1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

Gun Law Update: Gun-Ban List Details - it's here...

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Quigley_Sharps, Jan 9, 2009.

  1. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

    Gun Law Update

    by Alan Korwin, Author
    Gun Laws of America
    Jan. 5, 2008

    Gun-ban list proposed

    Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Bradys plan to introduce shortly.

    I have an outline of the Brady’s current plans and targets of opportunity, It’s horrific. They’re going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They’ve made little mention of criminals.

    Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment.

    The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

    Rifles (or copies or duplicates):

    M1 Carbine, Sturm Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, AR-10, Thompson 1927, Thompson M1; AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR; Olympic Arms PCR; AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927 Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle; Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95 or 96, Steyr Au, Tavor, Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

    Pistols (or copies or duplicates):

    Calico M-110, MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3, Olympic Arms OA, TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, Uzi.

    Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):

    Armscor 30 BG, SPAS 12 or LAW 12, Striker 12, Streetsweeper.

    Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):

    A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below), (iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.

    Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rimfire rifles).

    A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has (i) a second pistol grip, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a barrel shroud or (iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and (v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

    A semiautomatic shotgun with (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a pistol grip (see definition below), (iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and (iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

    Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.

    Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will:

    Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.” Note that Obama’s pick for this office (Eric Holder, confirmation hearing set for Jan. 15) wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home.

    In making this determination, the bill says, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.”

    In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

    The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn’t have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose -- is that devious or what? And of course, “sporting purpose” is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Alan Korwin, Author
    Gun Laws of America
    http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /></O:p>
  2. Valkman

    Valkman Knifemaker Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    I sure don't understand what the fixation is for 10 rounds in a handgun. If I carry my 1911 with 7+1 am I under-armed compared to my XD45 with 13+1? A stupid abitrary number is what it is, and the BG is going to lose no matter how many rounds I carry.
  3. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    hmm there goes that line again...
    They know this will be a big trigger event, think it'll evercome to pass?
    Some federal hs dink schedules a saturday morning turn in at 10:00and 300 hardcore liberty rednecks show up ready to rock.Many slugs and zules will know what it feels like to be evicerated at 2400fps that day , I tell you.
    Seems to me plenty of feddy's have bolt action center fire rifles and 870'sthat count towards aban???
    2nd's got nothing to do with hunting!
    So what are the odds they'd break out the paper work and knock on your door? Gotta give up my enfield or your mosin?
    lever action 30-30 is a pretty destructive combination Molon Labe beee-otsch!
  4. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    "attention owners of these specified weapons will turn them in to the local block captain".

  5. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    Gotta love Korwin. He's on the frontline sounding the warning.

    Gun Law Update

    by Alan Korwin, Author
    Gun Laws of America
    Jan. 8, 2009

    Brady Gun-Ban Strategy Outlined

    (Prior report with Brady gun-ban lists:

    The powerful gun-ban lobby has developed its own language to color and disguise its true agenda -- the disarming of law-abiding Americans in every way possible, and the end of effective self defense.

    Their latest set of plans -- used as a fund raiser (outlined below) -- is filled with nice sounding terms that put a deceptive spin on their goals. Respect for the Bill of Rights is nowhere to be found, only clever end runs and literal destruction of rights Americans have always had.

    Starkly missing from these plans is any direct attack on criminals -- the whole game plan is aimed at firearms the public holds. It is a product of abject gun fear -- hoplophobia -- that afflicts the people behind the plan. They deny they're hoplophobic, but just look at their plans, directed solely at restricting and eliminating guns -- instead of the crime caused by criminals they nominally complain about. I noticed that all mentions of accident prevention, a former holy grail for the group, are gone.

    The hypocrisy is unequivocal and self evident. Sarah claims, "We need to get these 'killing machines' off our streets." Well, go ahead. Any person, on any street, operating any "killing machine" belongs in prison immediately under existing law, right? Everyone, even the Bradys, know this. It doesn't matter if your gun is black, or too short, or holds the right amount of ammo.

    The problem isn't the "machines," it's the lack of law enforcement -- in the bad parts of town and among the gangs where most of the problems occur (see maps: http://www.gunlaws.com/GunshotDemographics.htm). They will not admit this, and they do not address this.

    Instead, they act out on their phobia and attack you and me. The real problem of crime and violence is just an excuse for them to work on disarming people who didn't do anything.

    The Federal Bureaucracy of Investigation, along with the Bureaucracy of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives are in complete sympathy with the plan. The Brady plan will get them more staff, more office space, more of our money and more power, the acknowledged holy grail of bureaucrats.

