John E. Finn, Wesleyan University
Declaring its community a “constitutional county” on May 23, 2023, the Board of County Commissioners in Ottawa County, Michigan, voted 9-1 not to enforce any law or rule that “restricts the rights of any law-abiding citizen affirmed by the United States Constitution.”
Nor will the county provide aid or resources to any state or federal agency that county officials judge to be infringing on or restricting those rights.
Ottawa is not the first county in Michigan to declare itself a refuge from what its leaders say are anti- or unconstitutional actions undertaken by an overzealous state or federal authority.
Livingston County, also in Michigan, passed a similar resolution in April 2023.
It isn’t clear how many there are, exactly, but there are also self-designated constitutional counties in Virginia, Texas, Nevada and New York. As a scholar of constitutional theory, I believe more will follow, especially in the roughly 1,100 counties of the nation’s 3,200 counties that have already declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries.
But where Second Amendment sanctuaries aim to create havens for gun rights allegedly under siege, the constitutional county movement has a broader agenda.
One of the drafters of the Ottawa Resolution, for example, explained, “As we wrote this resolution … we recognized the need to protect not only Second Amendment rights but all constitutional rights. … We wish to highlight freedoms and constitutional rights which have been violated over the past few years, as well as those currently at risk due to societal and political pressures.”
Why constitutional counties are unconstitutional
Although the two Michigan county resolutions are chiefly symbolic and do little more than encourage – rather than order – local law enforcement authorities and local officials to disregard federal laws they claim are unconstitutional, the dangers they pose to the U.S. constitutional system are substantial.
This way of thinking is profoundly mistaken and undermines Americans’ collective commitment to constitutional democracy.
Declaring oneself a constitutional county undermines the authority of officials authorized to act under the Constitution. I believe it ultimately subverts the authority of the Constitution itself.
When these resolutions instruct county police not to enforce certain laws, such as red flag laws that allow the confiscation of firearms from certain people, they violate Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. Article 6 declares that the Constitution itself and federal laws are “the supreme Law of the Land” and cannot be overruled or superseded by state laws or laws at lower levels of government.
So any county that claims to nullify federal laws it finds objectionable raises constitutional problems. So, too, do assertions of a right to obstruct federal law or to impede the exercise of federally guaranteed rights and liberties.
In both scenarios, local authorities claim they are under no constitutional obligation to enforce, or to help state or federal officials enforce, laws and regulations that are, in their view, plainly unconstitutional.
On the other hand, if the point is simply to refuse to assist federal officials in enforcing federal law, then that probably is not unconstitutional.
In Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court held in 1997 that federal officials cannot force state and local officials to enforce federal law.
Constitutional principles…or politics?
Among the constitutional liberties Ottawa County officials think are at risk is freedom of religion, which they say is threatened by state and federal diversity requirements in schools. Other rights they say are threatened include those granted by the Second Amendment and parental liberties; they also cite certain kinds of threats to individual liberty, such as COVID-19 mask requirements.
Notably absent were concerns about threats to reproductive autonomy, sexual and gender identities, or public safety endangered by firearms violence. Professions of constitutional fidelity by constitutional county advocates are more often about politics than real concern for the Constitution.
These declarations can be used – and I believe will be used – for pretty much any political agenda and to evade federal laws that some citizens find objectionable.
In doing so, they become little more than political excuses to end-run Article 6 of the Constitution whenever it suits.
Taking the Constitution seriously
It is tempting to applaud any effort by citizens to take the Constitution seriously. As I wrote in my book “Peopling the Constitution,” a healthy and vibrant constitutional democracy requires citizens who understand its promises and take some responsibility for making those promises a reality.
A resolution that simply makes a symbolic claim about federal law or about what the Constitution truly means, and does not order authorities to ignore or violate federal law, does not itself violate the Constitution. Such claims are a vital part of civic and constitutional debate in a healthy constitutional democracy.
