View Single Post
Old March 20, 2020, 01:16 PM   #2
Frank Ettin
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,379
A pointless drive-by post, and therefore closed.

But I will point out that, among other things, the post is pointless because it's misleading and therefore inaccurate. Just saying an unconstitutional law is void is pretty much meaningless.

Chief Justice Marshall said, writing for the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803)), said (Marbury at 177):

"...It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say
what the law is....

And while a law repugnant to the Constitution may be void, that still leaves these questions open: (1) who decides that a law enacted by a legislature is unconstitutional; (2) if people disagree about whether a law is unconstitutional, who resolves the disagreement; and (3) if people disagree about what the Constitution means and how it applies, who resolves the disagreement. Here's a hint: it's not you.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution assigned the authority to decide questions regarding the meaning and application of the Constitution to the federal courts (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

"Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

Section 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,..."

Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers, and several had been judges, so they understood what the exercise of judicial power entailed and what the deciding of cases involved. In fact, of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 25 were lawyers: and of the 55 framers of the Constitution, 32 were lawyers.

The Supreme Court has also ruled (see Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827) and U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)) that a statute is presumed constitutional and is valid and enforceable unless/until it is found unconstitutional by a proper court.

So one's opinion about whether or not something is constitutional is irrelevant.

And with regard to Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, the sentence, “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” appears nowhere in the opinion. The Court did not say that.
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Page generated in 0.03902 seconds with 8 queries