Where'd my post go?

[theGinsue]

for the sake of understanding, you would advocate compliance with illegal and unconstitutional acts?

not accusing, just trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

What I would do is prohibit & remove conversations that could later be used as evidence of potential conspiracy.

Discussion of intention to violate the law (current or future) is called conspiracy. To discuss plans out in the open is begging to get this site shut down as well as midnight raids to homes. Constitutional or not, if these laws go on the books, they are the law. This nation does have processes in places to appeal/repeal UnConstitutional laws.

[Monky]

This nation does have processes in places to appeal/repeal UnConstitutional laws.

WAAAAYYY too true that a law can go against the constitution and there is nothing that can be done.

[HoneyBadger]

Interesting read... Thanks for posting byte. I wish everyone were a constitutional scholar... And by that I mean I wish everyone would read the friggin constitution.

[Melvin]

WAAAAYYY too true that a law can go against the constitution and there is nothing that can be done.

I would beg to differ. Watched this movie last night.
Even though the govt of Mexico has done everything to purge these events from the history books, it did happen.
Men and women of principle stood and fought. History has countless examples where the yoke of tyranny has been
cast off by people who said, "Enough is enough".

[h8monday]

WAAAAYYY too true that a law can go against the constitution and there is nothing that can be done.

Look what happened with Obamacare. The penalty to not buy health insurance was not constitutional so they changed the word penalty to tax and it became legal. The same thing could happen here. Change a few words around and make it vague enough that it somehow becomes legal for them to make me do something that is clearly unconstitutional and outside the bounds of what the feds can do to you. Molon Labe.

[Teufelhund]

WAAAAYYY too true that a law can go against the constitution and there is nothing that can be done.

Look what happened with Obamacare. The penalty to not buy health insurance was not constitutional so they changed the word penalty to tax and it became legal. The same thing could happen here. Change a few words around and make it vague enough that it somehow becomes legal for them to make me do something that is clearly unconstitutional and outside the bounds of what the feds can do to you. Molon Labe.

Absolutely true. This begs the question: What recourse do the People have when even the SCOTUS has upheld as constitutional legislation which contradicts the BoR? e.g. the Patriot Act is a blatant infringement of the Fourth Amendment, NDAA contains language which attempts to void the Sixth Amendment. . . you get the idea. What say you, Byte?

[Byte Stryke]

What I would do is prohibit & remove conversations that could later be used as evidence of potential conspiracy.

Discussion of intention to violate the law (current or future) is called conspiracy. To discuss plans out in the open is begging to get this site shut down as well as midnight raids to homes. Constitutional or not, if these laws go on the books, they are the law. This nation does have processes in places to appeal/repeal UnConstitutional laws.

http://constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm

16th American Jurisprudence 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 lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Jon Roland:
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

This has already been decided on.
You are welcome

[HoneyBadger]

Not poking. Honest question. Remember in history.. when people would hide the jewish.. just to turn them in and look good to the nazis.

I guess I should have been more clear: I was poking TheGinsue for an answer.

What I would do is prohibit & remove conversations that could later be used as evidence of potential conspiracy.

Discussion of intention to violate the law (current or future) is called conspiracy. To discuss plans out in the open is begging to get this site shut down as well as midnight raids to homes. Constitutional or not, if these laws go on the books, they are the law. This nation does have processes in places to appeal/repeal UnConstitutional laws.

Thanks for the answer. I totally understand. Don't need to have any witchhunts or midnight raids. I wish we didn't have to be afraid to exercise the 1st amendment...