RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
If Congress passes a law and it becomes the Law of the land but some people claim it is unconstitutional, if those people break that law, what should happen?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If Congress passes a law and it becomes the Law of the land but some people claim it is unconstitutional, if those people break that law, what should happen?
They should be allowed to leave and go live a country that abides by it's constitution instead of one controlled by The Corporatocracy's collection of prostitutes.
If Congress passes a law and it becomes the Law of the land but some people claim it is unconstitutional, if those people break that law, what should happen?
a law is constitutional until the high court says it isn't (assuming it gets there).
beyond that, once enacted, even a bad law is supposed to (theoretically) be enforced. but that's a broad response and subject to sublteties, particularly when there are competing decisions on a subject.
If Congress passes a law and it becomes the Law of the land but some people claim it is unconstitutional, if those people break that law, what should happen?
"What should happen to those that break said law because they disagree with it? A law that has been in force for 40 years with no challenge before the courts?"
As noted above, if arrested and arraigned plead NG, don't wave time, waive a trail by jury and let the trail judge decide. When convicted appeal; but don't forget to bring your toothbrush at sentencing.
That said, clearly you have an agenda RSG, so why not be honest and ask the question? Which law do you have in mind?
If Congress passes a law and it becomes the Law of the land but some people claim it is unconstitutional, if those people break that law, what should happen?
If Congress passes a law and it becomes the Law of the land but some people claim it is unconstitutional, if those people break that law, what should happen?
a law is constitutional until the high court says it isn't (assuming it gets there).
beyond that, once enacted, even a bad law is supposed to (theoretically) be enforced. but that's a broad response and subject to sublteties, particularly when there are competing decisions on a subject.
What should happen to those that break said law because they disagree with it? A law that has been in force for 40 years with no challenge before the courts?
a law is constitutional until the high court says it isn't (assuming it gets there).
beyond that, once enacted, even a bad law is supposed to (theoretically) be enforced. but that's a broad response and subject to sublteties, particularly when there are competing decisions on a subject.
What should happen to those that break said law because they disagree with it? A law that has been in force for 40 years with no challenge before the courts?
they get convicted and can then challenge the constitutionality of the law because they will have standing to do so and there will be an actual case and controversy to place before the court. how do you think decisions get done?
So our lawyers agree that Obama should be arrested for breaking the law ( the War Powers act) and that if found guilty ( which he is) should appeal that the law is Unconstitutional.
Why then when asked directly about said law and Obama none of you say that?
Yes, he should be arrested.So our lawyers agree that Obama should be arrested for breaking the law ( the War Powers act) and that if found guilty ( which he is) should appeal that the law is Unconstitutional.
Why then when asked directly about said law and Obama none of you say that?
Yes, he should be arrested.So our lawyers agree that Obama should be arrested for breaking the law ( the War Powers act) and that if found guilty ( which he is) should appeal that the law is Unconstitutional.
Why then when asked directly about said law and Obama none of you say that?
So our lawyers agree that Obama should be arrested for breaking the law ( the War Powers act) and that if found guilty ( which he is) should appeal that the law is Unconstitutional.
Why then when asked directly about said law and Obama none of you say that?
Sounds like a great platform for Republicans to run on.So our lawyers agree that Obama should be arrested for breaking the law ( the War Powers act) and that if found guilty ( which he is) should appeal that the law is Unconstitutional.
Why then when asked directly about said law and Obama none of you say that?
I'm not a lawyer, but I agree he should be arrested. After he is indicted, and a warrant for his arrest is issued.
Good luck with that.
Sounds like a great platform for Republicans to run on.So our lawyers agree that Obama should be arrested for breaking the law ( the War Powers act) and that if found guilty ( which he is) should appeal that the law is Unconstitutional.
Why then when asked directly about said law and Obama none of you say that?
I'm not a lawyer, but I agree he should be arrested. After he is indicted, and a warrant for his arrest is issued.
Good luck with that.