Should those who violate constitutional law be punished?

[netsecurity]

How come a Mayor or Governer or Senator or Congressman, etc. can propose and enact laws that are in direct violation of basic constitutional rights to an entire citizenry, and not be held accountable? The DC gun ban, for example, went on for years, murders skyrocketed (as they are now in Chicago), and a private citizen had to sew them all the way to the supreme court before getting it overturned. I would argue that the creator and purveyors of the law are guilty of the worst possible crime, equivalent to treason.

Why is the burden of proof on the plaintif, who must pay millions in legal fees to oppose these tyrrants?

When it is clearly obvious that attempts are being made to usurp constutional law, shouldn't someone stop this process before such infringements of "guaranteed" rights occurs? The Supreme Court is currently only reactionary, but maybe that needs to change.

If no one is policing the government, then how can any rights be guaranteed?

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a set of LAWS for politicians, and when they knowingly or unknowingly break them, they should be imprisoned. I believe if this were the case we'd have a lot less politicians wanting to create stupid laws that even come close to infringing rights, and that's how it ought to be. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say politicians have immunity. The next best thing to an agency that polices politicians would be civil suits, where they get sewed out of house and home by class action lawsuits from their entire citizenry. Is there any such precedent? None that I recall, but I think it should become common--we the people could police our own government in this way.

 

[Denny347]

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Those subverting the Constitution shouldn't have to be held to the whims and standards of the bourgeois electorate

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would argue that clear and willful violation of the Constitution is treason and should be treated as such.

 

[spec4]

I would argue that clear and willful violation of the Constitution is treason and should be treated as such.

And this is the key. How we got to where we are is pretty sad.

 

[Pocketman]

I would argue that clear and willful violation of the Constitution is treason and should be treated as such.

Seems a bit of a stretch from the definition of treason in Article 3 of the Constitution.

 

[mrjarrell]

L. Neil Smith at Random » A PENALTY CLAUSE FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS

“Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government,
who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify,
evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this
Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily
removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and
benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.”

We need an amendment to the Constitution. A penalty clause.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Seems a bit of a stretch from the definition of treason in Article 3 of the Constitution.

Much smaller stretch than Wickard V. Filburn.

 

[Pocketman]

I would argue that clear and willful violation of the Constitution is treason and should be treated as such.

Seems a bit of a stretch from the definition of treason in Article 3 of the Constitution.

Much smaller stretch than Wickard V. Filburn.

Commerce Clause is in Article 1. Treason is in Article 3.

My interpretation of your argument is that you advocate violating (or at least stretching) the Constitution as justification to punish those who violate the Constitution?

 

[ThrottleJockey]

We used to just tar and feather them prior to running them out of town on a pole....They got wise to it and began passing laws making it illegal....

 

[Fargo]

L. Neil Smith at Random » A PENALTY CLAUSE FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS



We need an amendment to the Constitution. A penalty clause.

And who will sit in judgement of what is a violation? What if they violate the constitution? How do you propose to "summarily" punish them in light of the due process clause?

People need to realize that the constitution is no check upon tyranny if the people of that society choose leaders that do it no obedience. Why should we be upset when our elected officials ignore the constitution, when we elected them knowing that they would?

This falls squarely on the shoulders of "the people" and on no one else.

Joe

 

[ThrottleJockey]

And who will sit in judgement of what is a violation? What if they violate the constitution? How do you propose to "summarily" punish them in light of the due process clause?

People need to realize that the constitution is no check upon tyranny if the people of that society choose leaders that do it no obedience. Why should we be upset when our elected officials ignore the constitution, when we elected them knowing that they would?

This falls squarely on the shoulders of "the people" and on no one else.

Joe

In light of the way votes are cast, counted and records kept, you will be hard pressed to convince me that we elected them to start with. Additionally, I suggest that your post sounds like we should start plucking chickens and heating up the tar.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Wasn't it Franklin that retorted when asked that we had been given a republic, if we can keep it?

The founders knew the constitution could/would be befouled sooner or later. It's up to the citizenry to police it. If we are unable or unwilling to eschew largesse from the treasury or security we dont deserve liberty. The constitution is just an idea recorded on a piece of paper--it's ip to us to protect it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

And who will sit in judgement of what is a violation? What if they violate the constitution? How do you propose to "summarily" punish them in light of the due process clause?

Good point. We have a SC that is supposed to be the final arbiter of the constitutionality of laws and we've seen how that check can be corrupted. Let's not outsource another one of our responsibilities to some .gov bureaucrat. "We" elect them, it's our fault.

 

[CarmelHP]

How is a "penalty clause" magic trick law going to police politicians when the public refuses. It sounds like a good way to write into the Constitution a way to persecute one's political opponents. The Founders wrote the definition of treason as they did so every policy dispute would NOT turn into a treason trial.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Wasn't it Franklin that retorted when asked that we had been given a republic, if we can keep it?

The founders knew the constitution could/would be befouled sooner or later. It's up to the citizenry to police it. If we are unable or unwilling to eschew largesse from the treasury or security we dont deserve liberty. The constitution is just an idea recorded on a piece of paper--it's ip to us to protect it.

And this is exactly why the 2A is there. Unfortunately it has already been so bastardized that we fear the mere mention of using it or even speaking about using it or we may be "banned" from the places such things would/could be discussed.

 

[J_Wales]

And this is exactly why the 2A is there. Unfortunately it has already been so bastardized that we fear the mere mention of using it or even speaking about using it or we may be "banned" from the places such things would/could be discussed.

There is truth in that statement.

 

[Bapak2ja]

I would argue that clear and willful violation of the Constitution is treason and should be treated as such.

Agreed. But the ones who are responsible to enforce the law are the very ones who want to change it so they can retain their power. Thus, no Republican wants to actually challenge Hussein regarding his eligibility, and no one wants to close the borders.

The sheepdog has now joined the wolves. It is just that simple. Thus, we need a Ron Paul type electoral revolution or our only chance will be a repeat of 1776.

 

[Bapak2ja]

And this is exactly why the 2A is there. Unfortunately it has already been so bastardized that we fear the mere mention of using it or even speaking about using it or we may be "banned" from the places such things would/could be discussed.

Of course, this is true. Those who make money off such forums cannot allow truth to be broadcast because it will jeopardize their profits. It is simply a smaller example of the hound joining the wolves in order to fleece the sheep.

 

[Bapak2ja]

In light of the way votes are cast, counted and records kept, you will be hard pressed to convince me that we elected them to start with. Additionally, I suggest that your post sounds like we should start plucking chickens and heating up the tar.

Voter fraud is a fundamental part of our electoral process now. We used to joke about Chicago, but it is a documented fact that the machine there put Kennedy in office. The refusal to adopt voter photo ID requirements just proves the point. Without such fraud, we would not have the government we now have.