Original Message:   There is a fundamental weakness in our system of laws and jurisprudence.
If a law passed and enacted in, say, 2000 is declared unconstitutional in 2020, it means, de facto, that the law was 'constitutional' for 20 years.

That's absurd. If a law is declared unconstitutional in 2020 that was in force since 2000, it always was unconstitutional.

Which brings me to this conclusion: The 2A sanctuary movement is legitimate. Everybody, including the totalitarians who passed "may issue" and "assault weapons ban" laws for example (and the prime movers behind like referendum statutes), knows that they are unconstitutional. (NYC's behavior in it's sleight-of-hand attempt to moot the NYSRPA suit by rescinding the offending ordinance proves this.) There is nothing in the Constitution that makes the SCOTUS the sole arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not.

The doctrine of constitutional officers recognizing and nullifying unconstitutional gun laws within their respective jurisdictions is ethically and constitutionally sound, because both state and federal constitutions are superior to statutory laws. Additionally, any state constitutional provision that countermands or ignores the protections contained in the U.S. Constitution are within the ambit of that nullification power, pursuant to their oaths of office.

Any system that treats violations of its premier civic contract as legitimate until an unelected panel of judges says otherwise has a BIG problem.

TEE




BackPost Reply

 Name

  Register
 Password
 E-Mail  
 Topic  
 Reply optionsNotify original author     Private reply   All replies are private  


 
M
E
S
S
A
G
E

HTML tags allowed in message body.   Browser view     Display HTML as text.
 Link URL
 Link Title
 Image URL