Tuesday, December 15, 2015

WELL THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL

By Karl Denninger at Market-ticker.org 

Nothing like flatly ignoring the Constitution's due process protections, right Malloy?
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy plans to sign the first executive order in the nation to ban the sales of guns to people on federal government watch lists.
"We intend to prevent, by executive order through my powers as governor, those on government watch lists from obtaining a permit to purchase a firearm in Connecticut," the Democratic governor said in a news conference Thursday.
That might pass muster if you'd been convicted of a crime.

Or even if you were indicted.

But..... that's not how it works.

If you're on a "watch list" you probably don't know you're on one, until you try to fly.  Then you can't.

After you bought the ticket, which is now forfeit.



So the government first causes to to lose money (theft) without due process of law, they put you on the list without due process of law, there is no formal means to challenge same nor any right to see the evidence against you or challenge those who offered testimony (if anyone at all.)

In fact, you might be on the list purely for political means.

There's no way to know.

Now I'm sure some people on the list are terrorists.  But, that's not the point because we know some people who clearly are not terrorists have been on the list, including the late Senator Kennedy!

To remove someone's Constitutional rights you first must convict them of an offense -- at least in theory.  There's even a decent claim that once one's sentence is complete you cannot continue said debilitation, but that's a debate for another day.  It is also entirely reasonable to temporarily suspend someone's rights after indictment under court supervision because once convicted you might be imprisoned (during which time certain constitutional rights are certainly suspended, but the responsibility attendant (e.g. the protection of your life) is subsumed by the State, but in this case there's no indictment either.

Yes, I know, Obama wants this sort of unconstitutional crap too.  So what?  He hasn't given a crap about the Constitution since the day he falsely swore his oath of orifice.

Those who take these acts have committed a non-act in fact and in law, and in addition anyone involved in the "enforcement" of this non-law have both committed a federal felony under 18 USC 242 and a civil violation under 42 USC 1983.  So says, by the way, Norton .v. Shelby County (that is, the United States Supreme Court):
“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 v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
Go perform an anatomically impossible act Malloy.


No comments: