Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "'Incoherent' immunity decision renders 'Constitution itself unconstitutional': Akhil Reed Amar" video.

It is an incoherent hodgepodge -- doubtless because a wish list in which every justice got to put in his favorite fantasy. And have we forgot that Roberts, who "wrote" the decision, is ALSO "Federalist Society"?
5
Nope -- it doesn't work that way. A little history illustrates: Massachusetts-Bay tried twice to adopt a state constitution, the first effort being in 1777. The proposed constitution, as had been the fact with all the other state constitutions already adopted, was written and submitted for ratification by the General Court -- the state legislature. But opposition asked this crucial question: Does that mean that the state legislature could amend, or even repeal the constitution, at its own whim? That question was decisive, and that effort was defeated. The answer to that question, the solution, was that the General Court established -- the first in history -- a constitutional convention, to which delegates were appointed, to draft a constitution. That constitution was submitted for ratification and was ratified in 1780. The DIFFERENCE is the ratified constitution not only established separation of powers in three co-equal branches -- legislative, executive, and judicial -- but also placed ALL THREE, including the General Court, UNDER the constitution. So, no: an unconstitutional decision -- which the "immunity" decision is -- does not instead render the Constitution unconstitutional: the Supreme Court is UNDER the Constitution, not ABOVE or "instead of" the Constitution.
1
@1ntwndrboy198 I explained the history and hierarchy of law. The Constitution expressly stipulates that it is the SUPREME Law of the Land". There is no law higher than or alternative to the SUPREME law. The decision is unconstitutional.
1
The "Declaration of Independence" applied exclusively to ENGLAND; the Founders were not declaring independence from the gov'ts they all along controlled. And it has never been law; that's why we have the Constitution, which IS law. And IN BETWEEN the "Declaration" and Constitution were the Articles of Confederation. Law is a PROCESS, not an "instance". And the "Declaration" was preceded by a lengthy legal history that eventuated in it. Believing one can understand the "Declaration" without knowing anything of its context is erroneous.
1
@Gretabpooh That's the standard view of those who don't know the actual history of the era. As example, the first state constitution was New Hampshire's, adopted in January, 1776, and it was essentially a declaration of independence. Law is a PROCESS, not an "instance". Between July, 1776 "Declaration" (there are several other relevant dates as concerns the "Declaration") and the Constitution were the "Articles of Confederation". And before all that, during the 1760s was the false propaganda of "Taxation without representations" -- in fact, Benjamin Franklin was the colonies' representative in Parliament. On one hand, Massachusetts-Bay enacted a statute prohibiting criticism of the "Declaration" ("freedom of speech" anyone?), either privately or publicly, the penalty being "mispris[i]on of treason". But after the rabble were sufficiently stirred up (with the help of Thomas Paine), and it was time to reestablish stability, both the "Declaration" and Paine were discarded. Some of us have actually studied that era, especially the legal history. You have not and the constant general claims about it and the "Declaration" are also concocted myth not fact. As example, for at least 40 years the far-right has been waving The Federalist as their "Bible" -- and either ignorant of or ignoring the facts about it: 1. There were more than 50 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Only three of those more than 50 wrote "Federalist" articles. 2. On the other end of the spectrum of more than 50 were three delegates -- ANTI-Federalists -- who refused to sign the draft Constitution. One was Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, who invented the anti-democratic corruption that is gerrymandering. 3. The source of The Federalist was the NEWSPAPER articles written by the three named -- James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. Those articles and the volume of them are NOT LAW. It was ADMITTEDLY an ADVERTISING campaign intended to SELL the Constitution. It was not always HONEST in addressing the criticisms. And then there is this, in "Federalist No. 84" [Hamilton]: ". . . . I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous". (_Federalist_, Cooke, 579). Moreover, the various citations to The Federalist by illiterate gun-nuts and pro-insurrection fake "militia" NEVER include "Federalist 29," which is devoted exclusively to the militia and its regulation -- in fact it totally refutes their claims made for this and that out-of-context claims made for it. 4. The gun-nuts/pro-insurrection morons also gibberish about the "Declaration," in effort to get around the prohibitions in the Constitution. But few if any have ever read it, so never get beyond the false propaganda at its beginning to the grievances against, by name, King George III. These two are directly on point: "He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures." Legislatures MAKE LAW, which REGULATE. "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power." The "Civil Power" is the civilian gov't control of the military. Gov't is by definition RULE OF LAW, which REGULATES. Both US and all state constitutions expressly establish that the Militia is an arm of LAW ENFORCEMENT as an arm OF gov't. Treating the "Declaration" as a stand-alone document is just plain dumb.
