TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

israel67 wrote:And most of all ... if a disaster such as Katrina befell the US on a wider scale ... would y'all just stand there and let the police take your weapons off you, if the President ordered it?

Most certainly not. You have to understand the local political landscape of New Orleans going into the Katrina event to understand why things turned out the way they did. Other U.S. cities have suffered major devastation from hurricanes prior to Katrina, and none of them, to the best of my recall, ever had the sociopolitical fallout that happened with Katrina. Other American cities have experienced near total devastation, and yet none of them ever experienced the complete breakdown of political leadership and social order as did New Orleans.

I must point out to israel67 that New Orleans is ...*ahem*... French.

KBCraig wrote:Thanks for unlocking the thread, Chas.

I have to point out that it's not an "anarchist diatribe" to vehemently defend the Constitution, with references to Madison and Jefferson.

I absolutely agree with you!! It's Smith's insinuation that everyone in government service is the enemy that I find counterproductive.

Chas.

Liberty wrote:

CHL/LEO wrote:

would y'all just stand there and let the police take your weapons off you, if the President ordered it?

I think it would be unconstitutional except during Martial Law and it would probably be the governor that declared that. Interesting question though because when Martial Law is enacted it basically suspends habeas corpus. Whether this allows a governor or the President to order the seizing of weapons I'm not sure. Perhaps this new recently passed law that you referred to addresses this.

My copy of the constitution doesn't mention Martial Law or say anything about allowing the President to suspend the rights given by the constitution.

Check again - it's in Article One, Section 9. It's better know as the "Suspension Clause" and courts have ruled several times that Martial Law fits the definition of the Suspension Clause - basically that if Congress authorizes Martial Law then the President has the power to suspend habeas corpus.

would y'all just stand there and let the police take your weapons off you, if the President ordered it?

CHL/LEO wrote:

Liberty wrote:

CHL/LEO wrote: I think it would be unconstitutional except during Martial Law and it would probably be the governor that declared that. Interesting question though because when Martial Law is enacted it basically suspends habeas corpus. Whether this allows a governor or the President to order the seizing of weapons I'm not sure. Perhaps this new recently passed law that you referred to addresses this.

My copy of the constitution doesn't mention Martial Law or say anything about allowing the President to suspend the rights given by the constitution.

Check again - it's in Article One, Section 9. It's better know as the "Suspension Clause" and courts have ruled several times that Martial Law fits the definition of the Suspension Clause - basically that if Congress authorizes Martial Law then the President has the power to suspend habeas corpus.

Yes, there have been times when some courts have abused our constitution.
The suspension of Habius Corpus, refers to holding people prisoners. Only Congress has the right to do this and only when at war. There is no provision for the federal government to to take our guns, or suspend the our basics right (such as speech religion and baring arms) even in a time of war. Although asdmitedly being a prisoner might effect the loss of ones guns

There is no provision for the federal government to to take our guns, or suspend the our basics right (such as speech religion and baring arms) even in a time of war.

Habeas Corpus is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary.

Make no mistake about it, if Martial Law is ever invoked the constitutional rights that we now enjoy could be set aside for the duration. The most basic premise of Martial Law is, "obey the soldier or be shot". Military law would override civil law - it is the suspension of civil authority and the imposition of military authority. In ex parte Milligan the US Supreme Court stated that "Martial Law destroys every guarantee of the Constitution."

Public Law 109-364 or the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) granted the President broad authority and discretion regarding "public emergencies" and Martial Law. This law, along with an extensive list of Executive Orders give the POTUS tremendous powers if he enacts them.

We can only hope that circumstances will never require the imposition of Martial Law or anything resembling it.

Liberty wrote:

CHL/LEO wrote:

would y'all just stand there and let the police take your weapons off you, if the President ordered it?

I think it would be unconstitutional except during Martial Law and it would probably be the governor that declared that. Interesting question though because when Martial Law is enacted it basically suspends habeas corpus. Whether this allows a governor or the President to order the seizing of weapons I'm not sure. Perhaps this new recently passed law that you referred to addresses this.

My copy of the constitution doesn't mention Martial Law or say anything about allowing the President to suspend the rights given by the constitution.

