The right to sue a law before breaking it?

If a law that violates your constitutional rights is passed, you can't sue it in court until after you are charged with breaking the law. You have to "have standing" to bring suit, so that the court knows the plaintiff actually is truly opposed to the law and not trying to set a different president.

If the penalty is high, you better be certain you will win that lawsuit before you break it. You can't first sue to see if you win, and then decide afterward whether to follow it. That means states and schools can make unconstitutional laws that stand a long time because no one wants to break it and take a risk.

Also, they often don't charge people who know how to sue. They only apply it to those who they doubt know how to successfully sue.

 

Anyone that breaks a law needs to atone for their violation. And there is no such thing as a constitutional right, if that is where you believe a right comes from, then you have none.

But you have found part of the secret, now if you could only find the rest this whole point would be moot.

 

If true, no lawyer would have ever been charged with contempt of court.



​

 

Oh, it's true all right, but it doesn't apply to lawyers because of their oath of hypocrisy.

 

Not charging people with crimes if they know how to argue the law doesn't apply to lawyers, because the lawyers have an oath of hypocrisy that requires lawyers be charged with crimes anyway?



​

 

Not at all so let me say it another way. To understand you first must define crime, my favorite is malum in se or in plain terms natural law where there must be an injured party. And then you have the courts of no jurisdiction trying to enforce codes, statutes and ordinances wherein there is no injured party but a system that gets rich fleecing the unknowing. If you learn to use their system, that doesn't then they have no hold on you and when you start to use their system against them, they run like the little psychopathic cowards they are.

Now for lawyers, a whole new subject. They swear this hypocritical oath as an officer of the court and can do nothing to upset the court or their membership in that private union know as the "BAR" which is their license to steal all they can under the guise of legal representation.

 

Suppose a law is passed that says if you say anything bad about the president, the penalty is death.

To sue on 1st amendment grounds, you must have standing. Often you need to first be charged before you may sue. But if the penalty is so high, many people might not risk it. What if they lose?

There is something called the chilling effect doctrine which says that if a law chills free speech, anyone has standing to sue. But I'm not sure exactly how it works.

Specifically, on my college campus, there is a rule that say you must ask permission often during sex and before each touch and get permission or else you are guilty of sex misconduct. Rape is also classified as sex misconduct. The school only enforces it if she accuses him. However, if 2 people don't like the rule, they have to trust the other not to accuse them on it later. Even if they are allowed to opt out, the mere act of asking the other about that implies one does not trust the other to not make such a horrible accusation. That is like asking for a DNA test on the day of your kid's birth.

 

If you can demonstrate that a law is unconstitutional in principle (rather than just having an unconstitutional outcome in a specific case) you can campaign for legislators to repeal or change it. If any individual citizen could initiate a formal legal process against any law, you’d end up with thousands of spurious lawsuits which would only serve to swamp the few examples of laws that really need changing.

 

When it is a federal law, it is not easy to be heard by one's representative. There are 750,000 of us to each of them. I doubt they read 5% of their emails. Unlike state laws in half the states, there is no way to do a popular vote on federal laws.

I don't like how there are protected classes who may sue huge, but since I'm not one of them, I can't hit back in defense.

 

That’s the disadvantage of a representative democracy, especially with such a huge country. Do you have a better alternative to suggest because at the moment all you seem to be doing is complaining.

There aren’t. The so-called “protected classes” are just groups of people who got together and argued their point in exactly the way I’m talking about. If you can enthuse enough people to agree with you, you could do the same (pending that actual proposed solution). If you can’t, you might have to consider the possibility that you’re wrong.

 

Then you live in tyranny and all actions are no holds barred. It is time to stop saying and start acting.

There is no such thing as a suit on first amendment grounds so there is no way to have standing. And no you do not have to be charged with anything to sue, all you need are to meet the elements of the cause of action under which you bring suit of which the most important would be damages, no damages, no suit.

The Chilling Effect and the Problem of Private Action is an article in the Vanderbilt Law Review where the author declares the truth of the whole supposed justice system:

In other words there is no concrete evidence nor procedure but what some mystical being in a black robe rules from on high. This person in all probability got a very high mark from the law school, personally I would say the effort in normal terms was more an F effort but I would have given her an A+ in her lawyerly endeavor.

Ah, the politically correctness of all the idiots that somehow believe all that indoctrination is somehow education never stopping to realize it is nothing more than mind-control with a twist, a huge debt to keep one enslaved for most of their lives. As to consensual sex, the magic word is "no", not yes. And by the way, if one makes an accusation that is not true, then the accused is now the injured party and can pursue a suit for damages.