1
@Gretabpooh First, the so-called "revolution" began long before the "Declaration" was even an idea. Second, "revolution" is the overthrow of gov'ts. The Founders "attacked" and "overthrew" exactly this many gov'ts: ZERO. Because the gov'ts at issue were to colonial, which the Founders themselves all along controlled. The "Declaration" was not a "Declaration of Independence" from THEMSELVES. In fact the so-called "revolution" -- the propaganda term; in LAW it was characterized as "war for American independence" -- was a civil war: it divided families. The actual revolution occurred during the 1680s.
1
@pegasus5287 "So you are ok with everything about the country except trump?" No one said that because it is nonsense. The ISSUE is TRUMP and the CORRUPT Supreme Court Justices TRUMP appointed. The ISSUE is that TRUMP is a CONVICTED CRIMINAL. Only those with at least a dozen screws loose would defend a CONVICTED CRIMINAL You are VICTIM of the very thing you DEFEND. How much money has he bullshitted you out of? Were you not aware of better uses for that money than sending it to a BILLIONAIRE who should be able to PAY HIS OWN WAY!?
1
@pegasus5287 "And we should change everything because of that hatred you have for one man?" The Supreme Court's "immunity" decision changes everything. Or are you avoiding knowing about THAT ALSO? Do you have ANY idea what it is like to live under a DICTATORSHIP!? T his isn't a game, or a FAKE "reality" TV show. Wake up from the trance!
1
@pdoylemi All the states adopted constitutions during 1776-77, and 1780. THEY eventuated in the US Constitution, and then the Bill of Rights. The "Declaration" simply reflected already-existing legal history -- the "Declaration" itself has never been law. As example, the sources for the Second Amendment were four STATE constitution Militia Clauses. Law is PROCESS, not an "instance". And when no longer needed, the "Declaration" was discarded by the Founders, along with Thomas Paine.
1
@pdoylemi Law is a process that evolves and yet maintains consistency. Nothing in the "Declaration" was new with the "Declaration". "It was the document that said, "Here is who we are, and what we stand for." Much of that was crafted into state constitutions and the US Constitution." The first state constitution adopted was that of New Hampshire, in January, 1776. And it was largely a declaration of independence -- I know that because I've READ it. And the subsequent state constitutions borrowed from those already adopted -- see _Birth of the Bill of Rights 1776-1791_, by Rutland. When, again, were the several dates on which the "Declaration" was actually signed and published? The "Declaration" was rescued from total loss because after it had served its purpose it was discarded. THAT is the HISTORY. It WAS NOT in its day viewed as if some sort of sacred text. Those who don't know the difference between law and non-law, and who don't know the history, especially the legal history, make a big deal of it. It was a propaganda document used to rile up the population. Even before the war was won there came a time to re-establish stability. And the idea that all of a sudden the contents of the "Declaration" suddenly came to mind is ahistorical nonsense. The colonies had diverged from English law during the 17th century -- Massachusetts being most notorious in that regard. The colony's first Charter was revoked in 1680 because Massachusetts insisted on going its own way. By the time of the so-called "revolution" independence was so established in attitude and even law-making that conflict with England was near constant. That last Royal Governor, General Gage, dissolved the ELECTED Massachusetts legislature because it kept sending him laws to sign that were "radical". The ELECTED legislature simply reformed and resumed making laws contrary to the "opinion" of the Crown. 1680 was long before the "Declaration". Law evolves but is also retains continuity and consistency, therefore law is process, not an "instance".
1
@pdoylemi "Everything the Declaration was based on is reflected in our Constitution." Where does the Constitution speak of "unalienable rights"? It doesn't because that is false propaganda.
1
@pdoylemi You said "everything" in the "Declaration" is in the Constitution. I showed otherwise. And it matters that the "Declaration" was not law, but the ALREADY EXISTING state constitutions WERE (and are) law. The already-existing colony and provincial laws eventuated in the state constitutions and laws. And the existing state constitutions and laws eventuated in the Articles, and then the Constitution. As I note elsewhere, as example, four STATE constitution Militia Clauses eventuated in that which became the Second Amendment. In Madison's resolution it was Sixth, and remained so through the Debates; and when the proposed Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for consideration and ratification it was Fourth. And the substance of the STATE Militia Clauses -- which distinguish between both well-regulated militia and standing armies -- is reflected in Congress's Debates of the writing of that which became the Second Amendment. Moreover, as submitted to the states for consideration and ratification, the proposed Bill of Rights consisted of TWELVE proposed amendments. The first two were rejected, making the third the First, and the fourth the Second.
1