Arizona House Legislature Passes Unconstitutional Bill...

[TheVat]

Would it be possible to have a real chat, in our own words, rather than skyscraper-tall citation dumps?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Orion1 said:

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior [Federal] courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this [Federal] Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority." - Article III, United States Constitution. (ref. 1)

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. ... [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this [Federal] Constitution." - The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, United States Constitution. (ref. 1, ref. 2)

"No State in this union [United States] can alter or abridge, in a single point, the Federal articles [Federal Constitution] or the treaty." - Rutgers v. Waddington (1784) (ref. 1, ref. 3)

"The supremacy of the legislature need not be called into question; if they think fit positively to enact a law, there is no power which can control them. When the main object of such a law is clearly expressed, and the intention manifest, the judges are not at liberty, although it appears to them to be unreasonable, to reject it; for this were to set the judicial above the legislative, which would be subversive of all government." - Rutgers v. Waddington (1784) (ref. 1, ref. 3)

The defense's case was litigated by Alexander Hamilton, who posited that the [State] Trespass Act violated the [Federal] 1783 peace treaty, which had been ratified by the [Federal] United States Congress. Alexander Hamilton decided that the case would be a good test of ruling the legality of the [State] Trespass Act. (ref. 3)

You can cite all you want, but that does not change the fact that courts have made horrendous decisions over the years. 

Were any of these a case in which a local court ruled that a law violated the federal constitution? I had asked you for such an example. (a peace treaty is not the constitution)

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Orion1 said:

My statement ... lacked a more descriptive definitive resolution of State and Federal jurisdictions

Thank you for kind of admitting that even though you sort of hid it in the smoke and fog.

[Kittenpuncher]

cops are crazy with power

i can hardly believe what the state pretends they can authorize them to do

 

Edited March 27, 2022 by Kittenpuncher

[Phi for All]

Just now, Kittenpuncher said:

firebomb the police !!!

!

Moderator Note

We attack ideas here. We don't attack groups of people, verbally or literally! This is an unacceptable violation of the rules you agreed to when you joined. 

 

[Kittenpuncher]

Oh im sorry i will edit it out

i dont mean literally it's just my mind kind of forces me to mentally do that which i find to be ironic and funny

sorry sorry

[Orion1]

On 3/27/2022 at 9:33 AM, TheVat said:

Would it be possible to have a real chat, in our own words, rather than skyscraper-tall citation dumps?

In political science, the burden of proof is on the individual making the claim.

On 3/27/2022 at 10:27 AM, swansont said:

but that does not change the fact that courts have made horrendous decisions over the years. 

Please cite a case law "decision" that is relevant to this discussion.

As was already cited, the State and Federal constitutional levels have made many corrections.

As of 2014, the United States Supreme Court has held 176 Acts of the U.S. Congress unconstitutional. In the period 1960–2019, the Supreme Court has held 483 laws unconstitutional in whole or in part. (ref. 2)

As of 2017, the United States Supreme Court had held unconstitutional portions or the entirety of some 182 Acts of the U.S. Congress. (ref. 3)

As of 2017, the United States Supreme Court had held unconstitutional portions or the entirety of some 238 State constitutional, statutory provisions and municipal ordinances. (ref. 4)

As of 2018, the Supreme Court had overruled more than 300 of its own cases. (ref. 5)

On 3/27/2022 at 10:27 AM, swansont said:

Were any of these a case in which a local court ruled that a law violated the federal constitution? I had asked you for such an example. (a peace treaty is not the constitution)

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" - The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, United States Constitution. (ref. 1, ref. 2)

"all Treaties" includes Peace Treaties. ☮️🕊️

What is written in the Federal Constitution IS the Unites States Constitution.

We are educated and civilized statesmen and scientists, and we do not condone violence against anyone. ☮️🕊️

Any discussions and/or peer reviews about this specific topic thread?

Reference:
Wikipedia - Supremacy Clause: (ref. 1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
Wikipedia - Judicial review in the United States: (ref. 2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States
Wikipedia - Judicial review in the United States: (ref. 3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States#Judicial_review_after_Marbury
GovInfo - State Constitutional And Statutory Provisions And Municipal Ordinances Held Unconstitutional (ref. 4)
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2017/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2017-12.pdf
Wikipedia - List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions: (ref. 5)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by Orion1

[MSC]

On 3/10/2022 at 6:47 AM, Orion1 said:

Partisan] said he initially got the idea to run the bill because he had "seen stories" of "groups of people" going around "filming police". (ref. 1)

My God! You mean to say that he saw people going around exercising their rights? Well they had some nerve! Better put a stop to these rights by making them illegal! 