Which is why SCOTUS ruled in ex parte Milligan that it was in fact unconstitutional to suspend habeas corpus or overrule the authority of civilian courts while they were still operating (which they were during the Civil War, and are today). The gun grab after Katrina might be defensible given that decision, because out of the jurisdictions having authority over the NOLA area (city, parish, federal district, etc), the lowest level still functioning was the State Supreme Court. You simply cannot get a court order to compel due process when the judge is in Georgia, the bailiff's in Texas, the DA is in Miami and the courthouse itself is under ten feet of water. Thus, local police and the Nat'l Guard, who were commandeered by FEMA (which does not even answer to the President during an active state of emergency) had total control over a literally lawless part of the nation.

The gun grab after Katrina might be defensible given that decision...

I'm pretty sure that a federal court ruled that the gun grab was unconstitutional. Perhaps is was due to the fact that Martial Law had not been imposed by Congress and the powers invoked by Louisiana declaring a "state of emergency" were too broad and far reaching. Not sure of the exact language of the court ruling in this regards.

The bottom line is that if the government (local, state, federal) comes in and seizes weapons that you need right then to protect you and your family, it could be a long time until the courts got involved and ruled those actions were illegal. You might very well be a victim of a far worse situation than your rights having been violated. If the federal courts were really serious about sending a message regarding this matter they would have sentenced the mayor and any other government officials who ordered the gun seizures to prison. That would have sent a very clear signal.

CHL/LEO wrote:

they would have sentenced the mayor and any other government officials who ordered the gun seizures to prison. That would have sent a very clear signal.

Or at least held them in contempt of court until the weapons were returned.

KC5AV wrote:

CHL/LEO wrote:

they would have sentenced the mayor and any other government officials who ordered the gun seizures to prison. That would have sent a very clear signal.

Or at least held them in contempt of court until the weapons were returned.

That would never have worked. They'd have appealed and made sure the appeal was heard in front of a 'friendly' judge, who'd have struck down the original contempt of court ruling.

That's what this crook did: http://tinyurl.com/5fg8wc. He was convicted of corruption and sentenced to ten years of electoral ineligibility. He appealed and strings were pulled to have the appeal heard in front of a sympathetic judge. Result: ten years reduced to one year.

It sucks.

Everyone in government service may very well not be the enemy, but that doesn't mean that they are our "friends" either. People (with emphasis on that particular word) involved in government service serve primarily the government and resulting bureaucracy as a matter of practical and functional consideration and necessity. While the Constitution serves as the framework within which our government and bureaucracies should operate, it's not unusual for government to step outside the proscribed boundaries as matters of political expediency, national security, corruption, personal gain, etc. The only way to know when to rein in those government agencies and the people involved is through constant vigilance. Constant vigilance in this circumstance requires a healthy dose of cynicism and a good measure of doubt towards government and those involved.

While I concur that our Constitution and rights have been incrementally whittled away at over the past 200 years, I am not sure that restoring them in a similar manner will ultimately be successful.

"We're here from the government, and we're here to help." Famous, last words....

"...no country can be well governed unless its citizens as a body keep religiously before their minds that they are the guardians of the law and that the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more."
--- Mark Twain, "The Gilded Age"

israel67 wrote:That would never have worked. They'd have appealed and made sure the appeal was heard in front of a 'friendly' judge, who'd have struck down the original contempt of court ruling.

I'm curious to know how you think a mayor and a police chief could make sure that an appeal of a federal court order could be heard in front of a 'friendly' judge.

DParker wrote:

israel67 wrote:That would never have worked. They'd have appealed and made sure the appeal was heard in front of a 'friendly' judge, who'd have struck down the original contempt of court ruling.

I'm curious to know how you think a mayor and a police chief could make sure that an appeal of a federal court order could be heard in front of a 'friendly' judge.

'connections'.

israel67 wrote:

DParker wrote:

israel67 wrote:That would never have worked. They'd have appealed and made sure the appeal was heard in front of a 'friendly' judge, who'd have struck down the original contempt of court ruling.

I'm curious to know how you think a mayor and a police chief could make sure that an appeal of a federal court order could be heard in front of a 'friendly' judge.

'connections'.

That's pretty vague and meaningless. You may as well have said "mind control". Do you know how the federal appeals process works?

israel67 wrote:

DParker wrote:

israel67 wrote:That would never have worked. They'd have appealed and made sure the appeal was heard in front of a 'friendly' judge, who'd have struck down the original contempt of court ruling.

