Discussion pertaining to the militia act of 1792

Tying yourself into semantic knots is YOUR problem, not mine.

You were given MULTIPLE EXAMPLES of Laws of the Land that are Constitutional and you abjectly FAILED to prove that they are not.

At this point you are just stomping your feet because you cannot come with a cogent argument to support your farcical position.

 

Presumptively lawful. Not constitutional. Such is how the matter works.

 

Repeating the same fallacy does not make it any less fallacious.

 

Which is what you are guilty of.

 

Then cease repeating the same fallacious appeal to authority.

 

With the proper permits, and that is only for the ordinance.

But literally anybody can own a tank. Literally it is nothing other than an enclosed tractor (which is what the first tanks actually were).

However, being able to drive them on public roads is most likely prohibited because of motor vehicle laws. Not to mention weight restrictions, and the fact that common tracks tear up roadways.

Case in point, a great many times over the decades, farmers have taken old tanks and converted them into farm tractors, as well as others turning them into construction equipment..

https://www.farmcollector.com/tractors/sherman-tank-farming-zmlz17julzhur

https://www.farmanddairy.com/columns/war-tanks-converted-to-tractors-in-france/525714.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2341811.stm

http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/n0239-unique-way-to-plough-fields-using-military-tanks/

 

Ironic PROJECTION duly noted for the record.

 

Then get to posting something of actual relevance so it can be properly eviscerated by those who actually know what they are talking about.

 

You mean just like all of your prior publum that I have already eviscerated in this thread since you have no idea at all as to what you are talking about?

 

Claiming a law is constitutional by mere virtue of it being the law, a fallacious appeal to authority, does not eviscerate or disprove anything. The burden of proof is on yourself. Get to proving or get to leaving.

 

Consistently WRONG!

You were given a list of laws that you FAILED to prove where unconstitutional!

That is YOUR problem, not mine!

 

All laws in the united states, every last one of them, are presumptively lawful until constitutionality is determined by the united state supreme court, and only the united state supreme court. That is ultimately how things work in the united states. Constitutionality does not have an expiration date, nor is it something that is guaranteed.

Such has been the ruling of the united state supreme court itself. All laws are presumptively lawful until ruled otherwise by the courts, there are no exceptions. If a particularly law was ruled unconstitutional thirty years after it was enacted, then it was unconstitutional from the moment it was implemented.

 

Thank you for once again CONCEDING that I am 100% correct about the constitutionality of the Laws of the Land.

 

You are totally incorrect.

 

Except for the fact that no concession was ever made on the part of myself.

All laws currently in place, every last one of them, are only presumptively lawful at the moment, not constitutional. The only exceptions are those upon which constitutionality has actually been determined by the united state supreme court.

 

There's a few of those around here.

 

There is no need for you to continue to concede that I am correct that all legislation passed by Congress and signed into the Law of the Land is deemed to be Constitutional.

 

Such is not how things actually work in the united states. As a citizen of the country, you should not need to be educated about how laws actually work. And yet here we are, members of the forum having to do just that due to how poor the education system of the united states is.

Perhaps once those present conclude the education of matters pertaining to constitutionality, the next lesson plan can include how to properly tie shoelaces.

 

Ironic PROJECTION of shortcomings duly noted and ignored for derogatory reasons.

 

A law may be law and it may be enforced, but if it hasn’t been adjudicated as Constitutional, it’s Constitutionality is open to challenge. Further,
https://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm

I can think of many laws and practices that are being challenged frequently by various watchdog groups like the ACLU, NRA, and ACLJ ON such laws surrounding civil forfeiture (without due process), current immigration law, voting laws, and many 2A related challenges.
When a law is declared unconstitutional, it is nullified to conception and any resulting enforcement convictions/penalties are also nullified.
Unfortunately, many laws are passed that are never subjected to even cursory review by legal council to legislatures if the law will stand judicial review.
Worse yet, because there is no penalty associated with enacting laws that ultimately not withstand judicial review, there are those that exploit the system, knowing how long it can take to get a challenge in front of SCOTUS, particularly on laws associated with gun related legislation, and deliberately pass questionable laws anyway... California is serial in this knowing review by the 9th, having the most overturned rulings among the appelet courts, will allow questionable laws to stand, winding through the appeals process, while new variations of law are conceived to continue ongoing harassment objectives of gun owners or, in some cases, have significant financial impact on private manufacturer targets.

 

Your blogger is entitled to their OPINION but it does NOT alter the reality with respect to the Law of the Land.

Unless a law is challenged it is de facto Constitutional.

 

Presumptively lawful, as per the precedent set by the united state supreme court itself.

 

Thank you for once again conceding that I am right.

Have a nice day!

 

Presumptively lawful is not the same thing as being constitutional. Presumptively lawful means the law, any law in question, is existing on borrowed time, much like an illegal alien currently residing in the united states.

 

See Xenamnes post above.
If a law that hasn’t been through judicial review is de facto (becomes) Constitutional, by that definition, there would never be a judicial review because there is nothing of Constitutionality in question...that law essentially becomes a de facto amendment.
Why do you think the Supreme Court’s existence and enumerated authority was conceived by the authors of the Constitution? I suspect it wasn’t for the reason what you think.