Posted by Dan on October 26, 1999 at 17:25:39:

In Reply to: Natural Law Vs. Positive Law posted by James Freeman Jr. on October 24, 1999 at 01:19:19:

: Why not require all politicians to get written consent from citizens to create binding positive laws which either directly or indirectly contradicts the U.S. Constituion or the Bill of Rights?

Citizens do not have the authority to surrender the Constitutional rights of their contemporary countrymen or their posterity. In addition, Congressional sessions often begin with "The Pledge of Allegiance". Contradicting the Constitution would likely violate that pledge. But in addition, most U.S. politicians (& other govt. employees [law enforcers]) take a loyalty oath to the Constitution as well. Contradicting the Constitution would require perjuring that oath. Due to the seriousness of the perjury I hardly think citizen consent is the issue. A more practical issue would seem to be the correct means to administer the execution (I prefer firing squad). If the Constitution becomes an impediment to the equitable government administration of the Peoples Liberty, then it should be amended in accordance with the law, or abandoned in accordance with the United States Declaration of Independence. Until then the U.S. Constitution should be treated as specified by Art.6, Sect.2, "the supreme law of the land".
How about "consent from citizens" by ~60% majority as expressed by national plebiscite, to increase taxes?

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup