ax.com...

The same thing applies. The states have no obligation to enforce a federal
law, but that is not the same thing as preventing federal authorities from
doing so. Neither Colorado or Washington have the right to prevent the
enforcement of federal anti-marijuana laws. To that degree those states do
not have a problem, since there seems to be no intention to interfere with
federal enforcement. The state laws do, however, require the licensing of
growing and selling marijuana and collecting taxes on the sales, that will
probably put them in conflict with federal authorities. If more states pass
similar laws the result could be political pressure on Washington to change
federal laws. It will be interesting to see what happens.

thomas p.

unread,

Jan 18, 2013, 10:46:21 AM1/18/13

to

"SkyEyes" <skye...@cox.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:e97c636a-9f0e-44c1...@jl13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

>On Jan 17, 3:21 am, Warren Penn <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What does this have to do with the nigger and spic problem?
>
>Oh, looky: another brainiac heard from. <Spit>
>

He attempts to make any reasonable discussion impossible, since he does not
like people reminding him of his inability to contribute.

thomas p.

Fred^2013.01

unread,

Jan 18, 2013, 12:58:04 PM1/18/13

to

SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Jan 17, 3:21=A0am, Warren Penn <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What does this have to do with the nigger and spic problem?
>Oh, looky: another brainiac heard from. <Spit>

Republicanism. That is what the GOP has become.

---
A good guy with a gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwRrmH39n00

HHW

unread,

Jan 18, 2013, 9:31:01 PM1/18/13

to

On Jan 17, 2:09 pm, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In article <nf2dnRTm2dPHtGrNnZ2dnUVZ_s6dn...@giganews.com>,
> jrobe...@terra.com.br says...

>
> > From time to time, state and local officials may not like federal laws.
>
> Yep, and there is no requirement that forces any state agency to enforce
> or lend aid to enforce a federal law. If the feds want to enforce it
> *THEY* can. If the locals will sell them food, fuel, and so on.

You live in a dream world. You see a loud-mouthed county Sheriff who
has forgotten his oath and imagines he won't be terminated the moment
heat is on and the National Guard is mobilized. This is fantasy.
You're never going to have support when the price becomes local
violence and militarization. And the American military is never,
repeat never, going to support it no matter how many red necks are in
the ranks. Its tradition is apolitical. It follows orders according to
our Constitutional arrangement. It knows our system depends upon it.

HHW

unread,

Jan 18, 2013, 9:34:56 PM1/18/13

to

On Jan 17, 2:40 pm, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "WangoTango" <Asgar...@mindspring.com> skrev i meddelelsennews:MPG.2b62168ea...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> > In article <nf2dnRTm2dPHtGrNnZ2dnUVZ_s6dn...@giganews.com>,
> > jrobe...@terra.com.br says...

> >> From time to time, state and local officials may not like federal laws.
>
> > Yep, and there is no requirement that forces any state agency to enforce
> > or lend aid to enforce a federal law. If the feds want to enforce it
> > *THEY* can. If the locals will sell them food, fuel, and so on.
>
> Please note that he stated his intention of preventing the enforcement of
> the law by federal authorities.

Talk is cheap but obstruction of justice is a felony and a violation
of his oath. The next thing he needs to think about is a modernized
federal death penalty.

> thomas p
>
> Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
>
> David Hume

Excellent quote. You won't find a man like Hume, not one, among the
primitives waving the bloody shirt for "assault weapons".

HHW

unread,

Jan 18, 2013, 9:37:29 PM1/18/13

to

On Jan 17, 4:02 pm, FirstPost <AIOE_posters_are_all_li...@AIOE.org>
wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:40:36 +0100, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"WangoTango" <Asgar...@mindspring.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:MPG.2b62168ea...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> >> In article <nf2dnRTm2dPHtGrNnZ2dnUVZ_s6dn...@giganews.com>,
> >> jrobe...@terra.com.br says...

> >>> From time to time, state and local officials may not like federal laws.
>
> >> Yep, and there is no requirement that forces any state agency to enforce
> >> or lend aid to enforce a federal law. If the feds want to enforce it
> >> *THEY* can. If the locals will sell them food, fuel, and so on.
>
> >Please note that he stated his intention of preventing the enforcement of
> >the law by federal authorities.
>
> Actually there is nothing on the books preventing a state from
> enacting a law making it illegal for a fed to do something.
> It may sound ludicrous but the loophole exists.

Nonsense. Your fantasy ilk haven't thought through any of this. You
lost the Civil War. That decided it--in 1865.