    Politically Corrected Glossary -- of Bradyspeak

    (See the entire glossary: http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm)


    "Commonsense" gun laws / Public disarmament laws
    Lifesaving legislative agenda / RKBA infringement plan
    Gun pushers / Heavily regulated honorable gun dealers
    Gun violence / Undeterred and unprosecuted felonies
    Gun violence prevention measures / Illegal infringement laws
    Assault weapon bans / Public gun bans
    Gun show loophole / Universal gun registration
    Close the gun show loophole / Close gun shows
    Suspected terrorists / Attorney General listings
    Killing machines / Semiauto firearms
    Crime fighting / (The term is not used)
    Criminal apprehensions / (The term is not used)
    Incarceration of violent perpetrators / (The term is not used)
    Revolving door judiciary / (The term is not used)
    Gun safety training / (The term is not used)
    Respect for the Second Amendment / (The term is not used)

    All quotes from Sarah Brady unless noted --

    Time Frame:

    "As soon as President-elect Obama is inaugurated and the 111th Congress is sworn in, the Brady Campaign will be making an all-out push to advance our lifesaving legislative agenda... But that doesn't mean we are waiting until Inauguration Day."


    "We are already reaching out to Obama's transition team, as well as our allies in Congress" on numerous fronts:

    -- A blueprint for regulatory action
    -- Roll back Bush's policies that made our "streets into shooting galleries"
    -- Lists of appointments to Justice Dept., BATFE and federal courts
    -- Provide funding to increase the number of people in the NICS Index

    Two announced regulatory changes:

    -- "Strengthen" ATF's authority to regulate "gun pushers"

    -- Overturn the recently lifted ban on CCW in National Parks (Brady is calling for a boycott of such parks where 'dangerous people are free to roam armed' -- without realizing the silliness -- anyone legally armed in a park can carry anywhere else in the state, what's the difference?);

    -- [Note that in the recent past, RKBA opponents have also sought to regulate guns out of the public's hands using:

    -- The Centers for Disease Control (currently banned from such actions);

    -- The Consumer Products Safety Commission (currently banned from such actions);

    -- Proposed new entities such as the so-called "Dept. of Peace" (a cabinet-level office more accurately a "Dept. of Social Engineering," with enormous regulatory power over the military and RKBA, more here, see item #9: http://www.gunlaws.com/PageNine-27.htm);

    -- A proposed gun-safety agency akin to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "The National Firearm Safety Administration" (more here, see item #1: http://www.gunlaws.com/Page9Folder/PageNine-53.htm);

    -- Massive increases to the excise tax on firearms and ammunition, to make both only affordable to an elite class of rich people;

    -- Gun-ban proposals from the U.N., designed to overturn U.S. laws and RKBA through enforceable international treaties (a policy stopped in its tracks by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, but which would be embraced by Obama's minions)]

    -- Unmentioned anywhere is the horrific Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, unenforced so far, that criminalizes any non-CCW travel with a firearm within 1,000 feet of school grounds -- which is virtually everywhere in populated areas (maps: http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones.htm).

    Top Legislative Priorities:

    -- Enact a new, larger, permanent ban on a tremendous variety of firearms to be labeled assault weapons.

    -- "Extend the Brady criminal background check to every gun sale. America's gun policy should be: No background check, no gun, no excuses."

    -- Close the loophole that allows "suspected terrorists" to buy guns. [Note: If for any reason you become "listed" you're not only stopped from shopping, but any guns you own could become contraband -- because a person prohibited by a NICS check is presumptively a prohibited possessor. Removal from the "suspected" list might involve the FISA spy court, where civil rights are suppressed in the name of national security. Good luck.)

    Policy Positions:

    -- "An end to the violence enabled by toothless gun laws."

    -- "An all-out push to advance our lifesaving legislative agenda."

    -- "Real change to protect our families and support law enforcement."

    -- "Make preventing gun violence a national priority in 2009."

    -- Use the media to advance the cause: "Obama can be a powerful ally -- and a powerful voice to rally the American people to our fight to stop gun violence."

    Dismantle The Heller Case

    The Heller decision was a double-edged sword, everyone recognized that. Now it's time for the Bradys to use Heller to attack the Second Amendment:

    "Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Federal government cannot ban all guns, but that the government can place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership -- a position Obama shares -- the days of gun control being too controversial an issue for candidates to run on are over," says Ms. Brady.

    "Scare tactics about gun bans aren't going to work anymore now that the NRA's slippery-slope argument about gun confiscation has been dismantled by the Supreme Court."

    In a little noticed speech at the New York Bar Association in December, which I was fortunate to attend, Brady president Paul Helmke said of the Heller case, "The Supreme Court got it wrong." It's obvious the anti-rights people feel that way, and this implies they will seek to overturn the decision if they can seat a majority of their ideologues on, or bring the right case to, the High Court. Obama's statements about Supreme Court nominees do not bode well in that regard.

