Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

[SmarterthanYou]

A thorough and complete ass whoopin’!

yes, your ass was completely and thoroughly whooped

 

[Flash]

so the founders, namely madison and jefferson, were huge ignoramus' that don't understand rights or the constitution? because you're aware that they promoted nullification due to the alien and sedition acts?

you're also aware of how our constitutional system works? that the states have their own constitutions? and that if the federal government infringes on a state power, those states have the power of nullification?

or are you one of those who were told that the supremacy clause means that the feds rule over everything?

No, I was never told that. But whoever told you about nullification did not understand the Constitution.

You avoided the main point.

If I am convicted under the Alien and Sedition Act and you are found not guilty under that same law, that is never the way Madison or Jefferson (who had very different views) expected the system to work. That would mean our rights depended entirely on the jury we got.

If the federal government infringes on state power that law should be declared unconstitutional (by the courts). There is no way jury nullification could have guaranteed free speech by the Alien and Sedition Act. It would have been supported in the Federalist states.

Trump's attempt to prohibit Muslims from entering the country would not be the type of case that would go before a jury for any purpose. So it took the courts to recognize the unconstitutional acts of a president just like it struck down the handgun ban in D. C. or the health care mandate. There was no way for "the people" to stop these unconstitutional actions.

If most jurors in D. C. supported the handgun ban D. C. residents would be denied their constitutional rights because of the "tyranny of the majority." You want to allow that tyranny if the citizens support it which destroys the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

 

[dukkha]

Trump's attempt to prohibit Muslims from entering the country would not be the type of case that would go before a jury for any purpose. So it took the courts to recognize the unconstitutional acts of a president

there was never a "Muslim ban" it was a ban on states unable to control their terrorism.
( Why Libya was include,but Saudi Arabia was not for ex.)

SCOTUS upheld the Travel ban

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, I was never told that. But whoever told you about nullification did not understand the Constitution.

so you're now trying to tell us that madison and jefferson did not understand the constitution???????

You avoided the main point.

If I am convicted under the Alien and Sedition Act and you are found not guilty under that same law, that is never the way Madison or Jefferson (who had very different views) expected the system to work. That would mean our rights depended entirely on the jury we got.

jury nullification was designed to prevent the government from enforcing unconstitutional laws and to prevent the government from using laws in situations that they shouldn't. the jury system was our last peaceful block against government tyranny.........and no, our rights aren't determined JUST by the jury, but it does take an educated jury to do whats right.

If the federal government infringes on state power that law should be declared unconstitutional (by the courts). There is no way jury nullification could have guaranteed free speech by the Alien and Sedition Act. It would have been supported in the Federalist states.

so YOU truly do not understand how the constitution works, not me.

Trump's attempt to prohibit Muslims from entering the country would not be the type of case that would go before a jury for any purpose. So it took the courts to recognize the unconstitutional acts of a president just like it struck down the handgun ban in D. C. or the health care mandate. There was no way for "the people" to stop these unconstitutional actions.

the courts only jurisdiction in that case would be to compel habeas corpus. the executive has no authority to deny due process, even to illegals. the courts, by declaring said actions by trump unconstitutional, usurped a power that doesn't belong to them. but I get that you're one of those who consider the courts to be the higher branch of federal government, not a co equal branch.

If most jurors in D. C. supported the handgun ban D. C. residents would be denied their constitutional rights because of the "tyranny of the majority." You want to allow that tyranny if the citizens support it which destroys the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

again, educated jury, but we don't have educated people anymore. we have stupid and apathetic people like domer who think they know better than others................laughable, but then it just guarantees that our country was successfully destroyed years ago

I repeat, jury nullification was considered a right of the people even before the constitution was ratified

 

[Flash]

so you're now trying to tell us that madison and jefferson did not understand the constitution???????

One supported the federal government's power to create a national bank and the other said it was not within the delegated powers of Congress. So they obviously could agree among themselves about its meaning.

How was that issue settled? By a Supreme Court decision.

As you know, Jefferson was not involved in the writing of the Constitution. He was an Anti-Federalist.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

One supported the federal government's power to create a national bank and the other said it was not within the delegated powers of Congress. So they obviously could agree among themselves about its meaning.

How was that issue settled? By a Supreme Court decision.

