You realize that says under the constitution, not over it… right?
There is a difference.
1 Like
Through the courts is the way to challenge ANY law that is viewed as unconstitutional.
And what about the criminals created in the meantime?
Interpret clause?
I don’t know, but I’m sure there are plenty of examples in case law from previous unconstitutional endeavors of our legislators.
Again, use the courts. I’m sure if there are grounds for it a judge will issue an injunction.
We are a country of laws.
Thousands. I would say probably most of those of substance.
What do we do with a legislative that abdicates, an incompetent executive and a judiciary that allows and even promotes both and violations of the Constitution to boot?
What about the created criminals?
If a judge issues an injunction then no criminals are “created”. Only if the law is determined to be valid will that happen.
It isn’t a good idea to cherry pick the laws to be enforced.
You continue to use the courts for as long as possible. We aren’t even close to a Boston Massacre type incident for example. Not saying where we would draw the line, but I’m pretty sure it would become a veritably non partisan endeavor that most people would agree on.
If people are arrested under said laws, the point is valid.
And if an injunction against enforcement of the law is issued?
And what job is that?
That would be everyone outside of libs stronghold/enclaves.
1 Like
Of course there is. As soon as they ban rifles, for example. Everyone who has one will be a criminal.
Over-ruling the will of the people, not to mention the legislature? My, my.
Interpret clause?
Where o where were you when Trump flouted due process?!? Not as ardently opposed I reckon.
“Take the guns first, go through due process second.”
Hillary Clinton?
Bill Clinton?
Barack Obama?
Nancy Pelosi?
Nope to all.
Trump said that.
That’s your standard bearer Sneak. Kinda hard to draw a hard line on gun rights when your top rep doesn’t give two ■■■■■ about em.
1 Like
Which time?
