SwiftVets.com

[ASPB]

[ROWELG]

The poll above shows that conservatives and neither have mixed beliefs when it come to law, with a slight edge of law trumping rights.

The most important result is that NO liberal see LAW over RIGHTS. I suppose that can be spun to mean liberals are RIGHT, and the others confused. Personally I know the gang (collectivist) mentality when I see it.

[ASPB]

[Marine4life]

That's the methodology of a liberal, word things so that they are fuzzy and open to interpretation. But both are very straight forward in thier wording if you look at them individually. Mix them together and you confuse the issue. But the bottom line is you are free to exercise your right's until it infringes upon law, therefore law trumps rights. That is why we have legal limit's on our rights, 2nd ammendment, 1st ammendment, which are the two basic ones that everyone is most concerned about. Exercise your rights in violation of law and just see what gets trumped. Argue this liberals and see if you can convince me otherwise. I assume that this lead's to Kerry's right to freedom of speech in 1971 against the USA, in that instance he was in violation of law pertaing to his so called freedom of speech, UCMJ, US Code. Semper Fi.
_________________
Helicopter Marine Attack Squadron 169 which is now HMLA-169. They added Huey's to compliment the Cobra effectiveness. When I served we just had Snakes.

[publius]

[publius]

What seems to be a problem here in understanding whether law supercedes rights or vice versa, has to do with laws restricting rights and therefore, law seeming to be superior.

No right, including those protected in the Bill of Rights, is absolute. The right to free speech is not. You cannot shout fire in a crowded theater. The 2nd is not absolute. You cannot own a Stinger. No right may be exercised in such a way that it harms another. That a legislature can make a law restricting a fundamental right found in the Bill of Rights is not in dispute. It can. But, in doing so it has a very high hurdle to clear, for if it unduly burdens an individual's liberty interest to think and act as he pleases, provided he neither "picks the pocket" nor "breaks the leg" of another, then the law is unconstitutional. By definition.

The fact that laws can be crafted to legitimately restrict a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights does not imply that the law supercedes the right, that the law trumps the right. The right comes first, always.
_________________
Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. -Gen Omar N. Bradley

[publius]

ASPB and Marine4Life, kindly explain how your views are consistent with judge Jackson's statement. I could compare and contrast them but let's hear from you directly. If you think Jackson is wrong and you are right, how about offering some authoritative supprt for your opinions instead of just offering opinion?
_________________
Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. -Gen Omar N. Bradley

[ASPB]

Publius,

You're just parsing words. Without a legal contract between the people and the government wherein the people cede certain of their individual rights to the government for the common good and reserve others, there are no enforcable rights; other than those imposed by force. Without such an organic law, (read contract) all that is left is anarchy.

By accepting citizenship you are accepting the terms and conditions of the contract. Therefore, to the extent a right has been ceded by law, your individual rights are trumped by the contract you signed (law) in accepting citizenship.

If you feel a law is unduly restrictive you may use the democratic process to convince a majority that the restriction is inappropriate.

I personally find one major fault in our system and that is that laws are oft randomly passed and enacted prior to Judicial review of their constitutionality.

Congress enacts, Executive affirms, Judiciary reviews all before enactment. But what the hell, that would eliminate 2/3 of the bottom feeding attorneys.
_________________
On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB

[Marine4life]

OK exactly what quote are you refering to by Judge Jackson? We have a Supreme Court and a Court of Appeals to check and balance misguided Judges, or one's that interpret the law to further their agenda. Many decisions are overturned daily that don't reflect the true essence of the law. Most judges in my opinion are far to liberal and interpret to fit a wharped agenda rather than follow the letter of the law. They are all former Attorney's need I say more. Semper Fi.
_________________
Helicopter Marine Attack Squadron 169 which is now HMLA-169. They added Huey's to compliment the Cobra effectiveness. When I served we just had Snakes.

[publius]

[GoophyDog]

publius;

Its interesting you would bring Jackson into this since one of his claims to fame was part of the unanimous decision which, by its lack of action, upheld the unconstitutional seizure of property, restriction of liberty and virtual imprisonment of U.S. citizens WITHOUT due process of law, based solely on race. (Hirabayashi v. United States) A side note to this is just one week prior he had wrote the majority opinion upholding free expression ie; West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette

Further, his stance on legal representation in trial was overturned in the Gideon case. Another is the scope of search incident to arrest (I personally agree with Jackson on this one however the court has seen fit to more strictly enforce the 4th ammendment)

Footnote: On Justice Stone's death, two sitting justices threatened to resign if Jackson was appointed Chief Justice.

Justice Jackson was a brilliant, self-educated jurist however his opinions and judgements were reflected by then prevailing public sentiment and perhaps not solely based on the rule of law. In certain matters he clearly demonstrated that Law trumps Rights.

My point, and this goes back to the initial posts though probably not expressed as well as I could have is this: The poll as written, while perhaps not biased is subject to personal observation and experience. The questions posed on face value are clear cut, however based on history and experience they become too gray to show an accurate result.

If your intent by posing this poll was to encourage a lively debate, then you have succeeded. In most cases there is a word to describe that sort of poster which I'll refrain from saying in consideration of the moderators.

[Scott]

[publius]

[Marine4life]

I won't debate any further after this post, it is fugile, but answer this question if not to me just to yourself;

Can the law take your citizenship away from you? If you answer YES then your argument is wrong about rights trumping law as citizenship is the only thing that really guarantee's you your rights.

If your answer is NO, then you don't understand the argument and don't know the law. If you don't know the law then you can't effectivly debate this subject let alone start the thread.

Verbal threats are written in law as "Terroristic Threats" not once have I ever seen a Court rule that it is OK because you have a 1st ammendment right. Or for "Brandishing a firearm" because you have a 2nd ammendment right. Walk into a Court room with a 9mm and see if your 2nd ammendment rights trump law. Your argument is not valid as is proven every day in the Courts of this country and in the Prison's. Most laws are written to protect your rights, murder, rape, robbery etc and you wouldn't have any rights without them, example one who murder's goes to Prison for depriving another person of his right's to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That is written in the Remanding Order of Judgement. " Whoever is remanded to the (state) Department of Correction's for a period of 25 years to life in prison, for depriving whoever of his right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
Your senario just doesn't fit into this anywhere that I can see. Semper Fi.
_________________
Helicopter Marine Attack Squadron 169 which is now HMLA-169. They added Huey's to compliment the Cobra effectiveness. When I served we just had Snakes.

[ASPB]