Friday, December 11, 2015

President Can Ignore Unconstitutional Supreme Court Decisions

Ted Cruz Said: The President Can Ignore Unconstitutional Supreme Court Decisions

Cruz said “I agree with President Lincoln and courts do not make law…The court interprets the law, applies the law…. And, you know, this is an area of really striking divide in this presidential election.…They’re [sic] quite a few Republicans who, when the gay “marriage” decision came down, they described it as the settled law of the land.  It’s final; we must accept it, move on and surrender.”

Those are almost word for word Barack Obama’s talking points and I think they are profoundly wrong. I think the decision was fundamentally illegitimate. It was lawless. It was not based on the Constitution.  I agree very much with Justice Scalia, who wrote a powerful dissent saying, this decision is a fundamental threat to our democracy.… And indeed, Justice Scalia, in the penultimate paragraph of his dissent, predicts, harkening back to President Lincoln defying Dred Scott, that state and local officials will refuse to obey this lawless decision.  It is remarkable to see a Supreme Court justice saying that would be the consequence of this.”

And, I would add the following:

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by
legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the
land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any
statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both
the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must
prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though
having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly
void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality
dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of
the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal
contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such
a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it
would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles
follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no
office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no
protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid
law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law
of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it.

It is that simple.   And, if in the OPINION of the "court", some "legislation" breaches the Constitution, then the "court" MUST petition Congress to make what ever "laws" are necessary and prudent - the "courts" are FORBIDDEN the "making of law" ... which includes the "un-making of law" as well.

In the end, WE THE PEOPLE are suppose to be the "final arbiters" of "Law".

Any laws that are opposite of the constitution are null and void period. The leadership in DC is guilty of treason, sedition. Subversion. Espionage. Malfeasance. Seditious conspiracy. Usurpation and several other laws.

Under federal law, 18 USC 242, it is illegal for anyone under the color of law to deprive any person of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution, and under 18 USC 241 it is illegal to conspire to violate such rights. It is a f
elony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This could be applied to local, state, or federal law enforcement or military personnel who abuse the rights of citizens. Every state has a similar law.

The key point is this: You not only have the right to disobey an illegal order, but you may also have the duty to apprehend the parties issuing such an order if such issuance is part of the commission of a crime.

No comments:

Post a Comment