    [Obama has said: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." And: "If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court." There is no mention of rule of law, original intent, rules of interpretation, historical record or precedent.]

    Helmke went on to say that the dissent and the list of restrictions will be the crucial parts of the decision (for him at least). "This is going to be good for my side," because, "the slippery slope is gone." In other words, with the High Court ruling out the total bans the Bradys have been fighting to get, they believe that all sorts of lesser bans cannot be argued against. "They (the High Court) took confiscations off the table," he said. "Any gun, anytime, anywhere is off the table." Although the Bradys desperately wanted and vigorously pursued total bans, they're now trying to turn lemons into lemonade.

    Regarding the end to total bans, and the individual rights v. collectivism subterfuge that's now dead, "That was the hardest thing for me to argue," Helmke said, "taking the collective-militia-rights vs. individual rights, and the D.C. total ban off the table is going to help us politically. We de-wedgified the issue." In an eye-popping statement, Helmke said, "I don't consider the Brady Center anti gun."

    He went on to try to apply the Heller case to one of his most detested firearms, ".50 caliber sniper rifles are not that common," so they may be subject to control under the "dangerous and unusual" provision in the Heller opinion.

    He's referring to where the Court said: "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms ... fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

    But they also said: "...we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.'" (Like .50 cals many people own and enjoy?) And quoting historical material the Court noted: "... a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons." Be very cautious, Helmke's statements cannot be left standing unchallenged.

    The six panelists at that presentation generally agreed that the question going forward is, What's the test for reasonable restrictions?

    Although most ardent gun-rights proponents' knee jerk response might be "no infringement of any kind at any time," it rapidly becomes obvious that, at the very least, disarming violent felons -- or anyone convicted and in prison -- does not amount to infringement. Some sort of limits on the very young, mental incompetents and similar restraints are permissible boundaries around the right to keep and bear arms. But anything that disarms the general public, even slightly or incrementally, is cause for alarm. Would disarming politicians be acceptable?

    The Heller case -- where there were not five votes to apply strict scrutiny to 2A (the highest judicial test for robust protections) -- toyed with guidelines but set no iron-clad rules. On the low end however, it flatly rejected Breyer's invented so-called interest-balancing test, which would have meant virtually no limits to what the Bradys could shoot for.

    On the pro-rights side, it's critical to hammer these bedrock portions of the decision in your writing, debates and fight for the RKBA:

    "The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

    "Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

    "The way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents... because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people."

    "Virtually all interpreters of the Second Amendment in the century after its enactment interpreted the amendment as we do."

    The right to keep and bear arms is a "specific enumerated right" on a par with "freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel." I think of it this way: The right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right on a par with free speech.

    "The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad."

    [Note: You can get all 400 key quotations from the case, and comments by 20 top scholars, in my 11th book, The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm].

    So just how far can the Bradys push? They're prepared to push all the way, and as their current proposals suggest, they will stop at nothing. But they didn't count on us.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Alan Korwin, Author
    Gun Laws of America

    Permission to circulate or post this Gun Law Update granted.
  6. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    "The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

    "The way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents... because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people."

    That would seem to me to permit any weapons employed by the military to be held by any citizen. Equally armed, so to say, so that a military can't just over run and under armed populace.
  7. hacon1

    hacon1 Monkey+++

    The military and LEO can own ANY firearm made today! By the proposed defination, Eric Holder could ban all firearms. His plan, as laid out in another article that I posted, stated that each model would be banned one at a time. This would force expensive law suits on each individual model, to get it over turned. Just to get all Kimber .45's reinstated, for example, could take years by itself due to the number of models that Kimber makes in that caliber. "Unintended Consequences" are on the horizon. If you don't think so, read the book.
  8. SLugomist

    SLugomist Monkey++

    need to get that public works programs started asap. So all these jackholes with too much time on their hands can get to work instead of thinking of how to take away the people civil liberties.
  9. SLugomist

    SLugomist Monkey++

    But won't already owned weapons be grandfathered??
  10. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    would bawney fwank, Nancy pewosi and chucky schumer feel good about slugomist having serious firepower in the hall closet??? What they propose is unconstitutional hence illegal anyway, think they care about fair???
  11. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Somebodies got to prove"sporting purposes " is not relevant to the 2nd...not sue to reinstate every individual model...Think I'm going to invest in alot of black pipe stands for my new "bird feeders", a front stuffer or two, and a "butt load of 12ga or pyrodex....modern legal ownership may become impossible.
  12. CBMS

    CBMS Looking for a safe place

    This frankly is disturbing even after a so recent rejection of this train of thought by the US Supreme Court.
    A ticket being handed to the Attorney General saying Ban whatever you like, is like giving a fat kid your credit card and a Costco sized candy store. Sure he'll stop eventually, but at what cost?

