"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
by:
Source:
5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
I find it offensive that the government can tell us what substances can be used such as alcohol and tobacco, but marijuana is illegal when its not even a gateway drug. The reputation is much worst then the drug really is. One cant die from smoking it or get hurt other then lung problems and some mental ones way down the line. With alcohol one becomes a alcoholic with time, While marijuana just makes one hungry and ones lungs hurt, granted the lung issues are a negative downside. But on the other hand its a safer drug then the rest of them, and the worst that will happen to one from smoking marijuana is one will cough, get hungry, laugh, then go to sleep for a few hours. Most people believe the propaganda the government throws out there. But the truth is if they legalize and tax the substance, it will really boost out economy a fair amount. Plus its good stuff
 -- Richard, New Port Richey     
  •  
    I am not sure you get the point Richard. If you want to talk about drugs that is fine, but taxing drugs has nothing to do with the Constitution or the economy. The point I think is that one is not morally obligated, nor should be bound otherwise, to obey or conform to a "law" that is not authorized by the Constitution. Sure, that may include use or possession of drugs since the regulation of these things is not a power granted to the government in the Constitution. Even so, the taxing of these things is not a power listed in the Constitution either.
     -- Ben, Orem, UT     
  •  
    I've used this and other cases like it in court. The real problem is the courts are so corrupt they won't accept the Constitutions original intent or meaning when trying to get rid of the unconstitutional..
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    It does not matter what the constitution says when you read it-the supreme court of the universe in Washington D C says you may read it, but we will tell you what it says!!!!!!
     -- calvin reeves, Lewisville     
  • 1
  •  
    As I recall, this remains one of the pivotal opinions from the supreme court. To those who would argue nuances of meaning over time, the only hope is in the word repugnant. I note that over the last few days state's rights is at the core of these postings. That's always been a fundamental issue and a point of confusion on our constitution. It is the strange covenant that does not allow a party a means of exit from the contract. In general contract law does not allow or respect terms which have this character. An encumbrance on a deed which says a piece of land may never contain a liquor store has been limited to the life of the seller as opposed to eternity. Our constitution does provide several methods for amendment, but defaults, by its lack of procedure, to the right of revolution set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Many terms of the constitution have been eroded over time. Check the provision on the basis for "currency" and you will find it has been undone. Maintain that you have no income as defined by the constitution, and the IRS and the courts will put you in jail, just as they did to Al Capone - not that he ever made that claim. Reality takes us to the jungle law of self preservation. The entity of government may do what it chooses to sustain itself in power. If its subjects do not agree and are unable to effect change via the governing documents, the only recourse is revolution. That remains an unalienable right as a basis for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! The bottom line and the NRA are in the same boat on this one.
     -- J. B. Wulff, Bristol     
  •  
    Duh, that is the problem Mike you can't read. Like the Bible the Constitution is not up to individual reading and interpretation. We have experts and it is called the Supreme 'Court. Have a little respect for your superiors.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  • 1
  •  
    Waffler, we have no superiors...well you do but your special. The rest of us are sovereign individuals. The government must relearn this most basic rule...and they will.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  •  
    Carlton the Apostle Paul proclaims in one of his epistles that the scripture (the Bible) is not to be read by individual interpretation but is to mean the same thing to all. I respectfully suggest that The Constitution is also not of any individual interpretation, if it were up to individual interpretation it would not be worth anything. Now if we agree that this is true then how on earth is it to be read, interpreted and explaind if not by a group, or a committeee or a committee of the whole, the whole being us, the nation. That might be a little difficutl so the founders established the Supreme Court, and lawyers and schools study and teach the Constitution. These are I respectfully suggest our superiors in training and experience, not that we could not strive for the same but most of us have other fish to fry.