But constitutional populism is a double-edged sword. The line between principled constitutional differences of opinion and partisan politics pretending to be a constitutional argument will not always be obvious or easy to discern.
When it substitutes partisanship for discernment, and assertion for argument, the constitutional counties movement undermines the very Constitution it purports to honor.
John E. Finn, Professor Emeritus of Government, Wesleyan University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
RE: “Declaring oneself a constitutional county undermines the authority of officials authorized to act under the Constitution.”
Gun Control cannot be under the Constitution when History Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is Rooted in Racism and Genocide.
hy
Working from domestic, I win $100 each hour. The truth that my closest companion makes $16,000 a month working from a portable workstation is fantastically astounding to me, so she prompted me to deliver it a attempt. I had no thought it was truly conceivable.
Presently is the time for everybody to undertake this work by utilizing this site. https://Getmoney012.blogspot.com
HhhhhhMmmmm.
No mention of the danger of cities refusing to assist the functioning immigration laws.
A failed “constitutional scholar”; does not understand federalism (understands, but is derisive).
You know who else claimed to be a “constitutional scholar”? Barack Hussein Obama.
The very same guy who on video, complained that the constitution was made of “negative liberties”, instead of an open invitation to invoke more made-up ‘rights’ :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqyY6ax3hc0
Who is the idiot?
“This way of thinking is profoundly mistaken and undermines Americans’ collective commitment to constitutional democracy”
Lost me right there, this guy is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, we have a Constitutional Republic.
He’s another collectivist, his words betray him in that one sentence alone. It’s as if he has no idea that states have their own constitutions, and that state nullification of fed BS is a thing.
Beat me to it on that point.
Gotta love people who are “Constitutional scholars” who can’t even get this part right.
As for: “I believe it ultimately subverts the authority of the Constitution itself.”
“…shall not be infringed.”
The Constitution does not give any authority to the government on the matter of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it PROHIBITS the government from having any authority in the matter.
you are right , he lost me too with his constitution Democracy, when we the United States is in fact a Republican ,
Absolutely and a democracy’s next step is dictatorship. The “majority rules” system people want is not obvious to them how quickly it becomes perverted and the lesson is often the minority is correct but forever silenced. Government has discarded about 10% of the “Law of Land” and the DOJ is beyond corruption.
We were meant to have a limited but efficient government that protects Rights and respects property Rights, WE granted them power and can take it back. Sadly too many are ignorant and it is not by accident either. When future generations begin freezing to death since natural gas was outlawed and used only for charging your EV they are going to become…uh.. what’s the word I am looking for?
I hope the Republican governors continue to ship illegal aliens to these sanctuary cities.
And the patriots can ship guns and ammo to the 2nd amendment sanctuary counties.
Yep.
It’s making for hilarious excuses from NYC on why we in upstate NY are better equipped to handle illegal aliens and going to court to force us to take them from the sanctuary city.
The professor is obviously a big-government liberal under the illusion that HIS leftist interpretation of the Constitution is the ONLY LEGAL interpretation.
I for one am sick of these so-called educated “leaders” telling us what to think.
Dumbass, the Constitution is THE highest law of the land. Thus it’s perfectly legitimate to refuse to enforce any federal or other law that is contrary to the Constitution
This ain’t rock surgery, Skippy.
Wait a couple or 5 years. AI will settle this issue (and many others) for us. But we may not like it.
Finn has mischaracterized to create fiction.
there is no ‘constitutional county’ that does as he assumes to act against the constitution. All they are doing is not enforcing federal law or assisting federal government in enforcing federal law, which states and counties were not suppose to do anyway. its up to the federal government to enforce federal law, not the states or counties.
this is just another idiot trying to gripe against civilian law enforcement not taking up the slack to do the governments job for them.
“All they are doing is not enforcing federal law or assisting federal government in enforcing federal law.”
Wonder if it is federally illegal to refuse to be deputized as a federal agent?
