Jump to content


Photo

Why Not?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Hamish

  • Members
  • 17 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 17

Posted 14 May 2019 - 07:07 AM

Okay, we know that all this crap that keeps getting introduced and then we have to go fill out Witness Slips over and over, all the lobbyists, all this time wasting garbage, the unending slime.

Why can we just slap an injunction on every employee and entity of the State of Illinois, and when someone files an Unconstitutional bill, PROSECUTE THEM.

Seems simpler,,,,,,

#2 herrmannd

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 13

Posted 14 May 2019 - 07:37 AM

Unfortunately, in this state, The criminals are in charge of all one branches of government.The Madigan branch.



#3 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,340 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 14 May 2019 - 08:48 AM

An injunction is limited to a specific action or case, and is not broad in reach.  

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/injunction 

 

Who is going to determine if a bill proposes a law that would violate the state or U.S. Constitution, you, me, the NRA, Bloomberg, RNC, DNC?  In a republic open debate in the legislatures is one of the things that keeps it free.  

That is part of the First Amendment.  So we are going to prosecute someone for being in error?  What about those legislators, Congress members, governors, and presidents that voted for or signed a bill into law that 5 years later was found by the court to be unconstitutional, do we arrest them?  



#4 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,316 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 14 May 2019 - 10:26 AM

Okay, we know that all this crap that keeps getting introduced and then we have to go fill out Witness Slips over and over, all the lobbyists, all this time wasting garbage, the unending slime.
Why can we just slap an injunction on every employee and entity of the State of Illinois, and when someone files an Unconstitutional bill, PROSECUTE THEM.
Seems simpler,,,,,,


All laws are presumed constitutional unless a court says otherwise.

#5 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,389 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 14 May 2019 - 11:28 AM

Okay, we know that all this crap that keeps getting introduced and then we have to go fill out Witness Slips over and over, all the lobbyists, all this time wasting garbage, the unending slime.
Why can we just slap an injunction on every employee and entity of the State of Illinois, and when someone files an Unconstitutional bill, PROSECUTE THEM.
Seems simpler,,,,,,

All laws are presumed constitutional unless a court says otherwise.

Even when one legislator points out to another on the House floor that their bill is in direct violation of our state constitution.

They simply smile, nod, and proceed to ask for an aye vote.

I've seen it happen.
** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member
** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender
** Gun Owners of America - Annual Member
** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year American Hero Member
** Second Amendment Foundation - Life Member
** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

#6 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,340 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 14 May 2019 - 01:26 PM

Even when one legislator points out to another on the House floor that their bill is in direct violation of our state constitution.


They simply smile, nod, and proceed to ask for an aye vote.

I've seen it happen.

 

 

Yep, I was watching them debate pension changes, it wasn't just one legislator, they all (even the sponsors) admited that the law violated the IL Constitution, but they all went on to say things like 'We have to do something for now to buy us time to better fix the problem and hope the courts don't strike it down until we fix the problem'

 

I have alway advocated that there should be a way to peirce their immunity in cases like this and garnish their pay/pensions when the sponsors laws are found unconsitutional when the constitutionality is rasied during debate.


Edited by Flynn, 14 May 2019 - 01:27 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#7 Hamish

  • Members
  • 17 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 17

Posted 14 May 2019 - 04:09 PM

"have alway advocated that there should be a way to peirce their immunity in cases like this and garnish their pay/pensions when the sponsors laws are found unconsitutional when the constitutionality is rasied during debate."

Exactly.

#8 BShawn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,668 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 08

Posted 14 May 2019 - 05:22 PM

I think they should NEVER have immunity! I guarantee this would eliminate a LOT of bad laws, when these a**hole legislators know they could lose their house/car/dog/wife/life/pension - and EVERYTHING they own and know is on the line!


9ga62or.jpg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Licensed to carry since 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ IL CCL 75 days from application to in hand!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ I'm not the "bad guy" here, I just want to be able to defend myself and my family. Anywhere I should be permitted to carry a pencil (1st amendment), I should also be able to carry a firearm (2nd amendment) !!!!!!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Why do I carry a handgun? Well, look at it this way -- I keep a fire extinguisher in my house. I don't expect to have a fire; indeed, it's highly unlikely. But in the unlikely event of fire, not having the means to stop the fire could result in serious property loss or personal injury to myself and my family. Neither do I expect to be a victim of violent crime; indeed, it's highly unlikely. But in the unlikely event of a violent crime, not having the means to stop the criminal could lead to serious property loss or personal injury to myself and my family. It is simply a matter of common-sense prudence."
GarandFan, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Drawing any line only restricts law abiding people from crossing such a line. The "line" doesn't exist for criminals so we have to support the second amendment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good man with a gun"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

#9 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,340 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 14 May 2019 - 08:39 PM

How ironic, people claim to be defenders of the Constitution, but would abridge freedom of speech.  I am sure that the founding fathers were well aware of the benefits and dangers of free and open debate, but that overall believed it leads to a freer society.  Not everyone agrees whether a specific law or action is, or is not, constitutional.  Even the experts do not agree.  Lower courts are overruled by higher and then even higher courts overrule them.  The Supreme Court historically has had numerous split decisions, and not always Democrat vs. Republican.  


Edited by Quiet Observer, 15 May 2019 - 04:12 PM.


#10 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,340 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 14 May 2019 - 09:55 PM

So we are going to prosecute someone for being in error?

 

This is literally something that happens all the time to ordinary people, while legislators are immune to accountability even when they know full well they are infringing on people's rights.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#11 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,340 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 15 May 2019 - 04:09 PM

 

So we are going to prosecute someone for being in error?

 

This is literally something that happens all the time to ordinary people, while legislators are immune to accountability even when they know full well they are infringing on people's rights.

 

 

Nice taking out of context.  My post was about speech, especially political speech, which is covered by the First Amendment as in: 

 

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".  

 

The meaning of abridge in the 18th century would be "deprive", similar to the word infringe.  Perhaps you have heard that term somewhere.

https://www.merriam-...tionary/abridge 

 

Just as Amendment 2 is not outdated, neither is Amendment 1.

 

Those "errors" for which people are arrested are in relation to laws.  There have been several governors and other public officials from Illinois who have gone to prison for "errors in judgement", 'your honor"'.  



#12 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,340 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 15 May 2019 - 09:46 PM

What was taken out of context?  I interpreted your post as to mean the 1st allows legislators to author unconstitutional laws without accountability, did I interpret it wrong?   Sure open debate is protected, but I don't believe those authoring an unconstitutional law should be granted blanket immunity just because.   As for who is to determine if a bill infringes on a law that is up to the courts, and thus maybe there needs to be an expediated system put into place where laws are reviewed by a special newly created Constitutional court before being put into place and if said court has concerns about constitutionality (kind of what the committees are supposed to do) then an injunction should be put in place before the bill goes into effect and then let the courts have their day and then only after a court rules should the law take effect or not, and if appealed is should again be placed under an injunction ASAP because it deals with a Constituional issue.

 

We know interpretations change with time and society changes as does court precedent, so to that effect set statute of limitations rules like we do for other crimes, if the bill/law is not challenged upon it's Constitutional grounds within lets say 3 years then the statue of limitations expires and the legislators are no longer on the hook for accountability.

 

This is something that is bipartisan, all we have to do is look at the new abortion laws in Alabama and Georgia, those two bills/laws were fully authored and created in direct understood court precedent to creat a Constitutional challenge, very much like the gun grabbers do with gun ban laws.

 

Personally I'm tired of it from both sides and that is why I would support creating a mechanism to holding legislators personaly accountable when they directly slap a Constitutional right in the face.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users