     -- Anonymous     
  •  
    Waffler, you oops again and intentionally misstate the facts. (-; I may not write to well but I can read ;-) It appears by your writings that your supreme religious beliefs include a socialistic theocracy that includes a superior ministry. Part of my beliefs are that, 'WE THE PEOPLE', (each and every, any and all) are created equal as noble sovereigns, owing no man or entity any burden, duty, inferior position, homage, obligation or pleasure. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Each and every individual sovereign, is/were/are the sole principal(s), uniquely holding each, every, any, and all principle, authority, power, right, privilege, exposition of law, etc. Each Creator endowed noble heir, enables certain others to represent each of 'WE' as personal servants and deputies in a limited forum of united representation. "Governments are the servants, not the masters of the people." (Thomas Jefferson) The Biblical reference you keep alluding to is 2 Pet 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." By your accusations, are you saying that theocratic beliefs are not a private interpretation of prophecy of scripture but, my beliefs are? Here's another Biblical thought on the subject for you. Israel was a people united in individual sovereignty under the lawful premise that their rights were inalienable and endowed by their Creator when the Elders came to the prophet Samuel and said: "Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations." (1 Sam 8:5). Waffler, I know you can read so you're going to have to make a personal interpretation of why God was so displeased when the corporeal government wanted to judge and rule over the people like all the nations (you wanting to be like the rest of the world because the majority must be right) instead of growing in freedom and liberty where life, liberty, and property are reverenced as inalienable to the individual sovereigns.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Waffler you voted to throw out the constitution when you voted for Obama. The Supreme Court has 4 members that regularly decide that not only the Constitution is up for individual interpretation, but the constitution is not in fact adequate to be used as a reference to determine whether or not a law should be deemed constitutional. They believe that THEY are better equipped to decide the constitutionality of a question than the constitution or its founders were. To use the constitution as a reference would be a hindrance to them. Richard you have been smoking too much of that stuff.
     -- warren, olathe     
  •  
    Anonymous, you oops as much as Waffler. Your claiming Paul gave Peter's epistle sounds a bit like personal interpretation to me. You might be right, I haven't ever looked into that before. Reading the scripture in context brings to mind an interpretation that only the Creator can accurately define that which He said, not an individual (solo or in concert). Kinda - you have to go directly to the source to get the interpretation. Ahhh yes, going back to the source, that brings back up the Constitution. If your interpretation is correct, that of multiple individuals in public, having the right of interpretation, then you must be Catholic, since the Counsel at Nicea has already set forth everything you need to know. Or maybe you're Baptist because the Baptist groups, as exist, are much more authoritative groups. Or, just what 'group think' do you suppose to be the most authoritative to interpret the bible and the original intent of the Constitution. Since your superior Supreme Court doesn't have much use for the Constitution anymore, where do you suggest we look for a more respectable group to fry fish with.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    J.B. and Mike said it quite well. Waffler squirms and double-talks again. I wonder if he actually believes what he is saying or just gets a kick out of pushing freeman's/freewoman's buttons. If he isn't already being paid for his daily boot in the face of Liberty, he should be. Mike, can you confirm the date and act when it became inadmissable to cite from court cases tried before 1913 (or some other date around the beginning of the 20th century)? It may have been during FDR's court reorg and the merging of the common law and commercial jurisdictions. Thanks.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    Waffler, you seem to be fairly consistent to your ramblings. Its obvious you don't personally read the bible or the constitution. Are you saying because the Constitution was directed at the government (its limitations, structure and duties), not the individual sovereign, the individual shouldn't read and interpret it? hmmm I'm pretty sure that would give us the ignorance of the dark ages when the church implemented public ignorance so it could tell the 'We The People' what it says, thus allowing the despotic government to do what it would. Oh, I see, we're there, you're promoting a new version (socialistic theocracy) of the church's dark ages. I guess you've made that very clear, the individual need no knowledge of truth or freedom and only needs remain ignorant because the experts will tell us what we need to know and do and if we respect our superiors, all will be well. Yep, really clear.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Waffler / Anonymous...the Constitution may indeed be read and interpreted by a group....of "individuals". I would expect nothing less.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  •  
    I believe that we as a people, as human kind must have secured paths to follow. Without the Bible and alike Books there would be no basis of right and wrong, morality and a lesser sense of value and tradition. Without the Constitution, we would have no basis of Man's law, divisions of power, rights and perhaps no reason to hope, set individual goals and to strive to become a better society... I am as certain as can be that the Founders of the Constitution as well as our Creator, did NOT take up the notion of putting such important lessons, history and a path to move forward...with the understanding that the "future" man kind would just consider these materials as a little "light reading"! If we are NOT to take these writings literally, why were they written? If your own Father told you it is wrong to steal, should you have interpreted that for your own agenda? The U.S. Constitution CLEARLY shows the division of power in our country...it is the "interpretations" of a very few who have blurred these lines for "We the People"! It is the VERY few liberal minded destroyers of all that has ever been Holy, who have worked to destroy or at the very least rewrite the meaning of Morality, Values and Tradition cherished and followed by the Majority of Peoples, in order to promote their own agenda or "special interests". Just because you might be able to assemble a child's bike without fully understanding the instructions DOES NOT mean that you or ANY SMALL GROUP elected or appointed should have the "right" to rewrite history as they see fit!
     -- C.Riley, Grand Rapids, Mi.     
  •  
    Great quote! The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Rule of Law (Article 6). Any and all laws that usurp, violate and act superior to the constitution are null and void.
     -- Mary - MI     
  •  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2016 Liberty-Tree.ca