Click on the Image above
Click on the imahe above
Are Constitutional Violations a Crime?
If a Senator or Representative votes in favor of legislation that violates provisions of the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights, has that individual committed a crime and should they be punished or removed from office?
Please post your comments in the section below.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Terry Trussell on
-
John Roland, excellent point, but I think the focus of the issue should not be so much on the voting, although that would force legislators to be responsible and allow us to hold them accountable, but in the writing and subsequent signing of an un-Constitutional/extra-Constitutional bill. It must be incumbent on the parties responsible for creating law to guarantee that their legislative product remains within Constitutional confines--otherwise we end up with the mess we have today.
Another point: Would such an un-Constitutional law be enforceable? The challenge we face today, is when these suspect laws are enforced, the victim must prove his innocence; a direct contradiction of original intent.
-
-
Nice list of real abuses that might be crimes, BUT, a better understanding of the 1871 corporate contract, which happened instead of a peace treaty at the end of the civil war will be helpful.
Jon Roland's post in this thread might also be a controlling aspect.
As far as my research goes, only Srticle V has the needed authority to gain accountability. However, we must unify around the concept of preparatory amendment to assure all amendments have ful constitutional intent.
-
-
They take an oath to serve and protect the US Constitution and then they do as they please. That to me is no less than treason if it damages the united States in any way. At the very least it is reason enough to be dismissed.
The united States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and is the very foundation of our Liberty, our Sovereignty and our Independence.The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute , to be valid must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows;
"All laws, which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. "Marbury vs. Madison US (2 CRANCH) 137, 174, 176 (1803)_
Where rights secured by the Constitution involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, thought having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 / late 2d, Sec 256
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p 442
Our Congress has produced a lot of paperwork that is totally worthless, but stands because the people have no clue what they have done.
-
-
Michael Small, I believe the weak point in this argument is the Supreme Court, charged with being the final arbiters of what is, or is not, Constitutional. Being appointed for life, Justices are rarely held responsible for their incompetence or misdeeds. John Roberts' obviously contorted ObamaCare decision is a prime example, and there are many more, like the imminent domain decision that virtually hands over personal property to private corporations. Constitutionality is too precious a qualification to be trusted to this soiled body (hence the black robes?), and should be determined by a more responsible, transparent process. The Supreme Court could be the agent, but not as currently structured. Justices should be chosen every year from among a pool of pre-qualified and trained people. They would serve until their work is done, and go back to their previous lives, never to serve again. Determining Constitutionality does not require extraordinary academic qualifications. It is a simple document, read, understood, and discussed widely by more than 90% of our population just over a hundred years ago. Surely we could form a pool of 50 to 100 men and women with the intelligence and commitment to our Republic from which to draft a dozen temporary 'Justices' each year.
One other small point: to your last paragraph, how can they have a clue, when they haven't read the Bill? That should be a felony.
-
-
I have proposed a simple reform, to appoint federal judges not to a particular court for life, but to a single pool from which judges are drawn at random for one-year terms on each court. I have also proposed that courts be expanded in number of judges, with cases initially heard by randomly-selected panels of three, appealable to randomly selected panels of nine, and then appealable to an en banc panel of 27 (with one spare). That would enable more cases to be heard. It would also reduce political pressures on the ways they make decisions.
See http://jonroland.net/proposed_bills
Too many mistake the judges as the source of the problem, but all they are doing is going along with the unconstitutional actions of the other two branches. If the other two branches stopped grabbing unconstitutional powers, the judges wouldn't be the problem they have become. A better direction for reform is to reduce the influence of the political branches on judges, not increase it.
-
-
Jon, I bow to your expertise in this matter, but obviously we agree (see post above) in principle. I'm just an amateur legal expert, but I have watched many episodes of 'Matlock', and I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, once.
I might differ with you on your point that judges just go along with the other two branches. Isn't that what are required NOT to do? Judges, of all people should be apolitical. (Re: Fair Witnesses, in 'Stranger in a Strange Land'.) I'd like to read more of your writing so I'll check out your website. Thanks.
-
-
Definitely, they should be removed from Office. There should be no waiting period....it should be make automatic for this is Treason. We the people should not submit to any law that is unconstitutional. They should never be allowed again to run for any political office. We had shirked our duty also by allowing this kind of display of abuse to be permitted. God Bless our America.
-
-
Please take note of the following.
Note: ILLEGAL
"A constitution defines and limits the powers of the government it creates. It therefore follows, as a natural and also a logical result, that the governmental exercise of any power not authorized by the constitution is an assumed power, and therefore illegal."
--Thomas Paine, Constitutions, Governments, and Charters, 1805
-
-
A New Hampshire lawgiver is subject to Article 38 which states that they are required to exactly and constantly adhere to the fundamental principles of the New Hampshire Constitution when they form laws. Their failure to do so is a violation of their Article 84 Oath of Office. I believe that any lawgiver that has breached an Oath of Office has violated the Public Trust and should be immediately unseated and stripped of any pension. I further believe that such an act should be considered a misdemeanor unless there was clear intent to do so, in which case it should be considered a special felony.
Part 1, Article 38 can be read here http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html
Part 2, Article 84 can be found here http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html
I wrote a petition in April 2013 that 3 NH State Reps Sponsored in an effort to remove 189 State Reps from the NH Legislature you can see that petition here http://www.petitions24.com/stand_your_ground_to_remove_189_new_hamp...
My website is www.NHRedress.org
Other Petitions sponsored by NH Reps can be found here www.NHRedress.info
-
-
AGREED!!!!!!
-
-
Link doesn't work.
My response:
Relevant point. You might put it another way:
If a Senator or Representative, votes in favor of legislation, or Chief Executive who signs such legislation that violates provisions of the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights: 1. Is that legislation enforceable; 2. Does that Member or Executive continue to maintain authoritative standing after violating his/her Oath of Office (High Crime) and prior to being charged and tried for same?
Answer: 1. No. 2. No.
The challenge is the process. As legislation is being written, it should be drafted under the provisions and restrictions of the Constitution/BOR. We do not want to suppress creative, outside-the-box thinking, but the Rules MUST apply. An objective panel (uniquely formed for each session/year) of private citizens knowledgeable of the Constitution/BOR should review every piece of proposed legislation AND executive order. prior to submission. If a potential violation is detected, the draft should be returned to the source for revision under the Law.
As it stands, now: Unconstitutional laws are passed, and when enforced, the unfortunate victim must prove his innocence under an unlawful prosecution. An untenable position for any citizen.
As for the official who commits such an act, he/she should be immediately removed from office until tried.
-
-
I firmly believe that such an action should make them liable for felon prosecution.
However, we have the foxes guarding the henhouse. The corruption in D.C. makes the brothel state of Hollywood look lame. In the first place, we have to depend on the people doing the violating to act on such crimes. Look at the Social Security fund: We have trusted politicians to invest our taxes for the benefit of the nation's elders retirement only to see them rob said fund. Bush called 'borrowing' and Obama says it is bankrupt. The truth is that everyone involved in using this money for any other purpose BUT senior citizens is guilty of mismanagement of funds. But WHO will hold them accountable?
Do I believe we shoudn't care for the cripple and disabled? NO - I firmly believe in aid to these people, but a separate funding should have been established a hundred years ago for that.f I would have called it the Aid for Disabled Fund. I also would have no problem contributing from my pay check to such a fund. However, I am livid about the robbery of Social Security and the fact that there is no apparent accountability for such criminal acts.
© 2025 Created by Keith Broaders.
Powered by
