No One has to Obey Unconstitutional Laws

[Yankee1]

Hi All
    No one is obligated to obey unconstitutional law.
http://www.usborderfirereport.com/no_one_is_bound_to_obey_an_uncon.htm
Check out this link. there are many other links on the same subject.
Read these and realize what side of the constitution we are on.
The people making laws that are in violation of our constitution are criminals.
                                    Yankee1

[Graybeard]

While I totally agree ya best be prepared to pay the many thousands it's gonna cost you to defend yourself in court and even then you still might not win as the new judges are accepting the unconstitutional laws as if they were Constitutional these days. Ya still might end up in jail.

[slim rem 7]

 although my belief in the system has been strained of late by personal experiences,,
 i ll still partisapate best i can...having said this ,,i believe this news piece to be a valid way of viewing any new laws past...what greybeard has said was unavoidable may just be unavoidable ,,,after all... these liberal folk are i think being used as a tool as surely as i would use a sledge hammer to destroy something... whos using them ,,in my opinion huge power mongers
that want total power.., alway have been that kind to deal with..
 the masses are more likely fooled than not,,because some hear what they want to hear...
 kinda like the job add that says tired of working so hard ,,let me show you my plan for easy money...only one getting easy money is the guy that put the add in ,,when you send in your 49.99 for all the info you need plus a kit,to get started..
 these liberals better look long an hard at what they doing... stalin killed his 13 comrades that thought they were part of something good... hmmm coffee got me on a buzz :)slim
 ps but whatelse is an ole feller to do, but talk to the only group that ive found identification with..i didn t say all agreement ,don t even want that..just identification ...an i appreciate this forum greatly..

[v-man]

I usually stay out of these matters but I feel compelled to comment. Yes, in theory nobody should have to comply with "unconstitutional" laws, however, the question is who gets to call it unconstitutional? The Constitution itself established who that is and thank God it's not you or me. It is SCOTUS. Therefore if the sanctity of the Constitution is your real concern then the Constitutional removal of activist justices who ignore the Constitution should be our cry rather than what almost sounds like a call for anarchy. Just my $.02 and  now I'll brace myself for barrage of insults.

[billy_56081]

I'd say if a juror was to believe a law was unconstitutional they would have the final say. Any juror can vote however he wants, no one can make you change your mind. The problem is not judges interpreting the laws, it is ignoarant jurors who do as told by the judge.

[slim rem 7]

 i understand your position v man... but im not thinking our forefathers had the final ruling
 unit in mind ,,as the purpose of the supreme court of our country... ive always kinda been leary of its power...
even if it was balanced in a way toward my type thinking on many things...
 if its an unconstitutional law or change to the constitution...especially when
 on this issue... on which rest the freedom of every one in this country... we can tolerate no more
 messing around with the 2nd..
 also they need understand we are not a radicle few,,, but millions who won t tolerate anymore
  of thier playin with the one thing that was put in the constitution to prevent absolute
  power govt from successfully achieving thier goals..no way ,no way.. slim

[v-man]

Don' t get me wrong, Slim. I do believe there comes a time when action must be taken. I'm just saying that if strict adherance to the Constitution is the claim then one should exhaust all it's avenues first. Otherwise ones motives are suspect in my estimation. To bypass the prescribed steps of correcting these problems and jump directly to civil disobedience based upon ones personal conclusion that a law isn't right will lead to anarchy, the outcome of which is not likely to be good. Keep in mind that those greedly, power hungery liars in DC are not the only greedy, power hungry liars in our society. To whatever extent things can be fixed "decently and in order" let's do it but when all else fails even the ugly alternative must have structure or nothing but chaos will follow.

[dukkillr]

I'd say if a juror was to believe a law was unconstitutional they would have the final say. Any juror can vote however he wants, no one can make you change your mind. The problem is not judges interpreting the laws, it is ignoarant jurors who do as told by the judge.

