Absolutely. They are actively defending the Constitutionally-recognized rights of their constituents against tyranny of the majority.
Would that all elected officials would actively defend the Constitution so. Wouldn’t that be grand?
Their opinion counts and yours doesn’t
Anarchy is cool.
No, it seems they are writing their own laws.
Laws need to be enforced equally, it makes no difference if you happen to like the outcome. That’s what courts are for.
That’s how the Constitution works.
1 Like
Great post. The American Way.
No, The Law has been written since 1789.
1 Like
Correct. It is the American way as defined in the Constitution to have the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution and not the citizenry
ruled by 9. The American Way.
The logic contained within those 2 posts is not consistent because that is precisely how it is laid out in the Constitution.
1 Like
Still waiting for an explanation of what part of 1639 the sheriff’s are going to “not enforce”…
1 Like
According to the OP’s article:
“A growing number of sheriffs, almost all in rural counties, have publicly stated that they will not, or believe they cannot, enforce the provisions of I1639, a ballot measure passed by popular vote last November which aims to restrict access to and use of assault weapons.”
Which sounds like it might run counter to the 2A, but that is for the courts to decide.
Further:
“A few, like Klickitat county sheriff Bob Songer, say that they would not only not enforce the laws, but would consider preventing other agencies from doing so in their counties.”
Standing in the way of the ATF would be a problem.
1 Like
No, it’s not.
Is it? Can you provide the interpretation clause please.
Article III, section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
1 Like
Of course it is, that’s how the Constitution works. To want to do it any other way would be to advocate anarchy.
We have a system that works, so long as people are willing to respect, and abide, by it.
1 Like
The interpret clause please. Might check the SCOTUS web page.
It’s day in the US, but you too.
It’s Saturday, I have some of the world’s finest sitting next to me and I’m not in Texas so how could I not
That was a smack down to all self-proclaimed constitutional experts in this thread. Funny thing though, it’s common sense that this is how it works.
1 Like
