Memorize This - It's Law and you need to know it!

Section 242, Title 18

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being
an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed
for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a
dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or
an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned
for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to
death.

If you are an American:

No one, under any law or even a Presidential decree, can deprivate your rights in any way. Until this law, or the constitution is amended, you have the rights given by our founding document. As Americans, this is one law we should know. As law enforcement agents, this is one law that needs to be learned. Abide by the rights of our constitution and serve the people. Arrest those who refuse, even if they are your leaders.

Now it's your turn. How many laws can you name that violate, or cause a member of the colors to violate our rights? I'll start. Gun laws violate Section 242, Title 18. Can we name 10 laws?

Keep in mind that this clearly written law leaves no room for laws that violate our rights guaranteed in the Constitution. It leaves no room for member of the colors to follow commands that do the same. Worth memorizing.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


I do not need to memorize this thanks and I don't need to know it.

I'll learn the laws that apply to me here that are slightly more relevant.

I get what you're saying, but you are addressing the whole world here, not just americans.

Thank you very much, even if it's only to serve as a reminder of which side of the law we stand on when these rights are taken away. Even if memorizing, then reciting it in the wrong company could more than likely result in a loss of teeth...

Count me in, I am a firm constitutionalist, veteran and American. This founding document has been chipped away at for a long time by the so called progressive theologist that need their government and mommy to be the same and want to run your life as well. I am awake and paying attention to the direct events of our rights and a high majority of people I know are doing the same. Our numbers are much greater than some realize, and it can all be eased if just a few politicians will just understand what got us to this place in history.

Well gun laws are not against the Constitution so they wouldn't qualify.

In fact I will pose a challenge to anyone. I bet that you can't find a single current law (not in the court system) that I couldn't justify somehow under the Constituion.

There may be but I've never failed at this test.

reply to post by Hopechest


Justify is not the word you should be using, rationalize is what you are looking for.

There are dozens of unconstitutional laws and doings out there.

NDAA
PATRIOT ACT
Obama's appointment of Cordray
The 14th amendment was not legally ratified
The 16th amendment was not legally ratified
Depending on how you interperet the constitution, the Air Force is unconstitutional, the letter of the law says its not.
The ACA is unconstitutional (the only good thing about roberts decision is that it'll end in the supreme court again)
DHS is unconstitutional
FBI is unconstitutional

Well I better stop lest you get overwhelmed.

Good luck!

Originally posted by Dfairlite
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Justify is not the word you should be using, rationalize is what you are looking for.

There are dozens of unconstitutional laws and doings out there.

NDAA
PATRIOT ACT
Obama's appointment of Cordray
The 14th amendment was not legally ratified
The 16th amendment was not legally ratified
Depending on how you interperet the constitution, the Air Force is unconstitutional, the letter of the law says its not.
The ACA is unconstitutional (the only good thing about roberts decision is that it'll end in the supreme court again)
DHS is unconstitutional
FBI is unconstitutional

Well I better stop lest you get overwhelmed.

Good luck!

Let me continue this debate ( I really need to get in that debate forum) by saying that no law is unconstitional until it goes to the Supreme Court and they rule it so.

Your turn

I've read that law.

Unfortunately, every Law Enforcement person I've talk to about it thinks it's only about racism.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


I think it needs to be clarified that this is only "law" in a broad sense. It's criminal code and governs the procedures and penalties of laws they pertain to. They do not supercede the law.

It would also be helpful to properly define "color of law" for people. Color of law.

It seems many people only read up to "Constitution" and then pay no attention to the words that immediately follow, "or laws of the United States". Those "laws of the United States" are the law until deemed otherwise under judicial review.

Now, I'm making a crazy assumption here that the Title 18 Section 242 stuff circulating is in response to gun control discussion, but I think it's a reasonable one. This would have no bearing on the legality of any passed legislation unless and until it was deemed unconstitutional under judicial review by a federal court. There is no secret "poison pill" hidden within the US penal code to supercede federal law. Were this the case you should be able to point to cases where it was used against something like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. In fact, federal assault weapon bans have been upheld in court. Like this.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


I am going to guess that your point is that this may be used against the government for NDAA, Patriot Act, Gun Confisication, etc.... The operative portion of the section is the qualifier, "....on account of such person being
an alien, or by reason of his color, or race,..." So the gist of this section is that if someone is treated differently because they are of different immigration status or race, then that government agent (be it local, county, state, or federal) may be charged under this section.

reply to post by Hopechest


Hopechest, the logic of you argument is not only skewed to the point of absurd but you seem to be trying to live up to the expression of your mood in your profile, to whit "God Complex". I will ignore even attempting to disuade you of your delusions of grandeur and instead focus on the more salient flaws of your argument.

