From: "Anlatt the Builder" 

On Mar 21, 12:15 am, "John D.Wentzky"
 wrote:
> "Anlatt the Builder"  wrote in
messagenews:1174459062.011671.295150{at}e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 9:08 pm, "John D.Wentzky" >
> >> > Courts are permitted to declare laws unconstitutional.
>
> >> Wrong.
>
> >> >  It's part of the checks and balances of our
> >> > governmental system.
>
> >> Wrong.
>
> >> > That is exactly what happened in Massachusetts.
>
> >> Most everyone knows they committed an illegal act.
>
> > What statute did they violate?
>
> The Statute against treason.
> And, the law-making procedure in the Constitution.
>

For a court to declare a law unconstitutional is not treason. It's part of
their job description. They determine whether the law in question is in
conflict with another law - the Constitution - which has higher priority.

>
> > Why am I asking questions of someone who says that courts can't
> > declare laws unconstitutional, when it has been one of the bedrocks of
> > American law for centuries?
>
> Where do you find that the Courts are qualified to declare laws
> unconstitutional?

Qualified, or legally permitted? Are you still claiming that it is illegal
for a court to declare a law unconstitutional? If so, you will have to
argue with every lawyer, judge, every constitutional scholar, and just
about every elected federal official. What you're describing as not
permitted has been the established and accepted law of the land for
centuries. It's one thing to DISAGREE with a court ruling. It's quite
another to insist that the court did not have the right to evaluate the
constitutionality of the law. They have the right AND THE OBLIGATION.

> Why is it that you would rather the courts strike down the representative
> framework of the USA and its States than for them to patiently await the
> completion of the representative process?

The Constitution is the highest law of the land. If  a lesser law is in
violation of it, the lesser law is not valid. It is the job of the courts
to determine when that happens.

> Why do you think every criminal needs to rush things through court?
> LOL!
> Is it because they are afraid they are going to be punished?

This has nothing to do with deciding laws are unconstitutional, so it's
just not relevant here.

But it's worth mentioning: many criminals do NOT "rush things through
court." In many cases, they drag their heels, so that they can stay
out on bond while their case is pending, or they can outwait witnesses
whose memory is failing, or so they can find new ecidence and new witnesses
and new experts to testify for them, and so on. In death penalty cases, the
defense commonly drags out the case for DECADES, rather than "rush
things through court."

In other words, even your irrelevant example is FALSE, and once again
indicates how little you know about the legal system that you keep making
definitive statements about. Read some more. Learn something accurate.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag