who said we can't nullify federal law?

Disillusioned said:
Read what I'm writing not what the voices in your head are telling you.

Yes, the writings of dead people are irrelevant, take your meaning and mysticism from them all you like but don't expect me to care who said it. A good argument is good no matter if it's a hobo from Georgia or the Pope making it. You can't just scream "Jefferson said I'm right" and actually think that it makes your points of value.
Click to expand...

I have seen you make a couple good points on this forum.
This isn't one of them.
 
Disillusioned said:
A contract with who? Britain? Ourselves? The people who wrote it?

And can I insert how funny it is that the guy who thinks that laws can be ignored if you have a gun is lecturing me on legality?
Click to expand...
you can insert anything in you that you like, however, the legal contract i'm referring to is the document that establishes and defines the federal government and it's limited powers. there's only one legal way to change that.
 
Rune said:
I have seen you make a couple good points on this forum.
This isn't one of them.
Click to expand...
It's pretty simple for me.

The german's aren't formulating policy on what Bismark wants.
The French aren't obligated to consult Charlemagne.
The egyptians aren't worried about what Ramses II would like.

Why can't we decide what's a good idea without consulting the works of people who have been dead 200+ years. Aren't we grown ups yet?
 
Disillusioned said:
Why can't we decide what's a good idea without consulting the works of people who have been dead 200+ years. Aren't we grown ups yet?
Click to expand...
the federal government apparently doesn't think so, which is why the founders writings are used to remind the federal government just what their limits are supposed to be.
 
Disillusioned said:
It's pretty simple for me.

The german's aren't formulating policy on what Bismark wants.
The French aren't obligated to consult Charlemagne.
The egyptians aren't worried about what Ramses II would like.

Why can't we decide what's a good idea without consulting the works of people who have been dead 200+ years. Aren't we grown ups yet?
Click to expand...

Did you live for decades under a tyrannical king? Were you ever served a writ of assistance or forced to house enemy soldiers? What experience do you have to condem a thousand year old method of keeping power in check? You are a frog who thinks it's bathwater should be a little warmer.
 
Disillusioned said:
It's pretty simple for me.

The german's aren't formulating policy on what Bismark wants.
The French aren't obligated to consult Charlemagne.
The egyptians aren't worried about what Ramses II would like.

Why can't we decide what's a good idea without consulting the works of people who have been dead 200+ years. Aren't we grown ups yet?
Click to expand...

then let's just throw out the constitution, every court case decided by a judge who is dead, every law legislated by a dead legislator....

sound good?
 
Rune said:
Did you live for decades under a tyrannical king? Were you ever served a writ of assistance or forced to house enemy soldiers? What experience do you have to condem a thousand year old method of keeping power in check? You are a frog who thinks it's bathwater should be a little warmer.
Click to expand...
I'm really confused as to what your point is supposed to be. Frogs? Thousand year?(when even the most illiterate kid knows the US hasn't been around for even 500 years) What experience do I need to know that the living matter more than the dead?
 
Sativa said:
then let's just throw out the constitution, every court case decided by a judge who is dead, every law legislated by a dead legislator....

sound good?
Click to expand...
Still not reading what I'm writing.

You can keep your constitution, but don't try to defend your position by saying that "founding father X" was in favor of it. It's as silly as the christians who claim that jesus wouldn't have talked on his phone in a crowded room.
 
Disillusioned said:
I'm really confused as to what your point is supposed to be. Frogs? Thousand year?(when even the most illiterate kid knows the US hasn't been around for even 500 years) What experience do I need to know that the living matter more than the dead?
Click to expand...

Do some research.
 
“It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” (John Adams, America’s second President; 1771)

“It would be an absurdity for jurors to be required to accept the judge’s view of the law, against their own opinion, judgment, and conscience.” (John Adams)

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Paine; 1789)

“The juries [are] our judges of all fact, and of law when they choose it.” (Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval; 1816. ME 15:35)

Even the First Chief Justice of the U.S. John Jay, in 1789, chimed in on this issue with, “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

Lastly, and most succinctly, Alexander Hamilton, in 1804, said that, “Jurors should acquit, even against the judge’s instruction… if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty, they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top