HHW

unread,

Jan 18, 2013, 9:48:00 PM1/18/13

to

On Jan 18, 10:41 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "FirstPost" <AIOE_posters_are_all_li...@AIOE.org> skrev i meddelelsennews:2khif81m0g479akcd...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 07:27:40 +0100, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"FirstPost" <AIOE_posters_are_all_li...@AIOE.org> skrev i meddelelsen
> >>news:tjpgf8dim4aoq50nt...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:40:36 +0100, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>"WangoTango" <Asgar...@mindspring.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >>>>news:MPG.2b62168ea...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> >>>>> In article <nf2dnRTm2dPHtGrNnZ2dnUVZ_s6dn...@giganews.com>,
> >>>>> jrobe...@terra.com.br says...

> >>>>>> From time to time, state and local officials may not like federal
> >>>>>> laws.
>
> >>>>> Yep, and there is no requirement that forces any state agency to
> >>>>> enforce
> >>>>> or lend aid to enforce a federal law. If the feds want to enforce it
> >>>>> *THEY* can. If the locals will sell them food, fuel, and so on.
>
> >>>>Please note that he stated his intention of preventing the enforcement
> >>>>of
> >>>>the law by federal authorities.
>
> >>> Actually there is nothing on the books preventing a state from
> >>> enacting a law making it illegal for a fed to do something.
> >>> It may sound ludicrous but the loophole exists.
>
> >>Actually the Constitution exists.
>
> > So how's that working out for the federal drug law in Colorado?
>
> The same thing applies. The states have no obligation to enforce a federal
> law, but that is not the same thing as preventing federal authorities from
> doing so.

Exactly.

Neither Colorado or Washington have the right to prevent the
> enforcement of federal anti-marijuana laws.

That, sadly, is true. Have there been any federal prosecutions for
minimal possession for personal use or use itself? I'd be surprised.
That's not the direction in which the issue is moving. It's
impractical, ridiculous. Any President is going to be forced to
stabilize the situation by encouraging federal prosecutors expend
their limited resources on crimes of consequence.

To that degree those states do
> not have a problem, since there seems to be no intention to interfere with
> federal enforcement. The state laws do, however, require the licensing of
> growing and selling marijuana and collecting taxes on the sales, that will
> probably put them in conflict with federal authorities.

Not after that Presidential or Justice Department encouragement to use
their prosecutorial discretion sensibly.

HHW

unread,

Jan 18, 2013, 9:49:04 PM1/18/13

to

On Jan 18, 10:46 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "SkyEyes" <skyey...@cox.net> skrev i meddelelsennews:e97c636a-9f0e-44c1...@jl13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

>
> >On Jan 17, 3:21 am, Warren Penn <haplogrou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> What does this have to do with the nigger and spic problem?
>
> >Oh, looky: another brainiac heard from. <Spit>
>
> He attempts to make any reasonable discussion impossible, since he does not
> like people reminding him of his inability to contribute.
>
> thomas p.

One wonders whose genes he advertises in his address.

HHW

unread,

Jan 18, 2013, 9:57:26 PM1/18/13

to

On Jan 18, 12:58 pm, repo...@scientology.org (Fred^2013.01) wrote:

The conservative movement today bears no relation to the classical
conservatism encountered in the history of western political theory.
It's grimy, bigoted, and without respectable principles. It's not even
a reliable steward of the economy.

thomas p.

unread,

Jan 19, 2013, 1:53:19 AM1/19/13

to

"HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:fcb0d137-19cd-466b...@10g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

That there are such laws is sad, but, if states had the right to prevent
enforcement of federal law, the the results would be catastrophic.

Have there been any federal prosecutions for
>minimal possession for personal use or use itself? I'd be surprised.
>That's not the direction in which the issue is moving. It's
>impractical, ridiculous. Any President is going to be forced to
>stabilize the situation by encouraging federal prosecutors expend
>their limited resources on crimes of consequence.

For example by arresting state officials who collect taxes on marijuana
sales, issue licenses to sellers or to growers of marijuana; this has been
threatened.

>
>To that degree those states do
>> not have a problem, since there seems to be no intention to interfere
>> with
>> federal enforcement. The state laws do, however, require the licensing of
>> growing and selling marijuana and collecting taxes on the sales, that
>> will
>> probably put them in conflict with federal authorities.
>
>Not after that Presidential or Justice Department encouragement to use
>their prosecutorial discretion sensibly.

Please note that they were encouraged to not go after individual users.