The constitutionality of a law is a "question of law" not a "question of fact".  It doesn't go to a jury.  If you raise a constitutional defense it will be ruled on by the trial judge and never discussed at trial.  I can't speak for every state but I would imagine in most places it would be grounds for a mistrial to mention such a thing in front of the jury.  They have been impaneled to answer a different question.

It also isn't unusual for people to take their argument almost directly to the appeals courts.  You can plead guilty conditionally and retain the right to challenge the law going up the appeals ladder, eventually all the way to the SCOTUS.

A few weeks ago someone posted about how he finally got an answer to this burning question of his, "Why don't we arrest politicians I don't like for treason?"  He apparently believed someone should take his question seriously, but the answer is obvious and it's the same answer here... Who decides what is constitutional?  To this guy, he should be able to decide.  To others it should be Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hanity.  Can liberals argue that since abortion is constitutional all pro-life politicians should be arrested?  It's obviously an absurd idea.

The truth is that the final arbiter of all things constitutional in this country is the SCOTUS.  If you believe a law is unconstitutional start challenging it.  But here's the thing: The courts in this country are governed by laws, not ideology.  Just because you really really really think something should be unconstitutional, doesn't make is so.  Maybe income tax should be unconstitutional, god knows I'd love to not pay taxes, but the courts have repeatedly ruled against that line of reasoning.  Maybe you think the ban on recreational ownership of chemical weapons is unconstitutional, but at least currently, that is not reflected in reality.  If it were me, I would do some research into what the history and case law says before I put myself at the mercy of the courts, especially for an ideologically driven argument.

[45-70.gov]

I'd say if a juror was to believe a law was unconstitutional they would have the final say. Any juror can vote however he wants, no one can make you change your mind. The problem is not judges interpreting the laws, it is ignoarant jurors who do as told by the judge.

so  why  do so many people try to get out of jury duty??

i  think  it is an  honor to be  called and  twice been  seated on the grand jury

maybe we  need  to take  a poll  of who has  been  called 
and  did or  didn't try  a case

[dukkillr]

I'd say if a juror was to believe a law was unconstitutional they would have the final say. Any juror can vote however he wants, no one can make you change your mind. The problem is not judges interpreting the laws, it is ignoarant jurors who do as told by the judge.

so  why  do so many people try to get out of jury duty??

i  think  it is an  honor to be  called and  twice been  seated on the grand jury

maybe we  need  to take  a poll  of who has  been  called 
and  did or  didn't try  a case

Grand juries are different (at least here) than criminal juries.  Here they are used as a way to avoid a preliminary hearing to establish probable cause.  My understanding is that some states use the process much more frequently than we do. 

I think people try to get out of jury duty because it interrupts their life and work.  I know I would find it a giant pain to be stuck listening to a trial for a week or more...

When I select a jury one of the questions I ask is, "Who wants to be on this jury?"  and then I want to know why.  Sometimes it's older cranky white men who have no job and want to establish vigilante justice.  They don't care what the facts of this case are, they want to cure all past unjust acquittals with their steely resolve and self established justice.  Great for an ideology, but bad for the constitutional rights of the defendant.

[SHOOTALL]

45-70 , you know what i know idoits that don't vote so they won't get called to jury duty . these are the ones who gripe the most .
Dukkiller i respect your post so this is a ? a jury can end a law or set presedent (sp) in some cases by finding not guilty . If found guilty then it would work its way to the top if allowed to go before the SC . But either way someone has to be in violation ? I have read that the 18 inch bbl. law on shotguns has never been challenged in court . Since many state laws have the same law it could be a bad choice to get caught with one and think you could win in fed court only to loose in state court . Seems they plan this insulation in some cases ? BTW looking for free advice .

[dukkillr]

A couple of issues:
1) You don't establish a legal precedent with an acquittal by jury.  For instance you can't go stab your ex-wife and then tell the judge you should be set free because OJ was.  Legal precedent is established by published opinions of the appeals courts.  They have nothing to do with juries and they are answers to "questions of law" not "questions of fact".

