6 votes

Judges Don’t Make Laws; They Render Opinions, And States Should Ignore Bad Judicial Opinions

“According to Godfatherpolitics.com, “These states are affirming their sovereignty over the Federal government. I don’t care that the Supreme Court opined that the health care law was Constitutional. The Supreme Court also ruled that a woman has the right to murder her unborn child. That was an opinion over one particular case. Judges don’t make laws; they render opinions, and states should ignore bad judicial opinions. They should also ignore bad Federal laws.”

Montana got 65% voter approval to prohibit the State or Federal government from being able to force anyone to buy health insurance. The act also prohibits any penalties from being levied on anyone that chooses not to purchase health insurance.

And Wyoming’s measure was passed and states that, “No federal or state law, rule or administrative decision shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/three-u-s-states-have-annull...

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/

______________________________________________

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
meekandmild's picture

LAW OF THE LAND

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 succintly stated as follows:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. "
Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them quot;
Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; 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 County118 US 425 p.442
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, in 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."
16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177
late 2nd, Section 256

http://www.apfn.org/pdf/citizen.pdf

All laws are just threats of force

Why is this healthcare law any different from other laws?

Nullification In One Lesson

Wow! I love what she had to say. Thanks for the post.

From the Tenth Amendment Center - Nullification In One Lesson:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/11/14/nullification-in-...

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

I share with Ruth Bader

I share with Ruth Bader Ginbsburg in the opinion that this is how the states should avoid legislation they don't like. Nullify/secede.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

What Do You Guys Think?

The Supreme Court's rulings

The Supreme Court's rulings has the following effects:

- The case is decided FOR THE SPECIFIC LITIGANTS. Barring something like presidential clemency, the ruling is binding for the litigants, and no other branch or level of government can do anything about it.

- Lower courts are bound to the precedent. Lower courts must respect the holdings of its Mama court.

But that's it. It does NOT bind the executive or legislative branches from doing anything. However, if the issue is litigated anew for some new victim or some new law, the lower courts must respect the rulings of the Supreme Court. That's how the balance of power works.

So,

do you base that upon precedent, or 'the law'.

Nullification is the rightful remedy. As is electing Constitutional sheriffs.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

I don't know what you mean by

I don't know what you mean by nullificatoin in the context of the Supreme Court. If you're suggesting that the executive / the legislature can nullify the outcome for the litigants of the case, I disagree.

Thanks PAF

The Tenth Amendment Center has plenty to say about this. (and it's all good)

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Thank you, Libera_me

Updated to add link :-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

You are welcome!

I love pointing out helpful sites; if you want to contact your congress person:

www.downsizedc.org

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15