 

Are you serious? On what principle do you base this totally absurd statement?

 

And what "representative" would that be? Did you sign a contract with one of them to "represent" you?

Also, a representative is responsible for their actions and unless you are extremely dim-witted you "know" that isn't true, they carry no responsibility at all. Now it could be said they are agents which are not responsible by their very nature, responsibility being on the part of the principle to whom they are agents.

Now if you would like to claim one of them as your agent, please let me know as I would like to file numerous federal lawsuits for damages based on their actions.

- - - Updated - - -

To which "representative democracy" are you referring? These united States are a republican form of government even though a large portion of the population somehow believes it is a democracy. A republican form of government is by consent of the governed and personally, I don't consent so it doesn't really apply to me. Oh, and I love proving the concept in court but defer to Marc Stevens as the master, No STATE Project

 

Thanks for those keywords. More specifically, you confirmed what my lawyer roommate says: Judges will take the cases they want to take and rule how they want.

 

It’s a republic with a government based on representative democracy – they’re not mutually exclusive. You get to vote for congressmen and senators to represent you and you vote for electors to represent you in presidential elections. It’s not perfect (no system is) but it is representative democracy.

It can’t work like that though can it. It’s government by consent of the people, not every individual. If it were necessary to gain the explicit consent of every single citizen, there’d be no government at all. If you don’t like it, you’re free to leave or you’re free to try to convince enough people to argue for the changes you want to see.

 

You can find someone who has broken the law, and sue on their behalf. NPOs like the ACLU do this all the time.

 

Your lawyer roommate if he has that opinion is a real loser, never use him for legal advice unless you want to lose. Judges only do that to suckers that have no clue as how to control the court.

 

Ah, but they are mutually exclusive. There is no representative democracy, in fact no democracy of any sort. As to the rest, you have no clue as to what is going in here and now, in reality. How can you and still make that statement. Oh and by the way, if they represent you, why do they do things that are against the wishes of the people? It would seem they represent some other faction.

A republic, while still a corruption, is based on individual rights, not the collective, that is one of the "isms". But they do need to have the consent of the individual for it to apply to them. But not to worry, there are way too many indoctrinated citizens that believe in some "authority", a ruling class that can take from one to give to the other. All the little slaves bowing to the masters. "Ther'd be no government, exactly.

Ah now comes the logical fallacy, "if I don't like it, I can leave." I don't want to convince anyone of anything much less the unwashed masses. What is really remarkable is that some bimbo or dimbo that claims to be from a divine source claims a right to be the masters of all before them and the good little subjects believe them. Here is my reply to that:

[video=youtube;fxGqcCeV3qk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxGqcCeV3qk[/video]

 

How could they be, when they relate to different aspects of the stat? In the simplest terms, republic just means “not monarchy”. It does indeed relate to the principle of government by the will of the people rather than assumed or divinely supported leadership but none of that indicates how the practical details of that alternative leadership is established. If the will of the people is to have a government made up of democratically elected representatives, they would have a republic with a representative democratic government. No logical conflict in any way.

You’re conflating how the system is meant to work and how it actually works (or not). As I’d already said, no system is perfect, especially with the introduction of human beings. Even if all the voters are ignorant and all the representatives are corrupt though, it’s still a representative democracy and it isn’t the theoretical system that needs fixing, it’s the actual people.

It’s also worth noting that a democratic representative isn’t just meant to blindly follow the immediate desires of the people they represent but are meant to make decisions for the best of the people they represent (which may well not be the same as what we (think we) want). Obviously if the people don’t like the decisions the representative makes, they can be removed and replaced.

As long as you have more than one citizen, you can’t avoid some “collective” element. If different people want different things but a government (however formed) can only make one decision, some (sometimes most) people are going to be disenfranchised. We have the individual right to express our opinion and influence decisions but so does everyone else.

You’re one of them, you’ve just invested that authority in yourself. When you talk of individual rights the only individual you’re thinking of is yourself, not anyone else and especially not all the people who disagree with you.

We’re all individuals.

 

No one can sue on another's behalf. The ACLU looks for victims and becomes their lawyer.

 

That is what I mean.

 

No they do not relate to different aspects of anything. Simple minded with simple understanding of how a language is actually used goes to great effort to not have to take responsibility to understand anything, just repeat the modern rhetoric.

Noah Webster published the 1828 edition of the "American Dictionary OF THE English Language" as a guide for effective communication, something very much lost on the indoctrinated masses of today. George Orwell in his 1948 novel, "1984" clearly demonstrated the world of today, he called it "newspeak", a language devised to restrict, rather than broaden, ideas.