Well gun laws are not against the Constitution so they wouldn't qualify.

Uh, actually they are! The Supreme Court very recently has stated that the 2nd Amendment is inviolate in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and then clarifying even further in McDonald v Chicago cases. In point of fact in DC v Heller, the Supreme Court pointed to specific provisions of Firearms Control Regulations of 1975 that were clearly unconstitutional. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled that regulation mandating that weapons be stored unloaded and disassembled.

If we are to look at past rulings, even under the color of stare decisis, the big one being US v Miller 1939, then you would have some semblance of an argument. However, I would present that if another similar case were brought before the Court, in US v Miller would be overturned; in no small part that both sides never showed up for oral arguments. This is in part to Prosecutorial malfeasances on the side of the Government and lack of funds/risk of further prosecution to Miller for the Defense.

Contrary to what you have been brainwashed into thinking, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not about hunting. If you read the Federalist Papers, which by the way the Supreme Court does use in it's decision making process, you would find that our Forefathers did indeed mean for 2nd Amendment to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

Or maybe the actual author of the Bill of Rights and 4th President:

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

Or perhaps one of the Founding Fathers and 2nd President:

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

reply to post by Hopechest


Firstly, your entire premise is based on the view that an unjust law that has not be subjected to judicial review is therefore warranted.

This is not the case. An unjust law is a law that is deemed a constitutional violation by its citizens, usually as a prelude to judicial review. Therefore an 'unconstitutional law' is an unjust law that has been recognized as such by the supreme judicial authority.

Secondly, a national constitution is most usually binding on the part of the government, not the people. Therefore in the interest of checks and balances, the people have the right and responsibility to question the constitutionality of laws they deem to be unjust.

In other words, just because the supreme judicial authority hasn't ruled a law as unconstitutional doesn't necessarily mean the law is ethically, morally, or legally binding. All constitutional laws are considered to be in a state of flux, with the exception of amendments which are rigid by nature.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well gun laws are not against the Constitution so they wouldn't qualify.

In fact I will pose a challenge to anyone. I bet that you can't find a single current law (not in the court system) that I couldn't justify somehow under the Constituion.

There may be but I've never failed at this test.

They've already posted Supreme Court decisions about that, so yes indeed they are under the constitution. Supreme Court is above Obama.

Not only that, but I've also seen posted, and so its worth it for someone to dig up who may be more familiar with this, that Courts have already ruled that anything, legislation, that violates the constitution is unlawful and no one is obliged to obey it.

This would be relevant to me if I were American. You should have included that fact in your subject title...nevermind, the world revolves around America, got it.

Originally posted by nerbot
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

I do not need to memorize this thanks and I don't need to know it.

I'll learn the laws that apply to me here that are slightly more relevant.

I get what you're saying, but you are addressing the whole world here, not just americans.

If it doesn't apply to you then move along... why waste your time responding

Originally posted by InnerLogic
This would be relevant to me if I were American. You should have included that fact in your subject title...nevermind, the world revolves around America, got it.

edit on 25-2-2013 by InnerLogic because: (no reason given)

Actually it does... world reserve currency... Petrodollar. Probably not for much longer though

does the part about burning someone go for chris dorners illegal assasination as well? burning him to death was not the right thing to do. and the police did it on purpose

Originally posted by Hopechest
Let me continue this debate ( I really need to get in that debate forum) by saying that no law is unconstitional until it goes to the Supreme Court and they rule it so.

Your turn

Wow! *That's* your determination whether or not a law is unconstitutional? No wonder we're so far gone. Sure, let's flood the SCOTUS with every law congress passes. At the rate these cronies are churning them out we can back-log the SCOTUS for a few centuries.

Fact is that the vast majority of the laws on the books now are unconstitutional. A simple reading of the Con & the writings of the Founders of the time (like the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, etc.) gives a pretty clear understanding of their intent. The rubbish congress has been passing ain't even close... and i don't need to be a crooked activist lawyer with a Presidential appointment to know that.

Originally posted by Unity_99
Not only that, but I've also seen posted, and so its worth it for someone to dig up who may be more familiar with this, that Courts have already ruled that anything, legislation, that violates the constitution is unlawful and no one is obliged to obey it.

Marbury v. Madison recognizes Judicial Review & is where SCJ Marshall said "A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

reply to post by EnochWasRight


I don't think that's what it means unless I'm reading it wrong .. Broken down with all the legalese cut out it would read...

Whoever willfully subjects any person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution
*********on account of such person beingan alien, or by reason of his color, or race, ********
than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;

So It really only says you must treat all people equally under the law regardless of their nationality, race, or whatever. Whether or not our government has down that is another matter...