Holy cow!!!!!!!!!!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Well, your original question was pretty vague; for the supreme court to rule that the first amendment no longer applies anywhere, it would be as if it didn't exist. And since most infringements on the first amendment are due to laws passed by the legislature and enforced by the executive, I wouldn't hold out much hope for those branches, since THOSE branches are the ones committing the violation(s) -- the court ruling would just be upholding the actions of the other two branches.

 

And I don't think it's more "noble" to kill footsoldiers but "play nice" to the leadership -- why? They're the ones most responsible. I don't agree with your position that leaders in a war shouldn't be targeted. It's simply bad tactics. Washington probably had no realistic way to attempt an attack on George III, but there was an attempt to kidnap or kill Washington by Tories. You think war's a game or something?

[TheScout]

The questions involved the Supreme Court going outside of its bounds on its own. A hypothetical, but the Supreme Court has been known to answer questions that are not even brought to it, Dred Scott immediatly comes to mind.

 

Even in the President and Congress are similarly warped, there are other avenues to avoid bloodshed.

 

3. State governors and local executives could not use their forces to enforce such a decision

 

4. State legislatures could cut off funding to state and local agencies charged with enforcing a bad decision

 

7. People could commit acts of civil disobedience and ignore the ruling.

 

8. States could decide the federal contract is broken and secede from the union

 

All I think would be better than sporadic killing of government officials in my opinion.

 

There was a British officer in the Revolution, Major Patrick Ferguson. He was a rifle officer and invented his own rifle. At one point he came across Gen. Washington alone on horseback and in easy range. He didn't fire, thinking it ungentlemenly to snipe an officer. A true gentlemen.

 

I am not aware of any ungentlemanly threat to kidnap Gen. Washington.

 

I think an American hit squad would have had a high chance of success killing King George III or Lord North. Especially Lord North. Personal security attaches did not exist like they did today. It was easy to get into England at the time.

 

It would have been even easier to kill royal governors. Patriots could have easily infiltrated loyalist units and got very close to top British offiers and kill them. None did.

 

When wars are fought, they can be fought by the standards of the Scout Oath and Law in a gentlemanly and civilized fashion.

 

That is why we have Geneva Conventions and the Hague Laws of War.

[Trevorum]

War is NEVER civilized. War is Hell.

[TheScout]

War is not necesarily hell. Like anything else, it was people make of it.

 

Sherman, who first called war hell, was one of those who set about making war miserable for the civilian population and destroying non-military property.

 

The ancient Greeks would meet on a field and in one day conduct all their fighting, leaving civilians and property intact.

 

In the 18th Century, European officers practiced the concept of a limited war. The United Kingdom and France fought many wars which were very limited in civilian casualties and destruction. Surrendering garrisons who offered valiant resistance were allowed to march away with weapons and flags.

 

War like anything else is what we make of it. Scouts can even strive to go to war with the ideals of the Scout Oath and Law.

[scottteng]

"The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht)the infamous Nazi rampage against Germany's Jewstook place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 8, The New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," explaining:

 

 

After invading, Nazis used pre-war lists of gun owners to confiscate firearms and many gun owners simply disappeared. Following confiscation, the Nazis were free to wreak their evil on the disarmed populace, such as on these helpless Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto.

 

"The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been 'disarmed' with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment."2

 

On the evening of Nov. 9, Adolph Hitler, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels and other Nazi chiefs planned the attack. Orders went out to Nazi security forces: "All Jewish stores are to be destroyed immediately . Jewish synagogues are to be set on fire . The Fhrer wishes that the police does not intervene. All Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance they are to be shot immediately."3

 

All hell broke loose on Nov. 10: "Nazis Smash, Loot and Burn Jewish Shops and Temples," a headline read. "One of the first legal measures issued was an order by Heinrich Himmler, commander of all German police, forbidding Jews to possess any weapons whatever and imposing a penalty of twenty years confinement in a concentration camp upon every Jew found in possession of a weapon hereafter."4 Thousands of Jews were taken away.

 

Searches of Jewish homes were calculated to seize firearms and assets and to arrest adult males. The American Consulate in Stuttgart was flooded with Jews begging for visas: "Men in whose homes old, rusty revolvers had been found during the last few days cried aloud that they did not dare ever again return to their places of residence or business. In fact, it was a mass of seething, panic-stricken humanity."5

 

Himmler, head of the Nazi terror police, would become an architect of the Holocaust, which consumed 6 million Jews. It was self-evident that the Jews must be disarmed before the extermination could begin.

 

Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938."

 

Hitler knew what he was about he disarmed his opposition first. Sound Familiar?

 

[TheScout]

scottteng,

 

Do not understand my sentiments as a dislike for the people's right to bear arms. There is no bigger fan of the 2nd Amendment than myself.

 

I was just stating that there are better means to resolve the problem of an out of control SCOTUS than Merlyn's violent proposals.