Following is the perfect example of the two words, republic and democracy. Read carefully and you may learn something. And just for the sake of clarity, let's not forget the legal definitions, after all this thread is attempting to address a legal issue. We'll get to the other issues, don't want to confuse with too much at one time.

I am not conflating or more directly, confusing anything. For me, the system works exactly as it was meant to be, I don't consent and need no representation. For the masses of which you are putting forward a very large demand to be one, it works exactly as they envision it. This, in a nutshell, is the most important difference between a republican form and a democratic form of government.

You may keep repeating the same things over and over, still doesn't make them what they aren't. And why say if when in reality, all voters are ignorant (you need to look up this work to understand). Likewise, all representatives are corrupt to some extent. To what degree of corruption little matters, corrupt is corrupt. I don't know where you are referring that is a representative democracy but these united States are and until the constitution is overturned, a republic with the sovereign power residing with "the people" or more explicitly the individual. Your contention back in post #8 and #10 are logical fallacies through and through based on having a problem understanding "forms" of government which has absolutely nothing to do with what a government calls itself as so blatantly pointed out in the 1828 Websters.

Not worth noting at all, anything democratic is rule of the mob, the majority dictates to the minority. Has nothing to do with representatives at all as representatives in this manner are in and of itself, a misnomer. How can one represent when they are at opposing views. Remove and replaced by what, more of the same, new moniker?

You are still barking up a tree and this does not justify your original position back in post #8 much less your extension of the position in post #10. As to collectivism, that would be more like your government and what people here mistakenly think they have and keep begging for more. Some of it's more popular names are socialism, communism and a lot of other little "isms". The right to sue a law doesn't really exist, the right to demand proof of jurisdiction for disregarding it does. This can only be true with a republican form of government.

No I'm not one of them and that is the whole point. Again, please learn the language as authority implies a master/slave relationship which I denounce both internally and externally.

Finally you got something half right. I make no distinction between those that agree or disagree with me, I could care less. All are entitled to their opinion but not to force it upon me. As to my opinion, it is my right to express it and your right to ignore it.

No, We are not!

- - - Updated - - -

Glad to help clarify as many here would take your statement verbatim.

 

I’m sorry but you’ve somewhat wasted your time. I never claimed that the USA is a democracy, only that your electoral system is one of representative democracy. You elect various representatives and you do it via a democratic process.

I still don’t see what you’re actually expecting to happen in practical terms in response to your position (and presumably the 300 million+ individual opinions of all the other US citizens).

The practical system of government in the US, largely shared by pretty much every western nation for many decades, has remained in place because, for all its flaws, it basically works. You make generic complaints of principle to continue to fail to actually propose anything better. Without that, what’s the point of all of this?

Representatives act on the basis they were elected under. They have to balance the varying, often conflicting views of all the people they represent and work though all the impossible and self-contradictory demands (e.g. lower taxes and more spending!) to come up with a single position.

 

Actually you are again. These united States has no representative democracy at all. It is by popular vote with the candidate getting the majority of the votes being (s)elected. There is no democratic process whatsoever. Just a lot of bs, annoying commercials and empty promises to buy the largest segment of vote that bothers to even show up as it little matters anyway.

What am I expecting to happen, nothing, absolutely nothing. I have no expectations outside the total idiocy of the masses. As to what I post, those that want to see, will. I care less about all the others. Also, there are not 300,000,000 plus opinions. Mainly just two for the unwashed masses based on what part of the divide they "feel" they identify with.

Ah, a devout statist I see, worshiping at the alter of the most dangerous religion in the world. What practical system of government are you referring to, the original concept of 1778 or the abortion it has become over these couple of centuries? Why is it that Brits, Aussies, Swiss, Germans and any other person of any nation that understands English feel free to pass judgement on the abortion of a government in these united States while they refuse to face the reality of what is much worse at home? Well, good news for all, they are destined to the same final conclusion, the time span to reach that conclusion usually depends on the starting point, but not this time.

Are you really that naive? Representatives act based on what the money wants which is really how they were elected. Voters, they care less, all they need do is tell them what they want to hear, get their vote and then do as their masters, the money masters, dictate. The rest of your statement is just pure rhetoric and bull.

 

So everyone is stupid other than you but you can’t be bothered to share your genius with the rest of us. I don’t know how you’re even bringing yourself down to converse with someone you clearly hold in such contempt but I’m going to save you the effort from now on.