>
>If more states pass
>> similar laws the result could be political pressure on Washington to
>> change
>> federal laws. It will be interesting to see what happens.

thomas p

thomas p.

unread,

Jan 19, 2013, 1:56:30 AM1/19/13

to

"HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:b5eb9af2-84a0-4917...@x10g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...

>On Jan 17, 2:40 pm, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "WangoTango" <Asgar...@mindspring.com> skrev i
>> meddelelsennews:MPG.2b62168ea...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>
>> > In article <nf2dnRTm2dPHtGrNnZ2dnUVZ_s6dn...@giganews.com>,
>> > jrobe...@terra.com.br says...
>> >> From time to time, state and local officials may not like federal
>> >> laws.
>>
>> > Yep, and there is no requirement that forces any state agency to
>> > enforce
>> > or lend aid to enforce a federal law. If the feds want to enforce it
>> > *THEY* can. If the locals will sell them food, fuel, and so on.
>>
>> Please note that he stated his intention of preventing the enforcement of
>> the law by federal authorities.
>
>Talk is cheap but obstruction of justice is a felony and a violation
>of his oath.

I never had any expectation that he would actually do what he claimed he
would.

The next thing he needs to think about is a modernized
>federal death penalty.
>
>> thomas p
>>
>> Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
>>
>> David Hume
>
>Excellent quote. You won't find a man like Hume, not one, among the
>primitives waving the bloody shirt for "assault weapons".
>
>
>
>

--
* I promise I will format my posts properly in the future.
* Windows Live Mail just can't quote! Luckily, I have found this:
* http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/

FirstPost

unread,

Jan 19, 2013, 3:43:28 AM1/19/13

to

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 07:53:19 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

So the feds have arrested how many people in Colorado so far?

thomas p.

unread,

Jan 19, 2013, 6:16:30 AM1/19/13

to

"FirstPost" <AIOE_posters_...@AIOE.org> skrev i meddelelsen

news:74nkf8lrjbh4p6l06...@4ax.com...

I am sorry, but I do not know what the relevance of that question could be.
I only pointed out that federal laws can be enforced regardless of what a
local official may think, and that it would be illegal for a local official
to interfere in the enforcement of such a law. What do you think happened
in Colorado that makes me wrong?

•RLMeasures

unread,

Jan 19, 2013, 7:39:11 AM1/19/13

to

In article
<1228a304-ebe9-4aa5...@f4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, HHW
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jan 17, 2:09=A0pm, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > In article <nf2dnRTm2dPHtGrNnZ2dnUVZ_s6dn...@giganews.com>,
> > jrobe...@terra.com.br says...
> >

> > > =A0From time to time, state and local officials may not like federal la=

> ws.
> >
> > Yep, and there is no requirement that forces any state agency to enforce

> > or lend aid to enforce a federal law. =A0If the feds want to enforce it
> > *THEY* can. =A0If the locals will sell them food, fuel, and so on.

>
> You live in a dream world. You see a loud-mouthed county Sheriff who
> has forgotten his oath and imagines he won't be terminated the moment
> heat is on and the National Guard is mobilized. This is fantasy.
> You're never going to have support when the price becomes local
> violence and militarization. And the American military is never,
> repeat never, going to support it no matter how many red necks are in
> the ranks. Its tradition is apolitical. It follows orders according to
> our Constitutional arrangement. It knows our system depends upon it.

• Prohibition failed. Some things are better left to local control.
That's why you can't buy Jack Daniels in Lynchburg.

�RLMeasures

unread,

Jan 19, 2013, 7:52:18 AM1/19/13

to

In article <50fa42d7$0$56794$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>, "thomas p."

� OTOH Prohibition was a bad thing. The worrysome thing about Federal
anti-cannabis laws is that they were enacted by a Congress that was duped
by one man, i.e. Harry J. Anslinger, who somehow convinced them that
marijuana caused white women to want to have sex with negros.

� This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with
Negroes, entertainers, and any others.�
-- Harry Anslinger.

Don Kresch

unread,

Jan 19, 2013, 9:47:52 AM1/19/13

to

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 07:53:19 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>

scrawled in blood:

>That there are such laws is sad, but, if states had the right to prevent
>enforcement of federal law, the the results would be catastrophic.

Citation needed.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

Message has been deleted

Don Kresch

unread,

Jan 19, 2013, 12:09:26 PM1/19/13

to

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:01:13 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
blood:

>On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 02:43:28 -0600, FirstPost
><AIOE_posters_...@AIOE.org> wrote:
>
>>So the feds have arrested how many people in Colorado so far?
>

>Some
>
>Mostly as "Show"
>
>The issue is not how many----but whether the supremacy clause is
>inviolable.

