The Oath Keepers on Edward Snowden

[Hush]

The Oath Keepers on Edward Snowden
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot. ... owden.html

http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/14/the-o ... rd-snowden

[Fulmen]

*snicker*

I can't help liking these guys, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife and spread it on toast.

[continuity]

*snicker*

I can't help liking these guys, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife and spread it on toast.

Not sure but beginning to think you and puke are alter-egos. You're a clown. Not sure who's the bigger one, you or puke.

Yeah, I'm taking your bait, but you both make me wanna throw up.

[Fulmen]

What, you don't see the irony in following the constitution by deliberately rejecting the very core of it?

[doubloon]

Is this going to be another exercise in belief without proof?

[Fulmen]

Not really, just simple logic. You see, I have a lot of respect both for the US constitution and your respect for it. While I might disagree in the way some treat it as sacred I do nevertheless think it's a good thing to treat the ideas contained within it with a sense of reverence. That being said, the core function of any working constitution is to establish the principal and supreme law of a country, and that must include the proper jurisdiction for interpreting it. To the best of my knowledge it doesn't contain any provisions that allow a man to place his own conscience above the law, if that were the case there would be no law. One man could decide it was his right to shoot trespassers without warning for setting one foot on his lawn, another that the abolition of slavery to be unconstitutional. Who's to decide what the constitution really allows or prohibits?

You cannot accept some parts of the constitution and reject others at will, either you accept it or you don't. If you do, you must also accept that the final interpretation is left to the courts, if you disagree with any order, decision or law you can either challenge it in court or work to have it amended or repealed through the democratic process, but you cannot simply ignore it.

[doubloon]

Correct, everyone has the right to challenge the law of the land by word or deed and sort it out in court.

I think provisions have already been exercised that allow "a man" and/or a small group to make decisions for the populace which carry the force of law until challenged.

[continuity]

Ok... there are checks at the base of our legal structure. One is officer discretion, the other is jury nullification.

Officer discretion is the first contact interpretation relative appropriateness of applying "the law" relative a situation. That application should include the totality of the situation, inclusive of everything that applies. That interpretation of the law may very well include a decision that considers the hierarchy matrix of our legal system. If available sanctions include legal writs that put one law at odds with another, officer discretion at the initial contact, may very well result in action based on the highest legal authority/legal device that officer decides is appropriate. It's been said that some officers believe the absolute legal basis for our judicial system stems from the USCon. If a discretionary decision relative a local law that is obviously at odds with the USCon is required, there is legal basis for a peace officer to make a scene decision that upholds the USCon application to the situation.

Jury nullification is, as we all know, when 12 good men (men, is interpreted as gender neutral here) decide the law was applied in error, or is an unjust law.

IMHO, these things are good things, and should never leave our legal system. It was unfortunate when the mandatory sentencing craze began to hobble Judges. Just MHO.

[Fulmen]

I see your points, everybody has to use their own judgment in determining the legality og an order at some point or level. But it that really what these guys are doing? I see them as setting themselves up as their own supreme court, placing them above the law...

[finn]

Since they were launched in the first year of the Obama administration, they are also sometimes accused of being unconcerned with the constitutional violations of the Bush years.

... very wrong.