Let's just be honest, if you can't be a good cop on camera, why the fuck would anyone trust you to be a good cop off camera? I've literally heard of cops speaking in favour of ending internet anonymity using the whole "but if you've got nothing to hide." argument. Why doesn't the same apply here. If you are a cop with nothing to hide, why would you care? Most of them have their own body and dash cameras now, and CCTV is everywhere and our phones are listening to everything we say. You take that shit away now, where is the law and order? 

I can't decide which is worse; that this is so unconstitutional or just so stupid and idiotic! 

 

 

[swansont]

On 3/30/2022 at 6:08 AM, Orion1 said:

Please cite a case law "decision" that is relevant to this discussion.

As was already cited, the State and Federal constitutional levels have made many corrections.

As of 2014, the United States Supreme Court has held 176 Acts of the U.S. Congress unconstitutional. In the period 1960–2019, the Supreme Court has held 483 laws unconstitutional in whole or in part. (ref. 2)

I believe a relevant comment would be how many SCOTUS decisions were later overturned by a subsequent group.

"As of 2018, the Supreme Court had overruled more than 300 of its own cases"

"[The list] does not include decisions that have been abrogated by subsequent constitutional amendment or by subsequent amending statutes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

Quote

 

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" - The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, United States Constitution. (ref. 1, ref. 2)

"all Treaties" includes Peace Treaties. ☮️🕊️

What is written in the Federal Constitution IS the Unites States Constitution.

 

And what is written in a treaty is not the constitution. 

[Orion1]

Arizona House Bill 2319 ruled unconstitutional.

A federal judge has ruled that an Arizona law limiting how close people can get to recording law enforcement is unconstitutional, citing infringement against a clearly established constitutional Right of the public to film the official activities of police officers in a public place. (ref. 1)

Arizona House Bill 2319 was struck down as unconstitutional primarily because it violated the Supremacy Clause, which constitutionally protects Rights such as Freedom of the Press, and protects against Prior Restraint, and which constitutionally granted a federal circuit judge the authority to strike down the law as unconstitutional.

Arizona House Bill 2319 is also an unconstitutional form of Prior Restraint, and there is an established constitutional Right of the public to film the official activities of police officers in a public place, which is a constitutionally protected First Amendment form of Freedom of the Press.

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the Constitution, AS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. No state can make a higher law and if it tried no judge could enforce any such law. That law would become a legal fiction, as if it never existed.

Article 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution:
This [United States] Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

"The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law." "void ab initio" - Marbury v. Madison, (5 US 137)

"Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no 'rule making' or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v. Arizona, (384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603)

"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 p. 442)

Ninth Circuit (with jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, the Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington). "material fact exists concerning whether [Police] interfered with Fordyce's First Amendment Right to gather news." - Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1995); "Defendants [police officers] stopped Plaintiff only to get him to delete the pictures from his cell phone, and then arrested him only because of his repeated challenges to their authority. Such circumstances would make Plaintiff’s arrest an illegal retaliatory arrest and prior restraint." - Adkins v. Limtiaco, No. 11-17543, 2013 WL 4046720 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2013); "there is a constitutional Right of the public to film the official activities of police officers in a public place." - Hawaii v. Russo (2017) - Supreme Court of Hawaii

"there is a constitutional Right of the public to film the official activities of police officers in a public place." - Hawaii v. Russo (2017) - Supreme Court of Hawaii

On 4/1/2022 at 12:14 AM, MSC said:

My God! You mean to say that he saw people going around exercising their Rights? Well they had some nerve! Better put a stop to these Rights by making them illegal! 

Any discussions and/or peer reviews about this specific topic thread?

Reference:
ACLU - Arizona House Bill 2319: (ref. 1)
https://www.acluaz.org/en/press-releases/federal-court-blocks-unconstitutional-police-recording-bill-aclu-arizona-reacts
Wikipedia - Supremacy Clause:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
Wikipedia - Prior Restraint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by Orion1

[MSC]

On 8/1/2023 at 3:18 PM, Orion1 said:

Any discussions and/or peer reviews about this specific topic thread

Sorry it's been a minute since I've been here. Wagwan?