Does the supremacy clause apply to that which violates the
constitution?

Be careful how you answer.

Don Kresch

unread,

Jan 19, 2013, 12:31:09 PM1/19/13

to

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:03:31 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
blood:

>On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:47:52 -0600, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 07:53:19 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
>>scrawled in blood:
>>
>>
>>>That there are such laws is sad, but, if states had the right to prevent
>>>enforcement of federal law, the the results would be catastrophic.
>>
>> Citation needed.
>

>(lack of citation snipped)

Citation still needed.

Message has been deleted

Don Kresch

unread,

Jan 19, 2013, 5:27:30 PM1/19/13

to

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:40:01 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
blood:

>On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 11:09:26 -0600, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:01:13 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
>>blood:
>>
>>>On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 02:43:28 -0600, FirstPost
>>><AIOE_posters_...@AIOE.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>So the feds have arrested how many people in Colorado so far?
>>>
>>>Some
>>>
>>>Mostly as "Show"
>>>
>>>The issue is not how many----but whether the supremacy clause is
>>>inviolable.
>>
>> Does the supremacy clause apply to that which violates the
>>constitution?
>

>The supremcacy clause basis resides in stare decisis law

Legal positivism. Rejected as such.

Answer the question.

Don Kresch

unread,

Jan 19, 2013, 5:28:40 PM1/19/13

to

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:38:16 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
blood:

Message has been deleted

Don Kresch

unread,

Jan 20, 2013, 9:12:35 AM1/20/13

to

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 21:45:32 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
blood:

>On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 16:27:30 -0600, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Does the supremacy clause apply to that which violates the
>>>>constitution?
>>>
>>>The supremcacy clause basis resides in stare decisis law
>>
>> Legal positivism. Rejected as such.
>>
>> Answer the question.
>

>THe question is babble.

No it isn't. Answer the question.

And if you don't know what legal positivism is--look it up!

Don Kresch

unread,

Jan 20, 2013, 9:14:39 AM1/20/13

to

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 21:47:15 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
blood:

>On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 16:28:40 -0600, Don Kresch

><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 11:31:09 -0600, Don Kresch
>>><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>That there are such laws is sad, but, if states had the right to prevent
>>>>>>>enforcement of federal law, the the results would be catastrophic.
>>>>>>
>

>(non citation snipped)

harry k

unread,

Jan 20, 2013, 11:48:17 AM1/20/13

to

On Jan 16, 2:27 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> From time to time, state and local officials may not like federal laws.
>

> Maybe it's Democratic local officials objecting to Republican
> policies, perhaps it's Republicans in municipalities who disapprove
> of Democratic policies, but since the Civil War, there hasn't been
> any credible debate about whether such laws are optional.
>
> They're not.
>
> The sheriff of an Oregon county sent a letter to Vice President Joe
> Biden on Monday saying he and his deputies would not enforce -- nor
> allow federal officials to enforce -- any new federal firearms laws
> in his county, according to a copy of the letter posted on the Linn
> County Sheriff's Office website.
>
> "Politicians are attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent
> victims by advocating for laws that would prevent honest, law
> abiding Americans from possessing certain firearms and ammunition
> magazines," Sheriff Tim Mueller wrote in the letter dated January
> 14, 2013.
>
> "Any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order
> of the President offending the constitutional rights of my citizens
> shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit
> the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by
> federal officers within the borders of Linn County, Oregon."
>
> As Mueller sees it, it's apparently not up to courts
> or judges to determine which laws are consistent with
> Americans' constitutional rights; it's instead up to a local
> sheriff. And if the local sheriff decides the law doesn't meet
> the standards of his constitutional analysis, he just won't
> enforce it.
>
> To put it mildly, this is a problematic approach to a
> functioning democracy.
>
> Similarly, there are new measures pending in the
> South Carolina and North Dakota state legislatures on
> ignoring new federal gun policies -- before policymakers even
> know what they are -- and Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (R) wants
> state legislation that would make any "unconstitutional order" on
> gun policy taken by President Obama "illegal to enforce in
> Mississippi by state and local law enforcement."
>
> And who would decide which policies are "unconstitutional"?
>
> Bryant didn't say, exactly. If courts rule a law unconstitutional,
> then it's a moot point -- no one enforces laws that are struck
> down -- but if the governor and legislature think they're the
> arbiters of constitutional analysis, there's a problem.
>
> The rule of law still matters. So does separation of powers
> and judicial review. I have no idea what, if anything, Congress
> will pass to help prevent gun violence, but I do know state and
> local policymakers should realize that they're not in a position
> to pick and choose which laws they'll honor and which laws
> they'll ignore.
>
> Update: It looks like some policymakers in Missouri and Texas are
> thinking along similar lines.
>
> Links here:http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/16/16548694-federal-laws-ar...

