View Single Post
  #325  
Old 12-13-2012, 10:30 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,247
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
Allow me to further clarify a point of law that some are misconstruing. As it stands, the law in IL is not yet unconstitutional. The panel made the following order (emphasis added):

Quote:
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions.

This means that the cases go back to the District Courts, and the panel orders them to declare the law(s) unconstitutional and enter a permanent injunction. But the panel then added a caveat to those orders:



So, at the end of this 180 day period, the District Courts will take up the cases and issue their individual declarations and permanent injunctions.

Then and only then, will the law become unconstitutional.
Um, no. That flies squarely in the face of Marbury v Madison. The Constitutionality, or lack thereof, of a law is not dependent upon when the court makes a decision -- it is an attribute of the law itself. A law is either Constitutional or it is not. That is an attribute that flows directly from the nature of the law itself and its interaction with the Constitution. The court is not making the law Unconstitutional through its decision, it is observing that it is so, and pointing it out to everyone.

The court does not have the power to make a law Constitutional or not, only to observe that it is or is not. In Moore, the court has told the world that it has observed that the law is Unconstitutional. It is not within the court's legitimate power to declare that the law in question has legal weight anyway, for no law which is void under the Constitution has legal weight, period. To say otherwise is to directly contradict Marbury v Madison, and that way lies great peril for the court system itself and for the republic.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 12-13-2012 at 11:07 AM..
Reply With Quote