Had this discussion in the 70’s when I worked for a fed agency. Federal law says that any law enforcement official, local or federal, can deputize citizens. If the citizen refuses they can face charges. This was a Deputy US Marshal and he showed me the codes in the book.
Has the law changed since then? I have no idea. Has it ever been enforced? Again, I have no clue.
can’t be enforced. they can say you are deputized but that does not impose a responsibility on you to enforce federal law against your will. its two different things.
having the power to deputize does not confer an obligation on the non federal personal being deputized to enforce federal law. it’s simply assumed they will, but there is no law that forces or obligates them to do so against their will. the US government simply can not force or obligate a non federal person to enforce federal law against their will even if they were told they were deputized. A non federal person can legally and constititionaly refuse to be deputized against their will.
they used to say a lot of things in the 70’s, used to have a lot of rules they would show. its what they did, up until the time the public started getting smarter and realized the movie version of the cop demanding you turn your car over to them to chase the bad guy wasn’t legal or constitutional either.
I’d be curious to see how that squares against laws against involuntary servitude. If you press a local law enforcement officer into federal service, what pay and benefits are they given? Collective bargaining rights? What happens if they are injured? What if they don’t refuse to be deputized but then just sit in their chair and ignore your orders? This isn’t the military, the maximum possible recourse available to an employer for insubordination is termination, and cops are civilians. Since they didn’t want to be your employee to begin with I don’t see that as a very credible threat.
Or how about this twist?: after being deputized they use their new authority to enforce federal law to arrest the person that just pressed them into service on the grounds that what they’re being told to do is a 14th Amendment deprivation of rights under color of law; let the federal prosecutor sort that out.
It seems to me that any law that allows the federal government to essentially make a cop a slave to them wouldn’t work in practice or survive serious legal scrutiny
Ask Randy Weaver.
I sent him a letter asking that very questioin. Never did get a response… for some reason.
“Ask Randy Weaver.”
Not seeing the connection.
Weaver had the option of coming in to answer a federal charge…[that may have constituted entrapment]…he should have selected option one…in retrospect…ignoring it won’t make it go away….
Considering the agency (FBI) enforcing that federal law(s) at this point it would be most patriotic for Counties not to assist them in any manner.
its perfectly legal and constitutional for a non-federal government employee or person to refuse to be deputized as a federal agent. no non-federal government employee or person can be called or forced into ‘federal service’ to enforce federal law, against their will.
“ts perfectly legal and constitutional for a non-federal government employee or person to refuse to be deputized as a federal agent.”
We all like to think that certain things are “obvious”, when it comes to law. Citing a relevant instance might be surprising (or not). However….
As a condition of employment for XYZ law enforcement agency, one might be required to accept federal deputation. That might put an end to a “constitutional” county/city.
Finn is making an old argument – that states and counties are to enforce federal law. I was an assumption of government that because they can claim ‘law of the land’ that all civilian law enforcement had to enforce federal laws. It was creation of ‘defacto law’ by asserting ‘constitutional privileged’, in reality it was never law or constitutional that a non-federal government employee or person could be used or deputized, against their will, to enforce federal law.
it’s akin to the city coming to your home to ‘appoint’ you to fix street potholes then making you do it, against your will. its a form of slavery. fixing pot holes in the streets is the job of the city.
“…that states and counties are to enforce federal law.”
Look at what happened to Sherriff Joe Arpaio, enforcing federal immigration law in Arizona.
Oh, and it’s Constitutional Republic, not any form of democracy. That ‘D’ word does not occur anywhere in the US Constitution, “a republican form of government” does.
County officials ought to study the last time local governments thought themselves above federal law
In refusing to enforce illegal laws these officials are not placing themselves above the law. They are being true to their oaths.
Shall Not Be Infringed. So simple even a fascist leftist can understand.
They are legal laws as determined by the Supreme Court (federally) and state Supreme Courts (locally) in a process proscribed by the Constitution.