Bottom line, the President has no authority to "make law". that is
the dutyi of the Legislative branch.

Harry K

harry k

unread,

Jan 20, 2013, 11:53:19 AM1/20/13

to

I forgot to clarify that my comment is in reference to his EOs. the
use of those has stepped over the line many times in the past.

Harry K

John Manning

unread,

Jan 20, 2013, 12:22:26 PM1/20/13

to

Not really.

*FIRST* President Obama Has Issued *Fewer*
Executive Orders Than Any President
in Over 100 Years

From New York Magazine:

"We've crunched the numbers, and as
you can see in our handy graph, above,
Obama has issued fewer executive orders
per day in office than conservative heroes
like George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan,
and Calvin Coolidge.

"In fact, you have to go
all the way back to Grover Cleveland
in the nineteenth century to find
a president who has issued executive orders
at a lower rate than Obama."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/obama-executive-orders-guns.html

*SECOND* Bush Attorney General: Obama's Executive Orders Are Legal

- Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey appeared
on the Fox News Channel's "Hannity" Wednesday night with a message
that left the host looking rather disappointed.

Rebutting the Republican talk show host, Mukasey said that
President Barack Obama’s executive orders so far have been legal,
as much as he finds them distasteful. He even expressed agreement
with the Supreme Court’s finding that the Affordable Care Act
is constitutional, leaving Hannity looking perplexed.

Speaking about the president's most significant executive actions
thus far, Hannity exclaimed: "It seems me to be, by definition,
abuse of power. A power grab if you will… Is it then
unconstitutional in some instances?"

"I don’t think it's unconstitutional in the sense that
I don't think it's something you could get a court to
find unconstitutional," Mukasey replied.

"We could have a debate about whether it’s consistent
with the constitution or not, but there is a limited number
of things that will get you into court to have that decided,
and I don't think any of the things you've enumerated are among
them."

Asked about the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable
Care Act, Mukasey said he agreed with Chief Justice John
Robert’s decision that the law is constitutional.

"I'm surprised," Hannity replied. "Because I… In that case… So…
Through use of the commerce clause we can now mandate that people
buy things?"

Mukasey paused, seemingly acknowledging that Hannity just got
Roberts’ decision dead wrong. "No, he didn't say you could use
the commerce clause," the former attorney general answered.
"He said you could not use the commerce clause."

"Right," Hannity muttered.

Mukasey added later in the interview that while he is bothered
by the president's politics and agrees that his executive orders
are a "power grab" of sorts, "it doesn’t bother me in the sense
that I think you can make a court case out of it. Not everything
that bothers me is a subject of litigation. If they were, the
courts would be very busy."

Hannity looked disappointed.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/17/bush-attorney-general-disappoints-hannity-obamas-executive-orders-are-legal/

thomas p.

unread,

Jan 20, 2013, 12:36:10 PM1/20/13

to

"harry k" <tur...@q.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:e7e47dfb-ea65-4dfc...@xm8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Good thing he hasn't done that or proposed to do that, right?

thomas p.

unread,

Jan 20, 2013, 12:37:58 PM1/20/13

to

"harry k" <tur...@q.com> skrev i meddelelsen

news:a982699d-6388-4105...@gg5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

In other words it has nothing to do with the issue at hand, and, in
addition, it is merely an undocumented assertion.

Joe Cooper

unread,

Jan 20, 2013, 3:49:45 PM1/20/13

to

John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in news:-
KWdnQLnNLBLumHN...@giganews.com:

> - Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey appeared
> on the Fox News Channel's "Hannity" Wednesday night with a message
> that left the host looking rather disappointed.
>
> Rebutting the Republican talk show host, Mukasey said that
> President Barack Obama's executive orders so far have been legal,
> as much as he finds them distasteful. He even expressed agreement
> with the Supreme Court's finding that the Affordable Care Act
> is constitutional, leaving Hannity looking perplexed.

Golly, John, haven't you been telling anyone who would listen that Fox
News is not "fair and balanced?"

In any event, I see that you have changed your mind and now cite Fox as a
reliable source of news.

