Do officers have to uphold the Constitution, or the orders of Congress/SCOTUS?

[Pocketman]

The peaceful check & balance would be for the Executive Branch to stands up against the others and refuse to oppress the citizens.

True. The executive branch can choose not to enforce stupid laws. In your OP, they have apparently made the decision to do so however.

If it goes beyond that, the next check and balance won't be so peaceful. They want my guns, they'll have to come take them.


But 51% of the people aren't supposed to be able to strip the rights of the 49%.

Also true. Rights are actually suppose to protect the minority. In your OP, the loss right effected everyone. Another one of those 99% situations.

We'd have more guns and more liberty.

Certainly a better world than the "Just Following Orders" outcome.

Let's try an analogy on this situation. 2nd Amendment "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There have been several cases before SCOTUS on this subject, the results basically allow reasonable regulation. It can easily be argued that regulation is infringement.

In Indiana we must have this little pink card to carry a handgun. Perhaps this is infringement and a violation of rights. Ironically, those who ignore this are considered criminal and those who comply with this ingringement are considered proper.

While we may disagree, we do not openly defy this regulation. Many of us are in fact involved in having the requirement removed. So the point is, we work through the system to change what we think is not right.

 

[rambone]

Let's try an analogy on this situation. 2nd Amendment "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There have been several cases before SCOTUS on this subject, the results basically allow reasonable regulation. It can easily be argued that regulation is infringement.

In Indiana we must have this little pink card to carry a handgun. Perhaps this is infringement and a violation of rights. Ironically, those who ignore this are considered criminal and those who comply with this ingringement are considered proper.

While we may disagree, we do not openly defy this regulation. Many of us are in fact involved in having the requirement removed. So the point is, we work through the system to change what we think is not right.

True. The pink card is an infringement.

Some people avoid police work over this type of thing.

Some officers may choose to look with leniency on people found in violation of this law; using their best judgement. I would respect that.

Some may diligently enforce LTCH laws, but wouldn't go as far as confiscating weapons.

The group that worries me the most is the ones who have no "line in the sand." Their principles move with the will of the current regime. They think the constitution lives and breathes, and will eventually mean something different when a 5-man majority decides so. That scares me. After our forefathers sacrificed everything to protect these rights, today they will be carelessly dispensed in order for somebody to keep their job.

We all must have a line in the sand. We alone are responsible for our own actions and decisions, no one else. That is what this crazy religion-talk is all about.

 

[jsgolfman]

I'm just gonna leave this here...

No Treason

 

[jgreiner]

The fault lies in the Constitution itself. The Founders failed to put in a penalty clause for violations of the Constitution or BoR. That's something that could be corrected via Amendment. If there were teeth breaking ones oath and violating the Constitution would cease overnight.

_TREASON!_, by L. Neil Smith

Agreed....loss of citizenship would be a good start.....

 

[dross]

You're the last person I would have expected to respond negatively to the concept of something like the Oath Keepers.

Has someone else taken over your account?

Oathkeepers weren't mentioned in the original post. Rambone equates my position with being against the oathkeepers, then you jump from there to me being against what they stand for.

What I like about the oathkeepers is that they spell out specifically what they consider to be unconstitutional. With some minor quibbles, I agree with their positions.

Rambone has argued before for a much broader interpretation of what's unconstitutional and has also argued that there's not room for honest disagreement. I'm paraphrasing, I'm not saying he's said exactly those words. I was responding to the original post in that context.

 

[rambone]

Oathkeepers weren't mentioned in the original post. Rambone equates my position with being against the oathkeepers, then you jump from there to me being against what they stand for.

What I like about the oathkeepers is that they spell out specifically what they consider to be unconstitutional. With some minor quibbles, I agree with their positions.

Rambone has argued before for a much broader interpretation of what's unconstitutional and has also argued that there's not room for honest disagreement. I'm paraphrasing, I'm not saying he's said exactly those words. I was responding to the original post in that context.

