I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Is the Constitution the supreme law of the land or not?

Over on the Volokh Conspiracy blog, a commenter named "BruceM" made the following astute observation about the recent Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation decision on taxpayer standing to sue under the Constitution's establishment clause:

Can anyone cite me to ANY writing by ANY founder that says or implies that a 'standing' requirement should trump an unconstitutional law or application of law?

I responded,
Excellent point. The Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. To follow a "standing" requirement at the expense of the Constitution is like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees.

In my lawsuits against the grossly unconstitutional "smog impact fee," I used to wonder why the opposing attorneys and sometimes the judges (when the judges even bothered to express an opinion at all) were quibbling over trivial procedural rules when I was charging that there was a gross violation of the Constitution.

I think that we just need to throw out a lot of precedents and just go back to first principles.

Labels:

1 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> I used to wonder why the opposing attorneys and sometimes the judges (when the judges even bothered to express an opinion at all) were quibbling over trivial procedural rules when I was charging that there was a gross violation of the Constitution. <

The judges do not have to reconstruct the case for you if you have failed to present it properly.

If someone comes into the courtroom wearing grease paint and a clown suit and is blowing a kazoo to try to illustrate his point, the judge is under no obligation to try to find deeper meaning.

As to why the judge did not comment further, that has been explained many, many, many times on this blog by many, many people and you failed to understand it then. There is little point in repeating it.

Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:43:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home