Good on ya

--
Enjoy Internet Freedom And Anonymity: http://hidemyass.com/vpn/r6995:5/

Message has been deleted

Don Kresch

unread,

Jan 20, 2013, 6:22:59 PM1/20/13

to

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:28:51 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
blood:

>On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:12:35 -0600, Don Kresch

><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 21:45:32 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
>>blood:
>>
>>>On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 16:27:30 -0600, Don Kresch
>>><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the supremacy clause apply to that which violates the
>>>>>>constitution?
>>>>>
>>>>>The supremcacy clause basis resides in stare decisis law
>>>>
>>>> Legal positivism. Rejected as such.
>>>>
>>>> Answer the question.
>

>The supremcacy clause

Legal positivism. Rejected as such.

Answer the question.

Free Lunch

unread,

Jan 20, 2013, 11:08:12 PM1/20/13

to

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:22:59 -0600, Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org>
wrote in alt.atheism:

>On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:28:51 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
>blood:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:12:35 -0600, Don Kresch
>><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 21:45:32 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
>>>blood:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 16:27:30 -0600, Don Kresch
>>>><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the supremacy clause apply to that which violates the
>>>>>>>constitution?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The supremcacy clause basis resides in stare decisis law
>>>>>
>>>>> Legal positivism. Rejected as such.
>>>>>
>>>>> Answer the question.
>>
>>The supremcacy clause
>
> Legal positivism. Rejected as such.
>
> Answer the question.

Do tell us where legal positivism is forbidden in interpreting law.

Message has been deleted

plainolamerican

unread,

Jan 21, 2013, 10:52:26 AM1/21/13

to

Federal Laws Are Not Optional
---
unless they are immigration laws that jews and catholics can force our
authorities to ignore.

Free Lunch

unread,

Jan 21, 2013, 1:49:31 PM1/21/13

to

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:40:33 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in
alt.atheism:

>On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:08:12 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:

>
>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:22:59 -0600, Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org>
>>wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>The supremcacy clause basis resides in stare decisis law
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Legal positivism. Rejected as such.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Answer the question.
>>>>
>>>>The supremcacy clause
>>>
>>> Legal positivism. Rejected as such.
>>>
>>> Answer the question.
>>
>>Do tell us where legal positivism is forbidden in interpreting law.
>

>and----"rejected" by who?
>
>Goofy Kresch seems to think something is true simply because he
>believes it.....Oh wait---
>
>That's why Faux snooze was started....

It's so much easier to "know" things when you don't have to waste time
learning about them or dealing with the pesky facts that show that what
you "know" just ain't so.

HHW

unread,

Jan 21, 2013, 4:55:31 PM1/21/13

to

On Jan 19, 1:53 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsennews:fcb0d137-19cd-466b...@10g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 18, 10:41 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "FirstPost" <AIOE_posters_are_all_li...@AIOE.org> skrev i
> >> meddelelsennews:2khif81m0g479akcd...@4ax.com...
>
> >> > On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 07:27:40 +0100, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >>"FirstPost" <AIOE_posters_are_all_li...@AIOE.org> skrev i meddelelsen
> >> >>news:tjpgf8dim4aoq50nt...@4ax.com...
> >> >>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:40:36 +0100, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>"WangoTango" <Asgar...@mindspring.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >> >>>>news:MPG.2b62168ea...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> >> >>>>> In article <nf2dnRTm2dPHtGrNnZ2dnUVZ_s6dn...@giganews.com>,
> >> >>>>> jrobe...@terra.com.br says...

> >> >>>>>> From time to time, state and local officials may not like federal
> >> >>>>>> laws.
>

> >> >>>>> Yep, and there is no requirement that forces any state agency to
> >> >>>>> enforce
> >> >>>>> or lend aid to enforce a federal law. If the feds want to enforce
> >> >>>>> it
> >> >>>>> *THEY* can. If the locals will sell them food, fuel, and so on.
>
> >> >>>>Please note that he stated his intention of preventing the
> >> >>>>enforcement
> >> >>>>of
> >> >>>>the law by federal authorities.
>
> >> >>> Actually there is nothing on the books preventing a state from
> >> >>> enacting a law making it illegal for a fed to do something.
> >> >>> It may sound ludicrous but the loophole exists.
>
> >> >>Actually the Constitution exists.
>
> >> > So how's that working out for the federal drug law in Colorado?
>
> >> The same thing applies. The states have no obligation to enforce a
> >> federal
> >> law, but that is not the same thing as preventing federal authorities
> >> from
> >> doing so.
>
> >Exactly.
>
> >Neither Colorado or Washington have the right to prevent the
> >> enforcement of federal anti-marijuana laws.
>
> >That, sadly, is true.

>
> That there are such laws is sad, but, if states had the right to prevent
> enforcement of federal law, the the results would be catastrophic.