By refusing to recognize the legality of the laws they are placing themselves above it, just like the Sovereign Citizens.
Slavery was legal, also. I guess the folks that ran the underground rail road were criminals.
Good to know you’re a law abiding citizen.
Sovereign Idiot,
So, the Supreme Court is always right, is that what you’re telling us?? Tell that s**t to Dredd Scott. “Separate but equal” was the “law of the land” for decades. Slavery, CHATTEL SLAVERY was legal for over 100 years. Are you stupid, or do you just play stupid on the Internet????
True, but that’s the same thing as the old joke “jow many people does ittake to change a lightbulb?” Answer “twenty seven, but the lightbulb REALLY has to WANT to change”.
@Sovereign Citizens Counties
they are not declaring themselves ‘Sovereign Citizens Counties’… you have the wrong concept.
counties and states refuse to enforce federal law all the time, just about daily. you just don’t hear about it. this is no different, they just put it in different wording for ‘constitutional counties’ and its already settled law that states and counties are under no such obligation to enforce federal laws they don’t wish to enforce or assist or provide man power or resources in the enforcement of such laws…the only thing they can not do is interfere with the federal government enforcing federal law tthemselves.
that’s all these constitutional counties are doing. saying they will not devote their assistance or resources or manpower to enforce federal law they don’t like and they can do that as those things belong to them and not the federal government.
I’m not sure why people get all excited over this, its a normal thing for a non federal entity like a state or county to refuse to devote such to enforcing federal law. but I’m pretty sure in case like this its because the 2A is involved as to why people are all aghast over it.
A professor wrote this?
“Declaring oneself a constitutional county undermines the authority of officials authorized to act under the Constitution. I believe it ultimately subverts the authority of the Constitution itself.”
The professor needs to take a few courses on critical thinking. Forget the critical race theory, just do the critical thinking.
I’ll admit that he got part of that right. A constitutional county may very well undermine the authority of certain officials. However, those officials aren’t acting according to the constitution.
Weaver had the option of coming in to answer a federal charge…[that may have constituted entrapment]…he should have selected option one…in retrospect…ignoring it won’t make it go away….sawed-off shotgun prosecutions are often left to local or state authorities as ATF often feels they have bigger fish to fry…Randy Weaver was set-up and should have done his fighting in court…..
All the radioactive fallout in the lake might not be a good thing?
Night fishing for fish that glow in the dark!
Glow worms for bait
next time you’re out swimming in that lake at night, check your tail. If it is glowing green, the answer to your question is YES.
The retort is simple. When Government violates the Constitution by either ignoring it or passing laws they know are clearly unconstitutional they have forfeited their right to now penalize those who are trying to follow the original document as upheld by the Supreme Court. End of story or the other solution is civil war?
The “civil” part of the 2nd civil war is underway and has been for several years. When or if the shooting part gets underway is God’s guess and up to Providence. Let them fire the first shot.
Georgie’s Boys in Red did that some time back. Dint turn out so well for him. Seems his Boys got handed their hats and ordered to board those ships at Yorktown and head back to Merrie Auld……
Every argument I’ve heard made so far has said how it’s legal to refuse to enforce federal law. But is it legal for local LE to refuse to enforce state law?
LE in psrate New York have been ignroing that states “AWB “for a few years now. More states will be doing that soon if not already.
There’s a whisky bottle on the veranda, been sitting there a week and a day. It’s empty and green and the screw cap is missing. Would make a good target if I move it far from the shooting line, far enough that I would always miss, that way it will last a long time and I won’t have to walk way out there again to replace it. Last time I went out there I lost my compass and it took me two days to find my way home. Only made it because I heard the dog barking. He was stuck in a tree due to him being afraid of the beer delivery man.
When ever I lose my compass I always start looking North.
Bud Light?
