The RIGHT Way to Handle a Police Stop: (made by Attys-good info)

Originally posted by autowrench
Friend, I don't think we are there yet.

I dont think we are either however any forward movement to address issues is positive in my opinion. One of the biggest problems I come across is the visible lack of trust and paranoia, on both sides (citizens / governments).

Originally posted by autowrench
First and foremost of Constitutional Law, the Document that you, when you became an officer of the law, swore a solemn oath to "Protect and Defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

I did take that oath however law enforcement at the state level and down are not federal officers nor can we enforce federal laws (some exceptions exist so in general). The oath we take also includes the state constitution as well as our city, which seems to be over looked at times.

Originally posted by autowrench
You obey that law first. Local laws are not law, they are city ordinances, a rule agreed upon by a legislative body. States have Constitutions, and all are in agreement with the Constitution of the united States.

The flaw I see in that position is how you are perceiving local laws. Citizens in this country can get together and decide to incorporate (become a city). That action occurs by the people and is agreed to by those very same people.

A city government is created by the people and operates with the consent of the very same people. By outright rejecting local laws / ordinances they are telling the people of that city they have no right to self determination. Any thing not spelled out in the Constitution is reserved to the states.

Where in the US Constitution are infractions found?

Originally posted by autowrench
I am using the U.S. Common Law. Under Common Law, all are equal, and the only crime is when a person is harmed, or hurt because of something I done. Under existing Federal Laws, we have no right to do anything that smacks of fun, and they even circumvent State Laws. Feds to Continue Raids on Medical Pot in California
Under the Common Law, this kind of thing would not happen. Common Law is Contract Law. I have contracts. I have a contract with the State of Ohio. If I have to abide by the wording of that contract, then so do the enforcers of that contract.

We started out with common law when they moved from Britain to the new world. Since then common law has been adapted / fixed / removed etc as we progressed. The constitution spells out how our government works as well as who has responsibility for the creation of laws.

As far as circumventing state laws I would respond with the Supremacy clause in the constitution. When there is a conflict in law between the State and the Federal government, the Federal law is whats used.

California and the Federal Government are separate sovereigns. The California law that was approved by the people does in fact allow their citizens to engage in an activity without violating California law. California law does not apply to the Federal government though. The federal government can create laws and then enforce those federal laws. I see what you are saying but the feds are not circumventing california law. They are enforcing federal laws. We can go down the road of what items are needed for those businesses in california to operate?

Chances are a bulk of the items needed crossed a state line, which places it into Federal jurisdiction as well as states. The commerce clause and necessary and proper clause have been responsible for a lot of what people are complaining about.

Again no offense intended and just an observation on my part... I keep coming back to the thought that it appears people are picking and choosing which parts of the law / Constitutiton support their position while ignoring / rejecting the ones that dont - up to and including case law.

Most importantly - If we are to use the Constitution as our guide.
What would your response / position be towards the Supreme Court if they were upholding / striking down / clarifying a law / constitutional issue and the result is something you do not agree with. If we are going to use the Constitution then we must acknowledge the powers reserved to the Judicial branch, specifically the US Supreme Court being the end of the line (some exceptions are there but you get the idea).

2 Questions for ya -
* - If the Supreme court ruled common law is not valid under the constitution, would you accept that ruling?

* - How would you, as a freeman, justify your actions / position to the people of Louisiana? They were founded by the French and instead of using English common law they used the Napolenoic code of France.

I would like to say thank you for engaging / debating this topic with me.