State nullification and secession were defeated decisively in 1865, a
fact of which almost all Americans are acutely aware. They are no
longer legitimate issues. We are one nation. People can talk about it
all they like, as they are free to do so, but a conspiracy which takes
a single concrete step toward actually breaking up the country is
treasonous.

> Have there been any federal prosecutions for
>
> >minimal possession for personal use or use itself? I'd be surprised.
> >That's not the direction in which the issue is moving. It's
> >impractical, ridiculous. Any President is going to be forced to
> >stabilize the situation by encouraging federal prosecutors expend
> >their limited resources on crimes of consequence.
>
> For example by arresting state officials who collect taxes on marijuana
> sales, issue licenses to sellers or to growers of marijuana; this has been
> threatened.
>

>
> >To that degree those states do
> >> not have a problem, since there seems to be no intention to interfere
> >> with
> >> federal enforcement. The state laws do, however, require the licensing of
> >> growing and selling marijuana and collecting taxes on the sales, that
> >> will
> >> probably put them in conflict with federal authorities.
>
> >Not after that Presidential or Justice Department encouragement to use
> >their prosecutorial discretion sensibly.
>
> Please note that they were encouraged to not go after individual users.

Have you noticed that in the various speculative agendas we've seen in
the press for the second term there has been little or nothing about
of some of our central problems, for example the unnatural nature of
our relationship with Israel and the War on Drugs. They remain items
of which we don't speak openly, or at least the mainstream press
doesn't.

> >If more states pass
> >> similar laws the result could be political pressure on Washington to
> >> change
> >> federal laws. It will be interesting to see what happens.
>
> thomas p

HHW

unread,

Jan 21, 2013, 5:58:17 PM1/21/13

to

On Jan 19, 3:43 am, FirstPost <AIOE_posters_are_all_li...@AIOE.org>
wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 07:53:19 +0100, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelelsen

> >Have there been any federal prosecutions for
> >>minimal possession for personal use or use itself? I'd be surprised.
> >>That's not the direction in which the issue is moving. It's
> >>impractical, ridiculous. Any President is going to be forced to
> >>stabilize the situation by encouraging federal prosecutors expend
> >>their limited resources on crimes of consequence.
>
> >For example by arresting state officials who collect taxes on marijuana
> >sales, issue licenses to sellers or to growers of marijuana; this has been
> >threatened.
>
> >>To that degree those states do
> >>> not have a problem, since there seems to be no intention to interfere
> >>> with
> >>> federal enforcement. The state laws do, however, require the licensing of
> >>> growing and selling marijuana and collecting taxes on the sales, that
> >>> will
> >>> probably put them in conflict with federal authorities.
>
> >>Not after that Presidential or Justice Department encouragement to use
> >>their prosecutorial discretion sensibly.
>
> >Please note that they were encouraged to not go after individual users.
>

> >>If more states pass
> >>> similar laws the result could be political pressure on Washington to
> >>> change
> >>> federal laws. It will be interesting to see what happens.
>
> >thomas p
>

> So the feds have arrested how many people in Colorado so far?

Neither side is going to let this legal matter escalate into a serious
political problem.

Jeanne Douglas

unread,

Jan 21, 2013, 8:11:40 PM1/21/13

to

In article
<d4c8d3b2-216b-4003...@x3g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,

I recommend you watch "Up with Chris Hayes" every Saturday and Sunday
morning on MSNBC. They discuss topics like this (and others not covered
in the normal course of the news). With people from both sides of most
issues.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

Don Kresch

unread,

Jan 21, 2013, 9:03:23 PM1/21/13

to

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:39:02 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
blood:

>On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:22:59 -0600, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>>The supremcacy clause
>>
>> Legal positivism. Rejected as such.
>

>(whining)

Poor loon.

Don Kresch

unread,

Jan 21, 2013, 9:03:48 PM1/21/13

to

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:40:33 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
blood:

>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:22:59 -0600, Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org>
>>wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>The supremcacy clause basis resides in stare decisis law
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Legal positivism. Rejected as such.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Answer the question.
>>>>
>>>>The supremcacy clause
>>>
>>> Legal positivism. Rejected as such.
>>>
>>> Answer the question.

>and----"rejected" by who?

Rational people, loon.