2) I have never seen nor heard of anyone challenging the 18" rule.  I'm sure you could do some checking on the case law but I have to be in court in 15 minutes and I'm not going to get it done... Generally the Federal system carries stiffer penalties and also has a less sympathetic jury pool.  They also only take cases that matter to them for one reason or another.  For instance around here the standard procedure for Felon in Possession cases is that if the case is strong you can choose to plead guilty to a relatively bad deal, or they will dismiss and the Feds will step in and charge the case.  It's a serious hammer since the Federal sentencing is much stiffer, the included conduct can be disastrous, and you can assume that the jury will convict you.  For that reason most people quickly plead out those cases at the county level.  Those Federal/local cases sometimes pop up with double jeopardy issues that can be very counter-intuitive.

[SHOOTALL]

Thanks , i was trying to remember from business law courses we took in college , you know the ones they give business maj's so they know when they need a lawyer .

[slim rem 7]

 i hear good reasoning... but one factor not mentioned is that poor joe who can t afford 500-1000 dollar attorney appearance cost...so in truth i see justice for the haves can possibly be the rule of today...
 an you better have right smart green... even though its not worth much anymore..
 as to court appointed attourney ... ive only had one attourney an he charged me the 5 ..then got mad when i ask him to help me just get it over with ,,one way or the other... he called me to let me know he was not trying to get more appearance money...id never mentioned that,,just that i wanted to get it behind me..
so in court that day i set all day then saw my attourney..our eyes met an he never called me out to let me know he wasn t gonna be there..the da announced mr. my attourney is taking one of his [they called it something]
days off... this without him even botherin to let me know... as far as im concerned ...id been better
 off to ask for court appointed attourney..all my friends know an surpiseingly ,,im in contact with somebody who might be able to get me some relief due to poor representation... im much more bothered by this young imature attourney than the bully who busted me up some.. hes is an may always ,,just a bully...
 the attourney on the other hand has been paid to represent me as best he could...hes bthe one thats the true bg in this thing... but vengeance is the lords job...unless i figure the rest of his clients need protection from him .. i ll probably just hope to get it behind me... its really ruined my faith in the system though...
 really never had to deal with it before... slim

[dukkillr]

Lots of the really good appeals questions are taken up by public policy lawyers for free.  If you have a decent argument and good facts I would call around and I bet you could find very good representation for nothing out of pocket. 

[jdinil]

45-70, I have been on several juries. A couple times at the county level, and once, in US District Court to hear a week long trial. I won't go anymore. It is NOT an honor. It just makes you part and parcel of thier kangaroo court. They send me a summons, every now and then, to serve at the County level. I just don't show up. Then, some judge sends me another letter threatening me with some dire consequence or another. I write a note back, on his letter, indicating why I won't serve and mail it back to him. I tell him I have been on juries before. I tell him I have watched cops lie, defense attorneys lie, state's attorneys lie, witnesses lie, and defendants lie. I tell him the whole thing is basically a sham. I tell him that, unless I actually saw the crime being committed with my own eyes, I'm not in a position to pass any sort of judgement. I tell him, that not being God,  I'm not qualified to sort through that many lies. Then, I tell him that the real God WILL sort it all out in due time. I never hear from him again.