I'm curious to know how you think a mayor and a police chief could make sure that an appeal of a federal court order could be heard in front of a 'friendly' judge.

'connections'.

But that was in France, and as bad as it gets here, it is very difficult to find that kind of pervasive corruption in our judiciary. Wrongheadedness, yes. Lack of constitutional understanding, yes. But here, corruption in the judiciary tends to get dealt with fairly quickly, and fairly forcefully. The decision "products" of our court system in America are largely a matter of public record. Therefore, it is fairly easy for a litigant to find a court which has a record of rendering decisions in landmark cases that are favorable to the litigant's interest in the case at hand. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has such a reputation. Its decisions on social policy issues, for instance, are almost always in favor of a hard leftist interpretation. In fact, the 9th Circuits decisions are so wacky that they hold the distinction of being the most overturned (by the Supreme Court) circuit court in the nation. Consequently, if you are an ACLU lawyer whose personal mission is to try and legalize gay marriage for instance, you start by finding a gay couple in California that is willing to be the plaintiffs against the state in such a suit, and then you bring that suit (eventually) to the 9th Circuit appellate court, where you know you are going to get a sympathetic hearing in front of the judges. Please note that it starts with a lawyer with an agenda (ACLU agenda, in this case), who then finds a client, and then finds a sympathetic court - instead of like most civil cases, where you start with an aggrieved client, who finds a lawyer, and then goes to court in the local court system.

And by the way, this is not restricted to just liberal causes. Heller vs. DC is a conservative example of using the courts to effect conservative change, knowing that the case would eventually (as it did) wind up before the Supreme Court, where it would probably get a relatively sympathetic hearing.

But also please note (and this is just my personal observation) that when it comes to legislating from the bench, liberals tend to seek relief in the courts when they can't get popular sentiment to back their silliness; and they tend to rely on some pretty bizarre interpretations of the Constitution (research "emanations and penumbras") whereas conservatives only tend to seek relief in the courts when there is a serious and fundamental constitutional issue at risk, such as 2nd Amendment Rights (Heller vs DC), or Equal Protection (Bush vs Gore), or Freedom of Political Speech (McConnell v. FEC).

By the way, one of my mother's very best friends whom my wife and son and I stayed with for a week while we were in Paris in 2005, is a retired justice from the Cour de Cassation - the French equivalent of our Supreme Court.

The Annoyed Man wrote:But that was in France, and as bad as it gets here, it is very difficult to find that kind of pervasive corruption in our judiciary. Wrongheadedness, yes. Lack of constitutional understanding, yes. But here, corruption in the judiciary tends to get dealt with fairly quickly, and fairly forcefully. The decision "products" of our court system in America are largely a matter of public record. Therefore, it is fairly easy for a litigant to find a court which has a record of rendering decisions in landmark cases that are favorable to the litigant's interest in the case at hand. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has such a reputation. Its decisions on social policy issues, for instance, are almost always in favor of a hard leftist interpretation. In fact, the 9th Circuits decisions are so wacky that they hold the distinction of being the most overturned (by the Supreme Court) circuit court in the nation. Consequently, if you are an ACLU lawyer whose personal mission is to try and legalize gay marriage for instance, you start by finding a gay couple in California that is willing to be the plaintiffs against the state in such a suit, and then you bring that suit (eventually) to the 9th Circuit appellate court, where you know you are going to get a sympathetic hearing in front of the judges. Please note that it starts with a lawyer with an agenda (ACLU agenda, in this case), who then finds a client, and then finds a sympathetic court - instead of like most civil cases, where you start with an aggrieved client, who finds a lawyer, and then goes to court in the local court system.

That's all true in cases where a group/individual is shopping for a case to bring before the courts. But in this instance we're talking about an appeal of a specific federal district court ruling that's already been made. This means that appelant doesn't have any choice regarding which court it goes to. It goes to the circuit court that oversees that district. In this case that's the 5th Circuit. Furthermore, appelant doesn't get to shop for the (usually) 3-judge panel that will hear the case, as they are chosen randomly from a pool of...IIRC...something like 22 judges currently sitting on the 5th's bench.