Message has been deleted

Don Kresch

unread,

Jan 22, 2013, 8:32:11 AM1/22/13

to

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:27:27 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
blood:

>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:03:48 -0600, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:40:33 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
>>blood:
>>
>>
>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:22:59 -0600, Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org>
>>>>wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The supremcacy clause basis resides in stare decisis law
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Legal positivism. Rejected as such.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Answer the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The supremcacy clause
>>>>>
>>>>> Legal positivism. Rejected as such.
>>>>>
>>>>> Answer the question.
>>
>>>and----"rejected" by who?
>>
>> Rational people, loon.
>>

And Yoorghis whines so much that he forgets to respond.

Message has been deleted

Don Kresch

unread,

Jan 22, 2013, 7:05:27 PM1/22/13

to

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:37:59 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
blood:

>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 07:32:11 -0600, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:27:27 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
>>blood:
>

>>>>>>>>The supremcacy clause
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Legal positivism.
>

>>>>>and----"rejected" by who?
>>>>
>>>> Rational people, loon.
>
>> And Yoorghis whines so much that he forgets to respond.
>

>Supremacy clause

Legal positivism. And you have yet to show that the supremacy
clause actually applies to laws that violate the constitution.

Message has been deleted

Don Kresch

unread,

Jan 23, 2013, 9:10:09 AM1/23/13

to

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:52:42 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
blood:

>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:05:27 -0600, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>>Supremacy clause
>>
>> Legal positivism. And you have yet to show that the supremacy
>>clause actually applies to laws that violate the constitution.
>

>(whining)

Try again, loon. Show that the supremacy clause applies to

laws that violate the constitution.

Loon! Loon! Loon! Loon!

Message has been deleted

Don Kresch

unread,

Jan 23, 2013, 7:21:32 PM1/23/13

to

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:27:05 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
blood:

>On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:10:09 -0600, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Try again, loon. Show that the supremacy clause applies to
>>laws that violate the constitution.
>

>There are no laws that "Violate the contitution",

Yes there are, wingnut. Try again, wingnut. For example ff you
doubt me, wingnut, show me where in the constitution that indefinite
detention without trial for US citizens is authorized. Oh wait,
wingnut--that violates the habeas corpus clause. Yet the NDAA 2012
authorizes indefinite detention of US citizens without trial. Looks
like you're fucked, wingnut. Further, nothing in the constitution
allows for fedgov to make illegal certain drugs. Yet they are. That
clearly is unconstitutional. The patriot act is unconstitutional. MCA
2006 is unconstitutional.

Want me to go on, wingnut?

Olrik

unread,

Jan 23, 2013, 11:58:34 PM1/23/13

to

Le 2013-01-23 19:21, Don Kresch a écrit :

> Want me to go on, wingnut?

Yes. Why do you even fucking care? Are you now a statist?

--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

Message has been deleted

harry k

unread,

Jan 24, 2013, 11:43:08 AM1/24/13

to

On Jan 23, 4:21 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:27:05 -0700, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net scrawled in

And until the USSC says it is unconstitutional what is it?

Harry K

thomas p.

unread,

Jan 24, 2013, 3:33:09 PM1/24/13

to

"harry k" <tur...@q.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:bacd23de-5a9f-4616...@sb6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Why it is whatever Don says it is. He gets to define reality. Didn't you
know that?

Don Kresch

unread,

Jan 24, 2013, 6:18:27 PM1/24/13

to

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:38:16 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
blood:

>On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:21:32 -0600, Don Kresch
><spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>There are no laws that "Violate the contitution",
>>

>> Yes there are, wingnut. Try again, wingnut. For example: if you

>>doubt me, wingnut, show me where in the constitution that indefinite
>>detention without trial for US citizens is authorized. Oh wait,
>>wingnut--that violates the habeas corpus clause. Yet the NDAA 2012
>>authorizes indefinite detention of US citizens without trial. Looks
>>like you're fucked, wingnut. Further, nothing in the constitution
>>allows for fedgov to make illegal certain drugs. Yet they are. That
>>clearly is unconstitutional. The patriot act is unconstitutional. MCA
>>2006 is unconstitutional.
>
> Want me to go on, wingnut?
>

>Specify which law.

Are you illiterate as well as a liar, wingnut? It's right
there above. Did you miss it? Let me post it several more times so
that you can lie some more about how you didn't see it:

For example: if you doubt me, wingnut, show me where in the

constitution that indefinite detention without trial for US citizens
is authorized. Oh wait, wingnut--that violates the habeas corpus
clause. Yet the NDAA 2012 authorizes indefinite detention of US
citizens without trial. Looks like you're fucked, wingnut. Further,
nothing in the constitution allows for fedgov to make illegal certain
drugs. Yet they are. That clearly is unconstitutional. The patriot act
is unconstitutional. MCA 2006 is unconstitutional.