FW: [Peace-discuss] Remedies

[Laurie]

And I agree with your main point.  I also agree that these are all
informally adopted for the most part and commonly accepted and agreed upon
within the society as remedies for laws that the society deems
unconstitutional.  My point was that (a) none of these are commonly accepted
methods for determining or defining what is and what is not
unconstitutional, (b) the Constitution does not furnish any formal remedy
for doing so, and (c) as a result of Malbury V Madison, the US Supreme Court
has informally been given and commonly accepted that responsibility and is
the sole decider as to what is formally to be defined as constitutional and
unconstitutional by the society and its government.  Everyone else's opinion
is just that and is not accepted within the society as being binding.

A literalist could claim that most if not all laws in the US Code and
statutes in the various State Codes are unconstitutional and have no literal
grounding in the provisions of the constitution, that even going to the
Federalist Papers and other external documents written or referenced by the
founding fathers are extraneous to a literal interpretation of the words in
the document which literally are viewed as speaking for themselves without
any need for external elaboration or reference.  I, of course, completely
reject such literal strict constructionist notions. If that were the intent
of the founding fathers, were would have an extremely long constitution with
new specific detailed amendments being added for each and every new change
in the socio-political and economic environment, with the introduction of
each and every new technology or engineering development, and with the
evolving human condition.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Bob Illyes
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 2:06 PM
> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Remedies
> 
> My point, Laurie, is that none of these remedies are in the
> Constitution,
> and don't need to be, nor are all sorts of things that are dictated by
> custom or common sense.
> 
> In fact, a literalist could claim that the 10th Amendment reserves the
> determination of constitutionality to the states, or to the individual,
> not
> that I'm claiming this was ever the intent.
> 
> Bob
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.1/1688 - Release Date:
> 9/24/2008 6:29 AM