List of more than 170 banned guns in Illinois could grow

[AlexanderA]

I so very much agree!
AND be held liable for any harm done while unconstitutional laws were imposed.

For those that are saying that lawmakers should be penalized for proposing "unconstitutional" laws, I would point out that that in itself is unconstitutional. Article 1, section 6 of the Constitution includes the following language:

.....and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
​

(Probably similar things in State constitutions as well. This goes back to the British traditions.) They can propose anything they want, with impunity. It is up to the courts, later, to decide what is constitutional and what isn't, but they can't go back and penalize the lawmakers.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Be careful what you wish for. If every large metropolitan area in the country became its own state, there would be an overwhelming Democratic majority in the Senate. The current aggregation into "states" works both ways.

How do you figure? Each state gets 2. If you split a state with 2 Democrat senators and one of the new states votes in at least one republican, the balance doesn't change.

It could be a problem in the house, though, since congressional districts are population based, as is the electoral college.

Creating a bunch of new states that split Uber liberal major metro areas away from the largely conservative remainder of the state would probably result in a permanent deadlock in congress. That really wouldn't be a bad thing.....

 

[230RN]

For those that are saying that lawmakers should be penalized for proposing "unconstitutional" laws, I would point out that that in itself is unconstitutional. Article 1, section 6 of the Constitution includes the following language:

.....and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
​

(Probably similar things in State constitutions as well. This goes back to the British traditions.) They can propose anything they want, with impunity. It is up to the courts, later, to decide what is constitutional and what isn't, but they can't go back and penalize the lawmakers.

Original thesis, by me--
(Editorial): I still think lawmakers etc. who support or endorse any measures which are ultimately found to be unconstitutional should be held liable for perjury for violating their oaths of office.

...."should"...

I ought to amend that to read "...who support or endorse vote for any measures ...

"Support and or endorse" is more of an idealistic way of putting it.

Let them debate and discuss all they want, it's when it comes down to voting to pass it, that their perfidy is proven.

Now of course, many of them have passed on to their eternal rewards and are no longer approachable by we the living. But I believe they are "bearing false witness" when they swear they will "support and defend the constitution" and then vote for blatant on-the-face-of-it unconstitutional measures. I call perjury "bearing false witness."

Anyhow, I have previously mentioned that there are problems with the "perjury" concept, but I did mention that "ultimately found unconstitutional " will raise Lawmakers' consciousness to the idea that they can't get away with voting for just any little old laws their hearts or puppet masters desire.

And thank you, AlexanderA, for helping me refine the hypothetical proposal. =D

You may piddle and fiddle all you want with the technicalities, but I consider this one of the badly-needed conceptual leashes on the wild dogs in the Legislatures. As the Constitution should be.

Terry, 230RN

Edited for spelling

 

[AlexanderA]

How do you figure? Each state gets 2. If you split a state with 2 Democrat senators and one of the new states votes in at least one republican, the balance doesn't change.

Take Texas, for example. If the metropolitan areas Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth, San Antonio, and Austin became separate states, that would add 8 Democratic senators. (Presumably the rest of the state would keep its 2 Republican senators.) The same pattern would be repeated in state after state. OK, splitting Illinois would net 2 Republican senators, but the red states, which are currently a solid Republican bloc, would produce many more Democrats from their metropolitan areas. (Take Missouri (KC and St. Louis), Kentucky (Louisville), Tennessee (Memphis), and North Carolina (Charlotte and the Research Triangle) for other examples.)

 

[AlexanderA]

But I believe they are "bearing false witness" when they swear they will "support and defend the constitution" and then vote for blatant on-the-face-of-it unconstitutional measures. I call perjury "bearing false witness."

The rule is that any law that is properly (that is, correctly as to procedure) passed by Congress is presumed to be constitutional, until declared not to be so by the competent courts. So it's impossible to prove that any lawmakers voting for such a law violated their oaths. Attempting to do so would open a whole can of worms.

 

[230RN]

The rule is that any law that is properly (that is, correctly as to procedure) passed by Congress is presumed to be constitutional, until declared not to be so by the competent courts.

I'm well aware of that and have in fact pointed it out several times in relation to the inherent difficulty and expense of bringing cases up to SCOTUS, let alone qualifying them for review by the Court by "granting cert." I think maybe you picked up that concept from me... maybe?

So it's impossible to prove that any lawmakers voting for such a law violated their oaths.

Of course, which is why I specified "...measures which are ultimately found to be unconstitutional..."

...."ultimately"...

Please don't just skip over words you don't like. =D

Attempting to do so would open a whole can of worms.

Heh. The proposal, even as theoretical as it is, is meant to open several worm cans. It would be nice (opinion) to actively encourage lawmakers to look over their shoulders in light of possibly violating their oaths --which is the real thrust of the "perjury proposal." That is, for them to think twice about the Constitutionality of what they are doing.

Would you disagree that this would be a good thing?

The simpler solution would be for them to pass laws obviating any requirements by oath to observe the Constitution as written in pretty plain English, especially the Bill Of Rights. How would you like that?

I close with the observation that the Bill Of Rights was included in the original Constitution in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the government's powers. I want them to consider their misconstructions or abuses... even in their debates.

Terry, 230RN

Edited for typos only.