As you know, Jefferson was not involved in the writing of the Constitution. He was an Anti-Federalist.

why is it that the majority of individuals who can't seem to understand the constitution REFUSE to use the commentaries and debate minutes to find out what the founders meant? Also, people need to understand that just because Madison was the one that penned the constitution, WE THE PEOPLE wrote it by debating it, changing drafts, and finally ratifying it to suit our purposes?

since you disagree with jury nullification because of its inherent possibility to be abused, do you then agree with full autonomy and power of the federal government to define and redefine the limits of its own powers that are written in to the constitution?

if the jury isn't there to judge not only the facts, but the law, why have a jury system? just let the judges/courts determine guilt or innocence?

 

[domer76]

why is it that the majority of individuals who can't seem to understand the constitution REFUSE to use the commentaries and debate minutes to find out what the founders meant? Also, people need to understand that just because Madison was the one that penned the constitution, WE THE PEOPLE wrote it by debating it, changing drafts, and finally ratifying it to suit our purposes?

since you disagree with jury nullification because of its inherent possibility to be abused, do you then agree with full autonomy and power of the federal government to define and redefine the limits of its own powers that are written in to the constitution?

if the jury isn't there to judge not only the facts, but the law, why have a jury system? just let the judges/courts determine guilt or innocence?

“We the people” did not include you, idiot.

Top three forum stupid posts ever.

Vehicles cannot be necessary in a modern society.

Smarterthanyou wrote the Constitution.

Gun regulations are not in the interest of public safety.

 

[Flash]

since you disagree with jury nullification because of its inherent possibility to be abused, do you then agree with full autonomy and power of the federal government to define and redefine the limits of its own powers that are written in to the constitution?

Jury nullification was never intended as a method to interpret the Constitution or guarantee our rights. You claim that nobody can change the meaning of the Constitution, but a jury would be applying a different set of constitutional rights to each case.

The public is less supportive of constitutional rights than the law. A case on gun restrictions is going to be viewed more favorably after three mass shootings than before. The free speech of Muslims is more likely to be restricted after 9-11 than before. That is completely destroying the rule of law based on the political whims of the jurors.

There is no autonomy of the federal government to define or redefine its powers. Recent decisions on executive orders by Obama and Trump limited those powers. The recent decision about the ACA limited federal powers. None of those cases would have come before a jury for nullification because they are not criminal or civil law and they would all have expanded federal power.

if the jury isn't there to judge not only the facts, but the law, why have a jury system? just let the judges/courts determine guilt or innocence?

The jury system is important in determining verdicts in civil and criminal laws (although 85% never go to trial and are settled out of court or with guilty pleas). The jury is not there to judge the law but to apply that law to the case. If a jury finds a child rapist not guilty that law must be unconstitutional in your system.

It is not there to determine the Constitution because, as you say, they are not educated enough to do it. I challenge whether they were ever more educated about constitutional law.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Jury nullification was never intended as a method to interpret the Constitution or guarantee our rights. You claim that nobody can change the meaning of the Constitution, but a jury would be applying a different set of constitutional rights to each case.

jury nullification was intended to prevent the government form overstepping its bounds, because the courts can get it wrong.

The public is less supportive of constitutional rights than the law. A case on gun restrictions is going to be viewed more favorably after three mass shootings than before. The free speech of Muslims is more likely to be restricted after 9-11 than before. That is completely destroying the rule of law based on the political whims of the jurors.

then our country has been destroyed.

There is no autonomy of the federal government to define or redefine its powers. Recent decisions on executive orders by Obama and Trump limited those powers. The recent decision about the ACA limited federal powers. None of those cases would have come before a jury for nullification because they are not criminal or civil law and they would all have expanded federal power.

YEARS after the law was put in to effect, so yes given your position the government CAN and DOES define its powers

The jury system is important in determining verdicts in civil and criminal laws (although 85% never go to trial and are settled out of court or with guilty pleas). The jury is not there to judge the law but to apply that law to the case. If a jury finds a child rapist not guilty that law must be unconstitutional in your system.

It is not there to determine the Constitution because, as you say, they are not educated enough to do it. I challenge whether they were ever more educated about constitutional law.

again, you are incorrect. I suggest you read some history on jury nullification and it's uses.

FIJA.org

 

[Flash]

jury nullification was intended to prevent the government form overstepping its bounds, because the courts can get it wrong.

There is no jury to nullify anything on executive orders, laws passed by Congress not imposing criminal or civil penalties, state laws requiring segregated schools, and the really important stuff.

A jury finding one person not guilty for a certain action does nothing to help the big picture. Juries seldom find defendants not guilty and this has not stopped federal prosecution of drug cases that you say are unconstitutional. So, the whole jury nullification argument to uphold the Constitution has been a big failure.

Jury nullification was around before the Constitution, but so was judicial review.

