IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE, IT IS SO ORDERED

[originalpckelly]

"Wednesday, September, 2006

THE PEOPLE of the United States of America, using their rights guaranteed in the 9th Amendment and their powers reserved in the 10th Amendment forbid the Congress of the United States from passing any legislation restricting any rights under the US Constitution for any persons in the custody of the United States of America."

There is no part of the US Constitution that prevents us from doing this.

[kiahzero]

1. And no part of the US Constitution that gives it any legal authority (n/t)

[jimshoes]

3. How does one go about

bringing forward gievances, as in "Redress of Grievances" then. How does one go about actually doing it. In other words, what Constitutional provision guarantees us the right to bring forth grievances? Cuz it never hurts to know for sure.

[baldguy]

7. Article Five of the United States Constitution

[kiahzero]

10. Well,

The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantee the right to bring your greivances to the government. Implicit in the Constitution is the right to sue the government when it breaches its authority under the Constitution, and this right is enforced by a statute that I can't cite right now because I don't pay enough attention in my Civil Procedure class.

[Occulus]

12. Wouldn't that statute have to be embedded in the Constitution itself

to have any supreme authority?

[kiahzero]

13. No

The Constitution gives you the ability, the statute just establishes the method of doing so.

[rman]

4. The constitution is null and void?

Don't tell Bush.

[kiahzero]

6. Where did you get that from what I said? (n/t)

[rman]

8. the part about "no legal authority"

[kiahzero]

9. Right... that doesn't make the Constitution null and void

It means that this pseudo-populist crap is without legal authority.

By the way, Congress is already prohibited from passing laws which violate the Constitution under the Constitution. That's what judicial review is all about.

[rman]

11. does only that part have no legal authority?

[kiahzero]

14. What's "that part" referring to, here? (n/t)

[rman]

18. The part that you say has no legal authority,

in your reply to the OP.

[razors edge]

2. excuse me while I exercise my second.

edit: after I get a good nights sleep, you guys hold my spot with you please.

:evilgrin:

[mmonk]

5. We should go to a judge and file an injuction.

Why not? I say

[Bandit]

15. Ahh but the "Unitary Executive" can do what he wants

:shrug: Congress is no longer relevent....

[originalpckelly]

16. Actually the people may do this if they so choose...

the Constitution says so. So long as the power to nullify an act by the Congress is not denied in the US Constitution, and is not assumed by the respective states, the US Constitution:

"The powers not reserved for the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are delegated to the States respectively, or to the people."

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Well there you go.

[onenote]

17. and exactly how would this "power" be enforced?

Presumably through the judiciary. But, of course, its been settled for a long long time that the Judiciary has the authority to determine whether or not a law is violative of the constitution. So what is your point? If its that an individual can challenge a particular law on the grounds that it is violative of the Consitution? Okay, that's not exactly news.

Or to put in another way: we the people already have ordered Congress not to pass laws violating the Constitution...we did that when we ratified the Constitution itself.

[kiahzero]

19. You said it better than I did (n/t)