U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on the Bill of Rights
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 10. 2014
- Justice Samuel A. Alito of the U.S. Supreme Court discusses the Bill of Rights in a featured address at the National Constitution Center on October 27, 2014.
Browse upcoming programs: constitutioncenter.org/debate
Learn about "Constituting Liberty," our upcoming exhibition featuring an original copy of the Bill of Rights: constitutioncenter.org/experie...
Join the conversation online!
Facebook: / constitutionctr
Twitter: / constitutionctr
Instagram: / constitutionctr
Pinterest: / constitutionctr - Zábava
Sam Alito is the best, love this guy.
Literally the worst.
I thank God that there are several excellent Supreme Court Justices such as Alito and Thomas on the bench.
My favorite part is how the Bill of Rights was made it very clear that a court doesn't give us our rights and cannot take them away, but they still insist they have power over the supreme law of the land. Silly supreme court let the name and power go to their heads
oh the irony considering his hand in the rape of those rights, and not in removing those who do violate those rights from office with conspiracy and seditious conspiracy charges.
18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
US Code
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason
US Code
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Jon Roland:
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197).
You are also within your rights not to answer any questions without a lawyer present, and if possible, to demand a video recording be made of the entire encounter that you or your lawyer keep as evidence, so that federal prosecutors can't get away with charging you with making false statements to a government investigator and testilying about what you said. See this article.
As a practical matter one should try to avoid relying on the above in an actual confrontation with law enforcement agents, who are likely not to know or care about any of it. Some recent courts have refused to follow these principles, and grand juries, controlled by prosecutors, have refused to indict officers who killed innocent people claiming the subject "resisted" or "looked like he might have a gun". Once dedicated to "protect and serve", far too many law enforcement officers have become brutal, lawless occupying military forces.
See also:
False arrest - Wikipedia article
The Common-Law Right to Resist, by "ExCop-LawStudent", May 5, 2013 - Makes some valid criticisms of the above article. He is correct that recent precedents and statutes do not support resistance to unlawful arrest, except where excessive force is used, but we regard those to themselves be unconstitutional, and thus null and void, as a matter of principle. Of course, people need to be aware that constitutional principle is not the practice in courts today, and perhaps be prudent about that.
The Right to Forcefully Resist Unlawful Arrest, John-Henry Hill, September 30, 2013.
The Right to Resist Unlawful Arrest, [No author shown], Natural Resources Journal, Jan. 1967.
When the Right to Resist Becomes the "Duty to Submit", William N. Grigg, Pro Libertate, January 10, 2012
Home » Defense
Original URL: constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
Maintained: Jon Roland of the Constitution Society
Original date: 1996/07/10 -
ShadowPBPBC wtfe bee lewis
The thing about this man I will never forget; His first case on the court. He ruled in favor of an appeal by a murderer that it was "cruel and unusual" for him to get the lethal injection. He'd murdered a fellow HS student. A scrawny little girl who dared to think she might have the right to feel safe going in the restroom. First he blitz-attacked her when she came in, breaking her face. Then he raped her. Finally came the fatal "swirlee" in the toilet.
Judge Alito was the deciding vote and he decided it would be cruel and unusual to put that murderer out of *our* misery.
So the appellant got a life sentence in the state's prison designed only for the worst most-violent offenders. Due to overcrowding an embezzler was billeted in the same cell with this brute. Because the appellant decided he needed a spot of chemical fun more than his cellmate needed his prescription drugs he murdered the cellmate to get his drugs when the cellmate refused to give them up.
So an embezzler got a rather cruel sentence though I doubt it was all that unusual. As far as I'm concerned Justice Alito is just as culpable for that embezzler's cruel death as the appellant he saved from being executed. There used to be a song on the radio about how you had to be cruel to be kind. It's not (IMHO) a very good song though it did get a lot of airplay. Sometimes songs get that simply because they're so annoying you can't get them out of your mind. If I thought there were an actual hell it would be my pleasure to imagine Alito in it and during his various never-ending torments he would be treated to having that song played incessantly/continuously for all eternity.
Of course there are others with the blood of that embezzler on their hands. Chief among them would be every criminal who committed a crime in that state which got him put in the state penitentiary system which was just for the fun of it and not the case of some sort of necessity. Like your only option for putting some food on your table for your kids, for instance. Or being driven mad by some devil in your makeup which, once you let it get control of you rather than you controlling it, then doing something to feed that devil involving crime which you were literally driven to do. That's not an excuse for any such crime because each incident is a choice and we have free will. But it's on a different level than someone just deciding on a whim to do some criminal act in response to a brief/transitory impulse. If those in the latter category of inmates had all decided they'd rather not then there would have been enough fewer inmates in the system that overcrowding which put the mere embezzler in a cell with a straight-up violent psycho-killer wouldn't have occurred. So in my opinion all those criminals who could just-as-easily have decided they'd rather go watch TV instead of committing that impulsive criminal act that finally took them over the line of being incarcerated on conviction all have that embezzler's blood on their hands too.
Nobody embezzles thinking that if they're caught and jailed for it they're going to get a death sentence. So I absolve the decedent himself from having his own blood on his own hands.
But of all those others ( than the brute who actually did their dirty work for them ) he who was best situated to "know better", Alito, ought to have most "known better". But he chose to mete out leniency where the facts of the crime would indicate none being warranted.
Alito old boy; you are, in my esteem, the moral and functional equivalent of the brute whose execution you got stayed. If there is indeed a hell ( which I find a highly dubious likelihood ) when you wind up there I hope you awaken in the body of a scrawny little female HS freshman in a cubicle which has been formed somehow in a mass of solid granite with the brute whose worthless good-for-nothing life you saved as your first act on the Supreme court and that for the rest of time he amuses himself with you in the same manner with which he amused himself in his first known act of brutal murder. Forever and ever. With that song Cruel to be Kind playing over and over and over. No sleep. No rest. Only your perpetually-healing face broken over and over and over, your perpetually healing nethers ripped and torn on the phallus of that brute whose life you saved and finally the insertion of your head into a porcelain basin containing someone's unflushed sewage to be held there until you blank out and then you wake up again all healed and fresh and new to d.c. al Coda. That would constitute what you are called---Justice.