It's not a law because the legislative branch says it is; Rather, a law is lawful only if it conforms to the Constitution.
Maybe he's unfamiliar with the concept of usurpation.
"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. ..."
"... Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former."
Would you and Chris be interested in interviewing Jan for the Robert Wenzel Show? He's an interesting guy and seems to enjoy opportunities for self-promotion based off of his interview w/ John Stossel, so I bet he'd agree to come on the show. You could probably have some good talks about his various encounters w/ these oddballs we call politicians and journalists. Maybe you could investigate HIS philosophy a little deeper, as well?
It'd be a great show that I'd love to tune in for!
This guy doesn't understand the rule of law.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a law because the legislative branch says it is; Rather, a law is lawful only if it conforms to the Constitution.
Maybe he's unfamiliar with the concept of usurpation.
"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. ..."
"... Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former."
I love these Jan Helfeld interviews! I listened to 10 of them yesterday.
ReplyDeleteHi Bob,
ReplyDeleteWould you and Chris be interested in interviewing Jan for the Robert Wenzel Show? He's an interesting guy and seems to enjoy opportunities for self-promotion based off of his interview w/ John Stossel, so I bet he'd agree to come on the show. You could probably have some good talks about his various encounters w/ these oddballs we call politicians and journalists. Maybe you could investigate HIS philosophy a little deeper, as well?
It'd be a great show that I'd love to tune in for!