    On another topic, when do you guys suppose that the President stopped being Executor of our Will and turned into Monarchical ruler?
  13. SLugomist

    SLugomist Monkey++

    Somebodies got to prove"sporting purposes " is not relevant to the 2nd...

    It states in the 2nd amendment ," the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.."

    Were weapons used for sport when this amendment was written?
    This amendment was written as firearms were a necesity for the people to protect themselves, be it from savages, or to feed themselves and their families or to aid in the defense of the fledgling nation, not to compete in any event. So it is today that this amendment still holds in the same regards as was held in the minds of the authors of the amendment, that the peoples right to bear firearms of any type is a necesity for their protection from criminals(site precedents), to feed themselves and their families, and to defend this mature nation if need be and not simply for gaming purposes, albiet the use of a firearm for sporting purposes is and should be certainly as legal as merely possessing one with the intent of protecting ones self if need be, with using it to feed ones self or family and in case of a national crisis to aid the nation in its defense. The coincidence that any firearm can be used for competition or that only certain firearms are suitable for a competition should not be misinterpreted into the meaning of this amendment nor should it be grounds for infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to possess them.

    IMO They may be able to get away with banning new importations and manufacturing and sales but wholesale confiscations won't happen. I can hope the supreme court would not back it, but if not it could be the spark that ignites a flame that nobody wants lit.
  14. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    If they go for confiscations the Supream Court will be irrelevent. The SCOTUS wont even consider hearing a case untill it has already gone through the lower courts then IF they dem it important and worthy they put it on the docket for months away. Then they hear it and later hand down a decision and if the loosers ignore it the decission the process has to start all over again and the SCOTUS still dosent impose its decisions and has no teeth unless the lower courts back them up.

    The folks in N.O. lost their guns to confiscations after Katrina and when they sued to get them back they won...problem is that many of the guns had disappeared and even those they still had they would only return if the person could prove ownership. How many of your guns do you have original reciepts for with the serial numbers on the reciepts? If you do then they will likely say it isnt enouph. Heller won in the SCOTUS and they overturned the DC gun ban. DC held a meeting the next day and slightly altered the ban without really changing anything but made it 'possible' for folks to register handguns so they could own them in DC and started takeing apps. Heller was at the front of the line and even after the SCOTUS said all citizens but he specificaly had a right to own handguns, DC refused to issue him a permit to own one.

    So like I say, you can win in court but getting the other side to pay up (or give back property) is another story and while we won Heller in the SCOTUS we lost it in reality when DC set the example and thumbed their nose at the decision and were not made an example of by putting a boot in sombodies rectum to show that they HAD to adhear to the Constitutional law as it had been stated by the SCOTUS. So now all the antirights folks know that along with the Constitution the SCOTUS is also irrelivent and impotent since they have no teeth.
  15. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Claire Wolfe" 101 thing s to do until the revolution" and thesequel "don'tshoot the bastards yet":brings up Marbury v Madison:

    This conflict raised the important question of what happens when an Act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution. Marshall answered that Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution, affirming the principle of Judicial review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Acap.svg" class="image"><img alt="Acap.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Acap.svg/36px-Acap.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/52/Acap.svg/36px-Acap.svg.png. In support of this position Marshall looked to the nature of the written Constitution—there would be no point of having a written Constitution if the courts could just ignore it. "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"<sup id="cite_ref-fn_4_16-0" class="reference">[17]</sup> Marshall also argued that the very nature of the judicial function requires courts to make this determination. Since it is a court's duty to decide cases, courts have to be able to decide what law applies to each case. Therefore, if two laws conflict with each other, a court must decide which law applies.<sup id="cite_ref-fn_5_17-0" class="reference">[18]</sup> Finally, Marshall pointed to the judge's oath requiring them to uphold the Constitution, and to the Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia of the Constitution, which lists the "Constitution" before the "laws of the United States." Part of the core of this reasoning is found in the following statements from the decision: <table style="border-style: none; margin: auto; border-collapse: collapse; background-color: transparent;" class="cquote"> <tbody><tr> <td style="padding: 10px; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); font-size: 35px; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-weight: bold; text-align: left;" valign="top" width="20">“</td> <td style="padding: 4px 10px;" valign="top">It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
    Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty].
    This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.<sup id="cite_ref-18" class="reference">[19]</sup>
    </td> <td style="padding: 10px; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); font-size: 36px; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-weight: bold; text-align: right;" valign="bottom" width="20">”</td> </tr> </tbody></table> "In denying his request, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act passed by Congress in 1789, which authorized the Court to issue such a writ, was unconstitutional and thus invalid."<sup id="cite_ref-19" class="reference">[20]</sup> Marbury never became a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia.<sup id="cite_ref-Henretta2007_20-0" class="reference">[21]</sup>

survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary