Argumentation about the CONstitution
https://gab.com/ChrisLangan/posts/107123621852756621
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...3619#post23619
Comment: "It took only 72 years (one human lifetime) for the government created by the Constitution, in the person of the sainted Abraham Lincoln, to decisively violate its rules, by (1) declaring a "state of emergency" and (2) declaring himself dictator, neither of which the Constitution authorized him to do. And of course he went on to violate it in many other ways, eventually converting the Republic into an empire, with himself on the throne. And the People, the only authority who could have stopped him, declined to do so. Thus the Constitution was rendered void, and has been indeed "just a piece of paper" ever since, worn as a skin suit by the government, which violates it whenever they wish and think they can get away with it – i.e. nobody will notice. And (almost) nobody has."
Response by Chris Langan: I understand the point. Once the Constitution has been "authoritatively" violated, a precedent has been established for violating it, and that precedent can be invoked at any time by "authorities" with the standing to do so. For practical purposes, this would appar to void it.
On the other hand, saying that the Constitution has been voided in this way is like saying: "Gee, we used to have a law against murder. But the President and the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS just murdered their wives, and they're letting each other get away with it. So I guess murder is now legal."
Response: I understand the point. Once the Constitution has been "authoritatively" violated, a precedent has been established for violating it, and that precedent can be invoked at any time by "authorities" with the standing to do so. For practical purposes, this would appar to void it.
On the other hand, saying that the Constitution has been voided in this way is like saying: "Gee, we used to have a law against murder. But the President and the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS just murdered their wives, and they're letting each other get away with it. So I guess murder is now legal."
No, murder would not suddenly be legal on the say-so of two corrupt officials, and the Constitution cannot be voided by any number thereof. The Constitution is a Founding Document of the United States, and no violation construed as "legal precedent" can change that. Each violation stands on its own, each is illegal on its own, and any counterargument based on emergency, emergency powers, and so on must stand on its own as well.
Evaluating such arguments consistently with the Constitution itself may exceed the moral and intellectual capacity of the US judiciary. However, this does not make their unconstitutional precedents legal. That would be legal positivism, the idea that the basis of legality is what those in power say it is, and therefore opposed to the natural law on which the Constitution is based. This in itself is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Unfortunately, the convention of legal precedents is built into the existing legal system in a way that would be very hard to circumvent. Nevertheless, the US Constitution takes absolute priority. At some point, all of these (improperly rationalized) precedents established by corrupt, paid-off jurists and politicians will have to be junked. If the government can't do it, then it falls to the people. That's what the Constitution says, and if the lawyer-controlled government resists remedial political pressure to that effect, there's always the Second Amendment.
That's exactly what the Second Amendment is for.
https://gab.com/ChrisLangan/posts/107123621852756621
http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...3619#post23619
Comment: "It took only 72 years (one human lifetime) for the government created by the Constitution, in the person of the sainted Abraham Lincoln, to decisively violate its rules, by (1) declaring a "state of emergency" and (2) declaring himself dictator, neither of which the Constitution authorized him to do. And of course he went on to violate it in many other ways, eventually converting the Republic into an empire, with himself on the throne. And the People, the only authority who could have stopped him, declined to do so. Thus the Constitution was rendered void, and has been indeed "just a piece of paper" ever since, worn as a skin suit by the government, which violates it whenever they wish and think they can get away with it – i.e. nobody will notice. And (almost) nobody has."
Response by Chris Langan: I understand the point. Once the Constitution has been "authoritatively" violated, a precedent has been established for violating it, and that precedent can be invoked at any time by "authorities" with the standing to do so. For practical purposes, this would appar to void it.
On the other hand, saying that the Constitution has been voided in this way is like saying: "Gee, we used to have a law against murder. But the President and the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS just murdered their wives, and they're letting each other get away with it. So I guess murder is now legal."
Response: I understand the point. Once the Constitution has been "authoritatively" violated, a precedent has been established for violating it, and that precedent can be invoked at any time by "authorities" with the standing to do so. For practical purposes, this would appar to void it.
On the other hand, saying that the Constitution has been voided in this way is like saying: "Gee, we used to have a law against murder. But the President and the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS just murdered their wives, and they're letting each other get away with it. So I guess murder is now legal."
No, murder would not suddenly be legal on the say-so of two corrupt officials, and the Constitution cannot be voided by any number thereof. The Constitution is a Founding Document of the United States, and no violation construed as "legal precedent" can change that. Each violation stands on its own, each is illegal on its own, and any counterargument based on emergency, emergency powers, and so on must stand on its own as well.
Evaluating such arguments consistently with the Constitution itself may exceed the moral and intellectual capacity of the US judiciary. However, this does not make their unconstitutional precedents legal. That would be legal positivism, the idea that the basis of legality is what those in power say it is, and therefore opposed to the natural law on which the Constitution is based. This in itself is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Unfortunately, the convention of legal precedents is built into the existing legal system in a way that would be very hard to circumvent. Nevertheless, the US Constitution takes absolute priority. At some point, all of these (improperly rationalized) precedents established by corrupt, paid-off jurists and politicians will have to be junked. If the government can't do it, then it falls to the people. That's what the Constitution says, and if the lawyer-controlled government resists remedial political pressure to that effect, there's always the Second Amendment.
That's exactly what the Second Amendment is for.
Comment