Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
5 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

What is the over riding law of the land?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Become a Fan
  (8 fans)

opednews.com

The question I posed in an email list on the Obama Campaign site was:

What is the over riding law of the land?

1) The Constitution & Bill of Rights.
2) Laws passed in Congress and signed into law without a signing statement
3) Laws passed in Congress and signed into law with a signing statement
4) Presidential " decrees " that may go counter to the written law

With regard to the first amendment which denies Congress the power to pass any law abridging our right to petition for a redress of grievances, wouldn't any "immunity" bill which specifically says we can't sue to petition for a redress of our grievances be a direct violation of the first amendment, thus an illegal and unenforceable law?

My understanding from my limited legal education has always been that the Constitution is the supreme law and that neither the Congress nor the President can write any law that is contrary to the Constitution, and the only recourse would be a constitutional amendment.

How do the recent ( post 9/11 ) laws that attack various portions of the constitution, absent any constitutional amendments, hold up in the first place.

Another question, the constitution requires members of congress and the president to take an oath of office to uphold the constitution. Does that oath carry any legal obligation with it or is it empty window dressing?


Response provided by and published with permission of:

Edward L Siegel, MD
Assoc. Professor of Radiology & Surgery (ret)
University of Kansas Medical Center


There was a time when the answer to the first question was a resounding #1 - but that was before our elected officials became the ugly stars that Hollywood wouldn't tolerate. Nowadays the constitution has become something of an impediment to the desired freedoms of our petty barons and princes in Washington who believe the laws are only intended to keep the rabble in order. In consequence, our government is no longer of, by and for the people. It is now the people's adversary.

I think your theory of the first amendment is sound, but how is it to be enforced. In 2004 if you were not a Bush sycophant you could find yourself removed from a parade route and corralled inside a fenced "free speech zone" under armed guard. Ultimately it is up to the courts to say what is and isn't unconstitutional, and their record is horribly suspect.

Your understanding is partially correct. The congress may write and the president may sign into law anything they wish. As I understand it, law are passed with the presumption of constitutionality. In order for it's constitutionality to be judged, somebody with "standing" has to mount a legal challenge. Of course, the more secretive the government, the more more difficult to prove standing. In one of the pending FISA cases the plaintiff accidently received government documents proving their case for standing. The judge required the plaintiff to return the documents and disallowed their use. If the challenge ever makes it to the SCOTUS, it's reception there will be based more on caprice than on the plain language of the law. { "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." } becomes {/"[T]/he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." } and they pretend the titles "originalist " and "strict constructionist." The court is one vote away from a judicial fundamentalist majority. One of the unique features of judicial fundamentalism is elevation of the executive to the head of government rather than the co-equal branch our founders envisioned. The unitary executive theory provides for an elected dictator, justified by the state of perpetual war. It argues that the president is commander in chief of the nation, not just the military.

I think my opinion on your final two questions is reflected in the first paragraph above. Consider that the power to make war is vested exclusively in the Congress of the United States by Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. During the run up to the Iraq war vote, which was not a declaration of war, the congress abrogated its responsibility and gave that power to the president, contrary to constitutional principles in general and the language of Art. 1 Sec 8 explicitly. During the debate, Henry Hyde, a Republican house patriarch, told his colleagues that a declaration of war is an anachronism! And a crony-chorus of chickenhawk pals joined him. In other words, even when it comes to the most profound decision a nation must make, they no longer trust the American system of government. Clearly with less at stake, they find the old rules all that less important.

How should we, as American Citizens, address the crisis posed to us by a Congress that no longer appears to consider the Constitution to be anything of value to them?

 

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Tell Congress to wise up for back up.

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

http://www.joethevoter.org

Political Activism is a passion but I have earned a living since 1995 through my web page design and hosting business. I also do graphics design and offer business cards, fliers, brochures etc. My most recent venture which can be seen at (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Conspiracy Too Big for Glenn Beck

Religion & Using fear to control "White" America.

Who does the US Chamber work for?

Deciphered: The Secret Republican Agenda

Corporate American's Grand Design for the Middle Class

Will November spell the end of our Democracy?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 people are discussing this page, with 5 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
RE: neither the Congress nor the President can wri... by Kimball on Wednesday, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:43:31 PM
Can you break this down to a comment.... by Gallaher on Wednesday, Jul 9, 2008 at 4:28:21 PM
I can break it down. We have the constitutional ri... by Jay Timmins on Wednesday, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:11:57 PM
I have been saying that all along. Now with a gutl... by Paul Kruger on Thursday, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:23:21 AM
Read this article. It is not all in Congress.... by Paul Kruger on Saturday, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:45:44 AM