Possum,
At the far end of Terminal H in Miami there is a drinking establishment called ‘The Bud Lite Pub’. Really. They are also one of the very few places that serves breakfast at 5 AM. I know because I had an early flight. I was hungry but I wouldn’t eat there, even though the other two open food serving places had Iong lines. There were only 3 folk at the Bud Lite. It was open, and they served bacon, but it was no beacon.
if they changed the sign to read Bud Lost I think they’d allbe a lot happier.
Possum,
Check back later. My reply to you is in the gulag.
Got it.
So the author seems to think not enforcing federal law on firearms is illegal, but doesn’t mention sanctuary cities and states refusing to enforce federal immigration laws.
Legally federal law preempts state or local statues. However there is no legal requirement to enforce those laws at the local agency level.
What is ignored is the simple fact that it has been common curtesy for law enforcement to cooperate with higher or lower levels, it has never been required. Many times federal and state enforcement is at cross purposes.
YOOOOOODGE difference. The Constitution specifically assigns “repelling foreign invasions” to the US Government. They don’t… and Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona back when was well within his rights to do for them. The judges n that case they took against him were sellouts.
I doubt the good professor has any problem with states, counties, and cities declaring themselves sanctuary zones for illegal aliens…and now kids receiving “gender affirming” surgery.
When anyone in government violates their oath of office any judgements, rules, or orders they make do not have to be followed. This is in the constitution. These government officials take an oath to uphold the constitution. The moment they deviate from that and inject their own views or opinions their rules or laws are moot.
Hey guess whut? ILL annoy is a leading state where over 80(?)counties have given the proverbial middle finger to the state(&feds) over enforcing illegal,immoral AND Unconstitutional laws and decrees. Michigan has aways to go🙄😀
?
The only thing “democratic” about the Constitution is that the people have the power and a process to make amendments.
If the “professor” and his kind doesn’t like how counties are being true to the Supreme Law of the Land, than he should be like Gavin Newsom and propose an amendment.
First of all the Constitution protects individual civil rights from violation by the government. Making the false argument that our Republic should be reduced to mob majority rule is the inherent fallacy that Mr. Finn has proposed. Oddly enough he doesnt include in his screed concerns about the numerous immigration sanctuary cities or counties while blathering on about the importance of abortion and other unrelated issues. It’s almost as if he knows that his writing is blatantly partisan but tries desperately to gaslight the reader by suggesting citizens that support the 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries are somehow different and immoral compared to the Liberal agenda. In that case he can only keep lying to himself.
Not only is the author ignoring the immigration sanctuary cities, but the author also ignores the more than 25 states in conflict with federal cannabis prohibition and now hard drugs (cocaine, heroin) and pyschedelics. If a state like Oregon or a city like Denver can suspend enforcement of these laws why can’t constitutional counties suspend enforcement of other federal laws
“the Constitution itself . . .[is] “the supreme Law of the Land” and cannot be overruled or superseded by state laws or laws at lower levels of government” or at any level of government
FIFY
“Notably absent were concerns about threats to [imaginary rights made up by Founder-hating postmodern leftists]”
Noted?
“When these resolutions instruct county police not to enforce certain laws, such as red flag laws that allow the confiscation of firearms from certain people, they violate Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution.”
How many red flag laws are federal? If the red flag law being used is not federal how can these resolutions violate the U.S. Constitution?
How many red flag laws provide due process BEFORE enforcement, before a person’s 2nd amendment rights are violated?
NONE of them do. Therefor they are ALL contrary to the Constitution.
Our enemies certainly ARE trying toget a federal red flag “law” going but so far have managed to disagree sowidely nthing has gotten passed yet.
if red flag laws ever get to the supremes they’ll be struck down in all probability…but that’s a big “IF”…….
“How many red flag laws provide due process BEFORE enforcement, before a person’s 2nd amendment rights are violated?”
We often, here, focus on the 2A aspects of ‘red flag laws’. But its not just the 2A rights violated by the no-due process red flag laws.