Oathkeepers is mentioned explicitly in the OP.

In the same sentence, I listed 4 specific things off the top of my head that strike me as "tyrannical laws." I tried to make it clear I am not trying to bring shame on police for writing speeding tickets or something.

The 2 quotes in the OP come from another thread about gun confiscation.

So what's the deal? You believe there is room for honest disagreement on confiscating citizens guns?

 

[fireblade]

ok who got the problem with the Oathkeepers ...........

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would have to ask what is so difficult about reading the Constitution and doing exactly what it says. Determining a given law's compatibility with the Constitution may be challenging in some cases, but the text is generally very clear to all but those who are motivated to deliberately misinterpret it. I would have to disagree with that belief that it is the prerogative of the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of law as this would create a de facto nine-member oligarchy which conceptually stands in exact opposition to a constitutional republic.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Judicial, Legislative, Executive.

I claim membership in noun #3. I am able to execute the part that states, "... alter or abolish it ... ... and institute new government ..." as the Peoples' Right. If anyone is perceived as inimical to the Peoples' Rights as enumerated in The Constitution, including SCOTUS, those ones are in the cross-hairs of the executive members of society. Some herein may not like that, but, then, King George didn't like it either. But it works, and is LONG overdue. Vote them ALL out.

 

[Sticky]

When I joined the service, the oath was to defend the Constitution. It said nothing about defending the Supreme Court's interpretation of it.

The Constitution is in language plain enough for most to understand. I'm pretty sure those who wrote it intended for it to be interpreted by the average citizen; not SCOTUS or any other government arm (pun intended).

 

[dross]

I would have to ask what is so difficult about reading the Constitution and doing exactly what it says. Determining a given law's compatibility with the Constitution may be challenging in some cases, but the text is generally very clear to all but those who are motivated to deliberately misinterpret it. I would have to disagree with that belief that it is the prerogative of the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of law as this would create a de facto nine-member oligarchy which conceptually stands in exact opposition to a constitutional republic.

When I joined the service, the oath was to defend the Constitution. It said nothing about defending the Supreme Court's interpretation of it.

The Constitution is in language plain enough for most to understand. I'm pretty sure those who wrote it intended for it to be interpreted by the average citizen; not SCOTUS or any other government arm (pun intended).

What's the purpose of the Supreme Court?

 

[ray d]

You will only keep the rights you are willing to fight and die for.Everyone has there own line in the sand.On this page it is guns but as for me its that and any thing that will harm my family like vaccines.

 

[Sticky]

What's the purpose of the Supreme Court?

You mean their self-appointed purpose? That would be like the cat appointing itself to guard the mice.

Quoted from Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia : "The Court's power and prestige waxed during the Marshall Court (1801–1835).[6] Under Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison)".

Probably the worst decision they ever made.
As said before:

• When I joined the service, the oath was to defend the Constitution. It said nothing about defending the Supreme Court's interpretation of it.

 

[thebishopp]

You mean their self-appointed purpose? That would be like the cat appointing itself to guard the mice.

Quoted from Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia : "The Court's power and prestige waxed during the Marshall Court (1801–1835).[6] Under Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison)".

Probably the worst decision they ever made.
As said before:

• When I joined the service, the oath was to defend the Constitution. It said nothing about defending the Supreme Court's interpretation of it.

+1

I don't understand why so many people keep ignoring or conveniently forgetting that it was the SCOTUS that appointed itself final authority.

 

[rambone]

The Chain Of Obedience

This short video adds some perspective.

"It may be true that we have a demented pack of inbred maniacs running the world right now. But they aren't the ones that I fear. I fear the conditioned masses which would put me to death at the drop of a hat, if the right orders were given. I fear the herd of well-meaning idiots which believe that written law and authority is to be followed at all costs, even at the expense of self-evident morality. The death squads and the concentration camps of history, were never staffed by rebels and dissidents; they were staffed by those who followed the rules."

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NcLNoxiPBk[/ame]