 

[Teflon Don]

Pres. Donald Trump called for a national Red Flag law on Monday morning after two weekend mass shootings. A similar law, or or Extreme Risk Protective Order, was signed into law by Colorado Gov. Jared Polis earlier this year.

@LindseyGrahamSC
says he's made a deal with @SenBlumenthal
to create a federal grant program to encourage states to adopt 'red flag' laws.

Hopes to introduce legislation soon and says Trump "seems very supportive" of the idea after conversation this morning.
~~

Looks like the plan to offer states carrots to pass red flag laws is coming together. Red flag laws let courts temporarily take weapons from people deemed threats to themselves/others.

I reject it on principle.

There is no compromise with leftists on guns.

Never

 

[Teflon Don]

I would like to see the concept expanded so that an individual who:

a) Has amassed an arsenal,

and

b) Has expressed white supremacy views either online or in person,

-has their guns taken away.

I hope you get multiple myeloma

 

[SmarterthanYou]

There is no jury to nullify anything on executive orders

which is why executive orders deal with how the agencies run and operate.

laws passed by Congress not imposing criminal or civil penalties,

what kind of laws out there don't have penalties?

state laws requiring segregated schools, and the really important stuff.

those aren't jury trials, nor are they crimes. the government entities have to hash those out.

A jury finding one person not guilty for a certain action does nothing to help the big picture. Juries seldom find defendants not guilty and this has not stopped federal prosecution of drug cases that you say are unconstitutional. So, the whole jury nullification argument to uphold the Constitution has been a big failure.

you ever serve on a jury? the SCOTUS ruled awhile ago that judges don't have to notify jurors of their right to nullify...........in fact MOST courts tell jurors that they are not allowed to judge the law (wrongfully), but there are a few states where the legislature mandated the courts tell jurors of their right to nullify.

Jury nullification was around before the Constitution, but so was judicial review.

if you're talking about marbury, that was not before the constitution. If you're talking about judicial review in general, that didn't negate nullification by the people.

 

[Flash]

if you're talking about marbury, that was not before the constitution. If you're talking about judicial review in general, that didn't negate nullification by the people.

Before Marbury, as in the colonies. It doesn't negate nullification but it shows the accepted role of judicial review.

Or, as Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 78 where he calls the judiciary the weakest branch of government with the power to judge:

"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority."

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

"[W]henever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Before Marbury, as in the colonies. It doesn't negate nullification but it shows the accepted role of judicial review.

Or, as Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 78 where he calls the judiciary the weakest branch of government with the power to judge:

"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority."

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

"[W]henever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."

and are the courts always correct??????

 

[Into the Night]

You are trying to use historical and tradition to make your point---just like the courts do when they interpret the Constitution.

A citizen is somebody born or naturalized in the U. S.

Okay. Naturalization means they were once an alien, isn't that right?

 

[Into the Night]

No, I was never told that. But whoever told you about nullification did not understand the Constitution.

You avoided the main point.

If I am convicted under the Alien and Sedition Act and you are found not guilty under that same law, that is never the way Madison or Jefferson (who had very different views) expected the system to work. That would mean our rights depended entirely on the jury we got.

If the federal government infringes on state power that law should be declared unconstitutional (by the courts). There is no way jury nullification could have guaranteed free speech by the Alien and Sedition Act. It would have been supported in the Federalist states.

Trump's attempt to prohibit Muslims from entering the country would not be the type of case that would go before a jury for any purpose. So it took the courts to recognize the unconstitutional acts of a president just like it struck down the handgun ban in D. C. or the health care mandate. There was no way for "the people" to stop these unconstitutional actions.

If most jurors in D. C. supported the handgun ban D. C. residents would be denied their constitutional rights because of the "tyranny of the majority." You want to allow that tyranny if the citizens support it which destroys the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

No court has the authority to change the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Into the Night]

One supported the federal government's power to create a national bank and the other said it was not within the delegated powers of Congress. So they obviously could agree among themselves about its meaning.

How was that issue settled? By a Supreme Court decision.

As you know, Jefferson was not involved in the writing of the Constitution. He was an Anti-Federalist.

Where in the Constitution of the United States is the authority given to Congress to form a national bank?

 

[Flash]

Where in the Constitution of the United States is the authority given to Congress to form a national bank?

Jefferson said the power did not exist. Hamilton said it was in the "necessary and proper" (implied powers) clause.

 

[Flash]

No court has the authority to change the Constitution of the United States.

But it has the power to interpret the Constitution according to Madison in Federalist No. 78. That includes determining the constitutionality of actions.