There are non-gun people by the hundreds every day across the U.S. that are taken from their homes (by force sometimes) and their property seized under ‘red flag’ type laws simply because a neighbor or someone else made an ‘anonymous’ call about some made up thing and accused the person was going to harm them self or others because they were angry at the person for some reason or another.
There is nothing wrong with them, they did not do as falsely accused, they are not a threat to themselves or anyone else, yet because someone got mad at them they and their property are seized without warrant or cause and they are not afforded due process. Instead they are seized by armed law enforcement and threatened and intimidated and confined and held, and often sent to psych eval against their will, without warrant or cause. Their constitutional rights are violated, sometimes they loose their jobs or homes, and sometimes their families, as a result of the false accusations and the ‘red flag law’, and many times although a lot of times their property is returned eventually depending on the jurisdiction it can take a long time and its been damaged and is no longer usable – and their lives, for many, are ruined in some or all aspects.
In some left-wing dominated areas, these ‘red flag’ type laws are abused to harass certain people or groups of people by left-wing officials with made up reports of ‘anonymous calls’. These tactics are mostly applied against minorities in an effort to force their compliance for some other thing the left-wing officials want like votes or to stop their complaints of an actual injustice.
red flag laws with due process are abuse-able to begin with and most are abused at some point to be used in ways not intended. But with the ‘renewed’ push on by the left-wing for red flag laws without due process, its a complete abomination and it does not apply just for guns either even though they try to make it seem like that by their deceptions – their ‘red flag law’ abomination is not about ‘public safety’ and is about ‘weaponzing’ the law against the America public as a whole as a means of threat and intimidation that for any reason they desire can say ‘we got a call, its anonymous’ or other such vague and unsubstantiated reason they can just show up at any times they want without warrant or cause and take you and your property.
I don’t take kindly to being robbed or kidnapped sooo…….
This nutjob Perfesser neither knows nor respects the US Constitution.
He lost it right out of the gate.. when he falsely declared that that Second Article of Ammendment “grants” the right to arms. It does NO SUCH THING. I acknowldges that we ALREADYT HAVE THAT RIGHT” Then it puts government and everyone else on otice to NOT MESS with that right Leave it alone.
Then he rattles on with some inanity about all federallaws MUST be upheld and enfoced. He forgets that littie niggly bit that specifies “consistent with the Constitution” must be enfroced. The Framers strongly declared that any law enacted by Congress that is contrary to or repugnant to the Constitution is no law at all, and is null, void, and of none effect.
Nor does he understand what comprises the “supreme law of the land”. It is the Constitution, together with all ammendments duly enacted, and all laws enacted by the Congress that are CONSISTENT with it, all foreign treaties duly signed by the President and ratified by the Congress .
He makes much of the odious Red Flag Laws, failing to note that so far (and may it ever remain so) they are ALL state level laws. He failes to realise that EVERY ONE OF THEM is repugnant to the US Constitution as not one of them provides due process of law prior to inflicting the sanctions (disarming the poor schlubb first, and asking the questions later.. often MUCH later). Nor do any of them allow for the sanctioned one (the target of the case) to be able to confront and/or examine those testifying against him, and severely limits the evidence the accused can present in is own defense. He may be represented by counsel but on his own dime.
NONE of this comports with the US Constitution.
Seeing these performances is tiresome. Resolutions don’t have force of law. Ordinances do. If this was serious rather than performative, they would not be using mere resolutions.
@jwm
“Slavery was legal, also. I guess the folks that ran the underground rail road were criminals.”
Yes, they were; engaged in facilitating property theft.
Some of the people trying to establish civil rights for black people in the 60s were also criminals; ignoring established law, and criminal trespass.
Not sure of the intent of your question.
Likely the typical breathless emotive attempt at a ‘gotchya’ of which lefties seem so fond. It really is a crappy false equivalence, although if the point were that refusing to uphold laws that deny basic rights is immoral it might stick.
