Sound familiar? Who does that remind of you of?History of the Church, Vol V, Chapter XV, 2/25/1843 wrote:Views of the Prophet on Constitutional Powers.
Situated as we are, with a flood of immigration constantly pouring in upon us, I consider that it is not only prudential, but absolutely necessary to protect the inhabitants of this city from
Man-splainin'? Prophet-speak?further, JSjr is quoted, wrote: being imposed upon by a spurious currency. Many of our eastern and old country friends are altogether unacquainted with the situation of the banks in this region of country; and as they generally bring specie with them, they are perpetually in danger of being gulled by speculators. Besides there is so much uncertainty in the solvency of the best of banks, that I think it much safer to go upon the hard money system altogether.
No, it is law. It limits powers. It imposes checks and balances. He must have missed the Bill of Rights.further, JSjr is quoted, wrote: I have examined the Constitution upon this subject and find my doubts removed. The Constitution is not a law, but it empowers the people to make laws.
Agreed. The C limits states, like Iowa,further, JSjr is quoted, wrote:For instance, the Constitution governs the land of Iowa, but it is not a law for the people.
and it endows people with rights, not rules limiting their conduct.
That must be why Oaks and other Mormon legal scholars think JSjr had some authority to stomp on people's free speech and freedom of the press rights[/sarcasm]further, JSjr is quoted, wrote:The Constitution tells us what shall not be a lawful tender. The 10th section declares that nothing else except gold and silver shall be lawful tender, this is not saying that gold and silver shall be lawful tender. It only provides that the states may make a law to make gold and silver lawful tender. I know of no state in the Union that has passed such a law; and I am sure that Illinois has not. The legislature has ceded up to us the privilege of enacting such laws as are not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States
Oh, so even a 'charter city' has limits. Who would have thought it was so complex?further, JSjr is quoted, wrote: and the state of Illinois;
Not really, especially if you can only pass laws that are not inconsistent with the state of Illinoisfurther, JSjr is quoted, wrote: and we stand in the same relation to the state as the state does to the Union.
I think that the limits the C put on what could be legislatively enacted were stretched--but for the good of Americans--but not until the 1890s. So which ones,further, JSjr is quoted, wrote: The clause referred to in the Constitution is for the legislature--it is not a law for the people. The different states, and even Congress itself, have passed many laws diametrically contrary to the Constitution of the United States.
JSjr?
But...but...but you can only pass ordinances in Nauvoo that are not inconsistent with the state of Illinois. Remember? You, JSjr, acknowledged that just a few sentences ago.further, JSjr is quoted, wrote: The state of Illinois has passed a stay law making property a lawful tender for the payment of debts; and if we have no law on the subject we must be governed by it.
Hell, no, we Mormons won't. After all,further, JSjr is quoted, wrote: Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No!
the state of Illinois only allows a man one wife. How unconstitutional? Nevermind the Supreme Court concluded otherwise in United States v Reynolds.
but, JSjr, you said not many sentences ago you can only make laws that are not inconsistent with the state of Illinois,further, JSjr is quoted, wrote: We will make a law for gold; and silver; and then the state law ceases
right?
"reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." See the 10th Amendment.further, JSjr is quoted, wrote: and we can collect our debts. Powers not delegated to the states or reserved from the states are constitutional.
Well,further, JSjr is quoted, wrote: The Constitution acknowledges that the people have all power not reserved to itself.
the states primarily, and what the states don't take, then the people get. The states don't even have to limit their policing power like Congress supposedly has to, just to 'interstate commerce'. But due to the later adopted 14th amendment, the states have to respect many of the people's rights set forth in the Bill of Rights.
It takes a really huge lawyer to comprehend physics and theology.further, JSjr is quoted, wrote:I am a lawyer; I am a big lawyer and comprehend heaven, earth and hell,
It takes a lot of knowledge to cover up Melvin Belli, rest his soul.further, JSjr is quoted, wrote: to bring forth knowledge that shall cover up all lawyers, doctors and other big bodies.
That 'doctrine of the Constitution' will more help than god can muster.further, JSjr is quoted, wrote: This is the doctrine of the Constitution, so help me God.
Ah, there it is. Somehow JSjr thinks the C provides that it empowered him as a mere mayor to take away the Constitutional right of free press and freedom of speech. It takes a really, really huge lawyer to argue his way out of that conundrum.further, JSjr is quoted, wrote: The Constitution is not law to us, but it makes provision for us whereby we can make laws.
But...but...but JSjr,further, JSjr is quoted, wrote: Where it provides that no one shall be hindered from worshiping God according to his own conscience, is a law.
haven't you just said a couple of times in these paragraphs that the C is not law, but now you say it is.
How huge of lawyer must one be to be unconstrained by linear logic and make such circular arguments?further, JSjr is quoted, wrote: No legislature can enact a law to prohibit it. The
Constitution provides to regulate bodies of men and not individuals.
I wonder if JSjr was as big a lawyer as Oaks or even Christofferson?