 

I am quite sure as a Senator, Jefferson Davis could have had an audience with Mr. Lincoln after his election. With no security checks back in the day, and epecially not on a sitting Senator and ex-Secretary of War, Davis could have easily walked up to Lincoln with a revolver and shot him. Such would have been a horrible cowardly act. Extremely unscoutlike.

 

Instead Mr. Davis resigned his office, went home, met with his constituents, heeded their call to lead them, and attempted to lead his home out of the Union to redress its differences. Failing that, he led a conventional war to help promote what he thought was his people's rights.

 

Two courses of actions. One ghastly and cowardly, one honorable and courageous.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

So why did you indicate it would've been OK to assassinate Hitler, but not George III? What's your distinction?

 

And do you consider military snipers dishonorable? They purposely try to kill officers, and I doubt they'd hesitate if the commander in chief of the armed forces happened to show up in their sights.

 

For that matter, if it's not honorable to kill the leader of an opposing army, at what level is it OK? Generals? Captains? And why?

[Trevorum]

Ahh... the Old Lie: "Dulce et Decorum est, pro Patria Mori."

 

Wielding a weapon to kill other people is an ancient, and ghastly, profession.

 

[TheScout]

I hope you are not comparing Hitler and King George III. If you are one should study up on their history and the role of each in their government.

 

This thread started when I said it would be inappropriate to assasinate Supreme Court justices and then I added civilian leaders.

 

I do not think I ever said it was wrong to shoot military officers on the field of battle.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I hope you are not comparing Hitler and King George III

 

You're the one who said one was OK to assassinate, and one not. Why the difference?

 

This thread started when I said it would be inappropriate to assasinate Supreme Court justices and then I added civilian leaders.

 

I do not think I ever said it was wrong to shoot military officers on the field of battle.

 

So does it become OK to shoot civilian leaders if they meet with generals in a war zone?

[GernBlansten]

Let me get this straight. If the SCOTUS rules in definance of the POTUS, it is not only the POTUS's right, but obligation to violate/ignore the ruling? Hypothetical: 2009, the SCOTUS overturns Roe V Wade, President Hillary Clinton defies the ruling and issues an executive order to preserve the procedure.

Question: Who should be impeached?

[TheScout]

Merlyn, there was a large difference between Hitler and George III.

 

Hitler was the centerpiece of a vast totalitarian state.

 

George III was the head of an already much weakened British monarchy. Though he had more discretion than modern monarchs, the government was still largely run by his ministers. The monarchy had already de facto given up the right to veto and and independent right to appoint ministers. Most of the colonists quarrels were with the Parliament anyway.

 

 

I would not oppose shooting civilian leaders on a battlefield. Thats much different from sending asassins to sneak into the heart of a country. That is a cowardly deceitful action. This all started when you said you wanted to shoot justices. That is much farther removed from either circumstance. There is not even a war!

 

 

Gern,

 

If the Supreme Court rules in defiance of the Constitution, its decisions are not valid.

 

Each branch of government, every State, every citizen, has a DUTY to interpret the federal constitution.

 

Recall, Mr. Jefferson wrote,

 

"[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their, own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." -Thomas Jefferson

 

The real problem with your scenario is it should not even exist. Federal courts should not be making rulings on abortion for or against. It was not the dream of the founders of this country that an all powerful court would sit in Washington and a small group of men would make social policy for the entire. nation.

[TheScout]

Merlyn, there was a large difference between Hitler and George III.

 

Hitler was the centerpiece of a vast totalitarian state.

 

George III was the head of an already much weakened British monarchy. Though he had more discretion than modern monarchs, the government was still largely run by his ministers. The monarchy had already de facto given up the right to veto and and independent right to appoint ministers. Most of the colonists quarrels were with the Parliament anyway.

 

 

I would not oppose shooting civilian leaders on a battlefield. Thats much different from sending asassins to sneak into the heart of a country. That is a cowardly deceitful action. This all started when you said you wanted to shoot justices. That is much farther removed from either circumstance. There is not even a war!

 

 

Gern,

 

If the Supreme Court rules in defiance of the Constitution, its decisions are not valid.

 

Each branch of government, every State, every citizen, has a DUTY to interpret the federal constitution.

 

Recall, Mr. Jefferson wrote,

 

"[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their, own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." -Thomas Jefferson

 

The real problem with your scenario is it should not even exist. Federal courts should not be making rulings on abortion for or against. It was not the dream of the founders of this country that an all powerful court would sit in Washington and a small group of men would make social policy for the entire. nation.

[GernBlansten]

Every citizen determining the constitutionality of every ruling and following only the ones they agree with is....well....anarchy.

 

[TheScout]

Not necesarily . . .

 

The majority of the citizens can enforce their views of the Constitution through the power of their elected representatives.

 

Thats how civil disobedience works, individual citizens decide laws are wrong and act.

 

Individuals must decide laws are wrong before groups. Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and the likes of them had to convince the rest of the colonists of the inherent wrong of the British colonial legislation.