where are the lawyers?

[eddieE76]

Where are all the constitutional lawyers hiding? Why are they not out there speaking against these congressional lunatics with the anti American, anti civil liberties proposals? The only way they will be stopped are through judicial tactics and educating the masses about the constitution.

I hate how some people are so quick to hand over their liberties.

 

[EvilBetty]

Interesting read.
The Embarrassing Second Amendment

I didn't read through it thoroughly. I did catch some hints that it might have been written by someone leaning more to the gun control side of the house.

Either way it makes some good points. As dangerous as it could be if it went the wrong way. It might be good to call for a halt to all gun related laws and legislation until the Supreme Court rules on 2A.

 

[bagga]

so what happens if the supreme court rules, the constitution is unconstitutional?

 

[Stophel]

It already has. Many times.

 

[andrewb70]

The idea that the US Federal Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is Constitutional or not is a fallacy that has been perpetuated since the days of John Marshall. Having the Supreme Court decide what is constitutional or not is like my brother deciding a dispute between me and my neighbor.

People need to be reminded of the Principles of 98...look up the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798...

Andrew

 

[Dennis The B]

Until the House, Senate, or President stand up to the "Marbury v. Madison" ruling, we are stuck.

In all the time I've studied politics, history, and the constitution, no professor, lawyer, or other student has ever provided ample proof that nine mere mortals in black robes, are somehow the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution states.

Even conservative justices like Scalia, think that the "stare decisis" doctrine is permissible in consitututional cases. Over time, stare decisis becomes a parlor game akin to one in which each person whispers in the next's ear, and at the end, finds out that the final statement wasn't what the original statement was. I've read a number of times that stare decisis is the lazy jurist's cop out.

A huge part of the problem, is that we have too many lawyers for lawmakers. And lawyers (no disrepect to Caj or others) are like anyone else who acts in self-preservation. Keeping the law complicated keeps lawyers in business.

I've been selected for jury pools a number of times, but I always get booted because I face off with the attorneys during voir dire. Most defense or respondent attorneys don't want someone who thinks independently, and most prosecuting or plaintiffs' attorneys don't want people who may stir the pot with jury nullification. I've been told any number of times, that jury nullification is not an option; that jurors must consider only the written law. What tripe!

I've come to the conclusion that despite what the Bill of Rights states, my rights, and those of others stand because we're thinking human beings. Those rights are inherent, and no amount of writing can add to them, or take them away.

Man has the inherent right to protect him-/her-self from peril perpetrated by others. It's been accepted since we came out of the deserts of Africa, and continues today.

 

[Erich]

Hi there. I'm a lawyer who handles constitutional questions daily. You want me to challenge Marbury? And you think that'll work?!

Man, and I thought that doing appellate criminal defense was quixotic sometimes . . . .

Why are they not out there speaking against these congressional lunatics with the anti American, anti civil liberties proposals?

The truth is that there really aren't very many people who think of them as "lunatics," and that calling them such is probably not very persuasive. Bear in mind that, regardless of our ideals of how the system should function under the founding documents and our God given rights, there's a great deal of inertia in the system as it stands. It's unlikely that will change without some catalyst other than a bunch of grumps waving their canes in the air and talking about their idea of what should be.

In fact, things had been going our way (in many ways) until this most unfortunate catalyst happened last month.

Now, getting back to Eddie's question, I primarily work to put food on the table, a roof over my head, and gas in my tank. I certainly enjoy sticking it to Leviathan, but that doesn't fill my burrito. So, tell you what: I'll quit my job and dedicate my life to this cause (there's no dispute that I think the right to defend oneself is God-given and cannot be removed by a government) - if you pay me enough to make it worth my while. But, if you're just sounding off . . . well, I certainly agree that it's a frustrating mess, my friend.

 

[Dennis The B]

Hi there. I'm a lawyer who handles constitutional questions daily. You want me to challenge Marbury? And you think that'll work?! ...

My comment is meant to point out that the absolute co-equal status of the three branches of government was changed for the worse when Marbury was decided.

The legislative and executive branches are well-able to hide behind Marbury, because it's much easier to to that than to get into a real fight with the courts.

In the Obama Care case, Justice Roberts punted, writing (in not so many words) that the issue was one of taxation (????), and not the government vastly overreaching, forcing the commerce clause on individuals.

In one breath, they define individuals rights as nearly sacrosanct in Heller, and turn around giving the state nearly unlimited taxing powers in little more than two years.

And you wonder why we need fewer lawyers???

 

[Erich]

My comment is meant to point out that the absolute co-equal status of the three branches of government was changed for the worse when Marbury was decided.

The legislative and executive branches are well-able to hide behind Marbury, because it's much easier to to that than to get into a real fight with the courts.

That's certainly a novel take on the case. My wife, also a lawyer with a lot of constitutional practice experience, thought so as well. It might be interesting to discuss it sometime.

 

[s1mp13m4n]

This is a joke, do not mean to offend anyone.....they are standing in line waiting for their payoff money from the politicians.

 

[Erich]

Oh shucks; I didn't get the memo!

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[EvilBetty]

Hi Erich, thanks for weighing in here.

What's your take on the article I posted above (if you had time to glance at it). They point the finger at the Supreme Court's lack of interest at weighing in on the 2nd. If that's the case I'm interested to know if it's really such a hot potato for those in that profession or if there are other reasons? Seems like someone would take interest in giving a a more final and educated answer as to the 2nd.

 

[spad124]

Where are all the constitutional lawyers hiding? Why are they not out there speaking against these congressional lunatics with the anti American, anti civil liberties proposals? The only way they will be stopped are through judicial tactics and educating the masses about the constitution.

I hate how some people are so quick to hand over their liberties.

Well, I'm not exactly a constitutional lawyer, rather a construction lawyer with an interest in constitutional issues. Like Erich, and many of the members of this forum I've got to put food on the table. For me that involves "yellow iron."

However, I've taken the time to write my state and federal representatives with, hopefully, clear arguments supporting the 2d Amendment and pointing out that the gun control legislation proposed now won't solve the problems and that many many Americans, particularly in less urban areas, seem to co-exist with fireams without any problems what so ever.

Politicians respond to two stimuli- money (or the threat of depriving them of it) and rational comments from their constituents and others. Look at the press the Marine corporal's letter to Sen. Feinstein received. Best thing you can do is write your representatives and senators, but in a respectful rational manner-particularly they do not support the 2d Amendment.

 

[10ring]

You might be surprised how many lawyers there are around here, including some designated as local or regional NRA counsel, lawyers whose practice primarily or significantly constitutional issues and lawyers who represent persons with "gun rights" and "gun violation" cases in state and federal courts. Others are simply lawyers whose practice involves standing up against the system on a frequent basis.

The thing is, most such lawyers only have a voice on a case-by-case basis. In a specific case and in a specific court the lawyer can make arguments and take a stand for what he or she believes, but unless it is a federal appellate level case no one will pay much attention, and even then...not so much.

The constitutional lawyers we hear from all the time are the guys who write books and teach law at well known law schools and many of them, perhaps most, are on the other side of the issue. Most of them are not work-a-day guys representing clients for a living and are frequent voices in the media.

By the way, Alan Gura, the Lawyer representing Heller in the now-famous 2nd Amendment case got seriously stiffed by the court on legal fees. Being a good guy can be very expensive.