[slim rem 7]

dukkillr... well i appreciate the advice... to be sure id like to just get it behind me...
 but my attourney has riled me ....its like its his world an game ...he can play better than i can...so hes the real bully now an is sure,,im not able to do anything about his inaction an also his efforts to frustrate me as only he was in a position ,,to do... he an his kind deserve a little publicity...
 i never said anything about appearance fees ,,just that i was hurting shoulderwise an worrywise...this was said to his secretary,,via phone call
i just wanted to put it behind me,,in the quickest way possible...
 we talk about ethics as far as shooting ...im not sure i can let him get away with this,,without carefully getting him some free publicity...ethics ,almost demand it..
 but hes the man that knows this game,,with all his law books an some experience...
 theres a third party offering help ,,but im not sure he does not have some agenda hisself... id jus wish i could get it behind me...this is not what my lifes about... but theres a fella that wants to and is in the position of getting him that publicity..im twixst an between ,,an really want to wash my hands of it... we ll see the 17th ..mabe hes as good as i was told by the person who recomended him.. might be just really imature ,or his secretary could have really embellished when telling him what i said..
might not ever know an certainly won t worry about it ...if i can get this little venture into my past... whew slim...

[SHOOTALL]

Anyone who will not do jury duty is not pulling there weight . We expect our young to give up time , limb and life to defend this country and liberty in many sh-- holes around the world and when ask to give up some time maybe a few weeks to defend it at home in a court room they recoil like they smell something bad . Don't even bother to complain about the state America or the world is in if you run from your duty or obligation to do jury duty .

[v-man]

+1 Shootall - Sure it can be "inconvenient" but no excuse for failure to show. For some reason, I've only been called 1 time in my almost 40 years as an adult. I was given the boot during interviews cause they didn't like my occupation. My wife has been called 5 or 6 times and empaneled twice. I would serve if called.

[beerbelly]

Our jury's are a joke! I have served on several. O n one we had a woman that worried about nothing except not missing her bus. She said do what ever you want with him, just don't make me miss my bus!
  Half would tell you he must be guilty or he would not be here. All most none new the difference between the lawyers BS of what happened and what was real evidence.
   If it was a black being tried and you have three or more blacks on the jury he will walk! I have witnessed this all my self. All I can say is god help you if you ever have to be tried by jury!
                                    Beerbelly

[SHOOTALL]

Been on them also and have seen some of what you say including the African American thing other than the African American was the first to state the man was guilty . When on a jury i do / vote like i feel is the right way . Won't change for the bus or anything else . The rest can change if they want .
BB that's what we need  to do be there and don't back down . The libs want to wear us down and then they win .

[slim rem 7]

 i got to say ,,i think its time to really shake the tree as to attitude here in this country...
  shake the tree the rotten falls off with some of the too ripe..we could hope..
 it reminds me in some ways of pre fall roman empire...the problem is the rot within..
 now rome doesn t even compare too what this great country has been,,as to oportunity for the masses...but the down slide seems similar... the people did not appreciate what they had here...
 individual rights ...don t use them [also appreciate them]you loose them..mabe slim
 ps don t matter where you starting ,,long as you headed in the right direction...100yds from hell headed away from it is better than a mile from hell headed toward it..

[45-70.gov]

45-70, I have been on several juries. A couple times at the county level, and once, in US District Court to hear a week long trial. I won't go anymore. It is NOT an honor. It just makes you part and parcel of thier kangaroo court. They send me a summons, every now and then, to serve at the County level. I just don't show up. Then, some judge sends me another letter threatening me with some dire consequence or another. I write a note back, on his letter, indicating why I won't serve and mail it back to him. I tell him I have been on juries before. I tell him I have watched cops lie, defense attorneys lie, state's attorneys lie, witnesses lie, and defendants lie. I tell him the whole thing is basically a sham. I tell him that, unless I actually saw the crime being committed with my own eyes, I'm not in a position to pass any sort of judgement. I tell him, that not being God,  I'm not qualified to sort through that many lies. Then, I tell him that the real God WILL sort it all out in due time. I never hear from him again.

you  should  have  done  the honorable  thing
and  had  a hung  jury
just  vote  opposite  what  ever  the rest  say
let  it  be  known  all  are  leiwers

good  people  like  yourself  that can  see  the  lies
need  to  be  in  position  if  only  for a few  days  to  right  some things

you  expect  crooks  to  lie
but  a leing  cop  will  lie   about  any one