“Likely the typical breathless emotive attempt at a ‘gotchya’ of which lefties seem so fond. It really is a crappy false equivalence, although if the point were that refusing to uphold laws that deny basic rights is immoral it might stick.”
So, for you, reporting truth is now a “lefty” “gotcha”?
Law and morality are not the same (sometimes morality becomes the law). When a law exists, and is violated, the perp is a lawbreaker (common parlance: criminal), therein the equivalence.
Those who ran the underground railroad were lawbreakers. The civil rights activists of the 60s broke existing laws. Regardless of the “morality” of breaking laws, facts don’t change.
In the coming years, those who refuse to turn-in their firearms under a confiscation law. will also be lawbreakers, and no longer “law-abiding”, no longer defenders of the rule of law.
BTW, I consider Attila the Hun to be a “lefty”.
Sam,
Don’t know the original commenter’s intent, but I can tell you mine. As RAH said, “I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them.”
Like fire, government can be a powerful servant, or a dangerous master. I like them better as servants. A bunch of idiots the likes of America’s Dumbest Bartender and Eric Swallowswell and Sheldon Whorehouse “pass a law”? Like, say, for example, the BLATANTLY unconstitutional AWB?? Yeah, they can stick that s**t where they sun don’t shine. I will not comply.
Is that direct enough an answer?
“I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do”.
(Note: if you have a moral code, you are not really “free”. You are bound by your moral code. To be “free” there can be no restrictions on your conduct.”)
Your morality is different from mine. Which is the superior? As noted in my prior reply to you, law and morality can easily be in direct opposition.
A person refusing to honor a law may be moral, but legally wrong. Being legally wrong, there can be consequences. Asserting personal morality does not make one immune to the operation of law.
Taking into account that there are 330mil people in the nation, how does one prevent utter chaos of 330mil opinions on morality?
Are you aware that ” “I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do”. reads like a Sovereign Citizen? Was not aware you held those positions.
A Sovereign Citizen, at the core, claims they are subject to no authority but their own, depending on whether any other authority benefits them. The logical extension of the Sovereign Citizen claim is anarchy and chaos.
Sam, with freedom comes RESPONSIBILITY. Is that word alien to you and your “sovereign citizens?” A Sovereign “citizen” is a world class BS Artist.
It’s unconstitutional to not enforce unconstitutional laws?
John E. Finn needs to reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn’t say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers “the security of a free state”? And if it’s treason, then it’s punishable by death.
“What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason.”
Yet, the Communist Party of the United States is perfectly legal.
“Treason”:
“Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
For the above selection from the Constitution to be applied, there must first be declared a government designated/recognized national enemy.
Note: After Civil War 2.0, tens of thousands who exercised their 2A right were not tried for treason. The reasons for this are interesting, but not detailed here (see: https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2020/07/11/were-confederate-soldiers-tried-for-treason/)
It seems that “Professor” Finn, is a blithering Leftist. He does not consider the Constitution the Supreme LAW of the land. He considers it to be something to be looked at and forgotten if it conflicts with his philosophy.
In spite of his Leftist theories, the Constitution is NOT political. It is the Constitution to be followed as WRITTEN.
“Wesleyan University, founded in 1831, is a diverse, energetic liberal arts community”
There you go – GD progs (obvoiusly).
Of course the Second Amendment does not “grant” the RTKBA. Rather, it merely references the preexisting right.
@Lamp
“So, the Supreme Court is always right, is that what you’re telling us??”
How are you thinking about “right”?
Law and morality are not synonyms. And both change according to the desires and intentions of humans.
What I understand from Sovereign Citizens Countries is a proper observation: anyone refusing to enforce the law, or refuse to comply with the law (“law” as enacted through the proper process) is putting themselves above the law; reasons are irrelevant. The real problem is interpreting the law. Given diametrically opposed understandings of the Constitution, which “side” is putting itself above the law?
That’s what courts are for.
Right?
Comments are closed.