Virginia Approves Bill To Undermine Obama Gun Control

[worldtalker]

Easily explained. It's the courts that decide what is unconstitutional and then everything you copied follows from that. It's not joe individual who says something is unconstitutional and decides all of a sudden not to follow that law correct? Just think if every individual in this country could choose to decide what laws were constitutional and what laws were not - crazy right. So who has that power to decide - yes it's the courts - with the Supreme Court having the final say.

I don't think you need to be a lawyer to understand our constitution. I think it is every citizen and patriots duty to understand the laws of our land. Or do you think only lawyers should know the constitution - not in my world. No way I'm giving up my rights to understand the laws that govern me. I would have thought someone like you would have agreed with this? Best.

Are these judges elected or appointed?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Treasure_Hunter]

[SIZE=+1]16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
[/SIZE]

 

[Rebel - KGC]

I will check with my "contacts" in Richmond, Va. GA.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

That is incorrect. When the proper court determines that a legislative act (a law) conflicts with the constitution, it finds that law unconstitutional and declares it void in whole or in part. This is called judicial review. The portion of the law that is declared void is considered to be struck down, or the entire statute is considered to be struck from the statute books. Best

No, you told me I was wrong, remember, you said ......

When the proper court determines that a legislative act (a law) conflicts with the constitution, it finds that law unconstitutional and declares it void in whole or in part.

Easily explained. It's the courts that decide what is unconstitutional and then everything you copied follows from that.

That is not right according to the legal review below, any law that violates the Constitution is invailid from the moment of its enactment, not from the date of the decision branding it unconstitutional...

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

 

[Chadeaux]

King Obama? He is our President. USA doesn't have kings, queens, or other royalty.

Someone needs to tell him . . . he is acting as though he is the king. The congress, the court and the Constitution are all being ignored as though he were the king.

 

[jerseyben]

Someone needs to tell him . . . he is acting as though he is the king. The congress, the court and the Constitution are all being ignored as though he were the king.

I suppose you are referring to autocrats. Many kings have little to know power and are basically just ceremonial heads of state.

 

[Dave44]

I suppose you are referring to autocrats. Many kings have little to know power and are basically just ceremonial heads of state.

Was the "know power" intentional on your part? I guess they would like to "know" power, Nice pun! But BO really is going beyond his mandate. Glad you noticed!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Jersey, a law that violates constitution is invalid and not a legal law from the day it is passed... I can refused to follow any law that violates the constitution.

That is incorrect. When the proper court determines that a legislative act (a law) conflicts with the constitution, it finds that law unconstitutional and declares it void in whole or in part. This is called judicial review. The portion of the law that is declared void is considered to be struck down, or the entire statute is considered to be struck from the statute books. Best

No, you told me I was wrong, remember, you said ......

When the proper court determines that a legislative act (a law) conflicts with the constitution, it finds that law unconstitutional and declares it void in whole or in part.

Easily explained. It's the courts that decide what is unconstitutional and then everything you copied follows from that.

That is not right according to the American Jurisprudence legal review below, any law that violates the Constitution is invailid from the moment of its enactment, not from the date of the decision branding it unconstitutional...

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.



No reply...................

 

[Rebel - KGC]

OP is MISLEADING! Virginia House of Delegates has approved, Senate has NOT. THIS is the General Assembly... it has to be "signed off on", by Governor of Virginia; NOT done, NOT approved as of this date (1/29/2013). MISLEADING OP. It WILL become INTERESTING, tho;
GOVERNOR is pro-2nd Amendment Right... ppl of Virginia are pro-GUN CONTROL.

 

[Chadeaux]

I suppose you are referring to autocrats. Many kings have little to know power and are basically just ceremonial heads of state.

I was referring to King James and the like.

Absolute power . . . he thinks that is his role. To make the laws to suit his whims. To enforce existing law based on his likes and dislikes. To COMPLETELY IGNORE the Constitution because he doesn't like it.

THAT is what I meant.

. . . THAT is what he does.

 

[Dave44]

OP is MISLEADING! Virginia House of Delegates has approved, Senate has NOT. THIS is the General Assembly... it has to be "signed off on", by Governor of Virginia; NOT done, NOT approved as of this date (1/29/2013). MISLEADING OP. It WILL become INTERESTING, tho;
GOVERNOR is pro-2nd Amendment Right... ppl of Virginia are pro-GUN CONTROL.

As stated in another thread, you are only partly right, the suburbs of DC are pro control (they work for the Gov.), Most of Va. is pro 2nd though, I think DC needs a little more acreage myself.

I only say this because I live, work and know a lot of Virginians, But maybe you know more of them?

 

[Rebel - KGC]

As stated in another thread, you are only partly right, the suburbs of DC are pro control (they work for the Gov.), Most of Va. is pro 2nd though, I think DC needs a little more acreage myself.

I only say this because I live, work and know a lot of Virginians, But maybe you know more of them?

LOL! Going by what GA has done; the ISSUE is GUN CONTROL; I am even for 2nd Amend, as are MANY ppl in Virginia; I have NO problem with TRAINED teachers/staff CCW; students feel safer. At the Universities... TRAINED Profs/staff/students who pass "Mental Health" exams... we will see.