"Your Constitution doesn't comport with our culture so we don't have to
follow it."

Those seem like secessionist treasonous words, don't they? But I always
forget: it's "different" when Democrats do it. The same people who were
screaming that Abbott should be arrested for treason for daring to try to
secure the border are cheering Hawaii on as it thumbs its nose at the U.S.
Supreme Court.

If this court's "culture supersedes law" theory is valid, even to the point
of negating guaranteed constitutional rights, then we can certainly forget
about ordinary laws, too. Silencers and full-auto rifles are about to be
for sale at convenience stores in Texas and some new Spirit of Immigration
Enforcement will be spreading across the southern border in no time.

This is the same Hawaii government that banned cops from carrying guns
while off duty and had the balls to say it applied to federal agents also.

The FBI and Secret Service sent a joint letter to the Hawaii attorney
general and made it perfectly clear that the state government of Hawaii had
no constitutional authority to regulate firearms possession by federal
agents, nor did it have any business dictating to federal law enforcement
when its agents are on the clock and when they aren't, noting that FBI and
Secret Service special agents are considered on duty 24/7, practically
daring the state to try to enforce this law against them.

Hawaii never rescinded its law as it applied to federal law enforcement but
it also never dared to actually try and prosecute any federal employee
under its law.

------------------
From the department of "you can't make this shit up," the Hawaii Supreme
Court appears to now be simply making their laws up out of some Maui
Wowi-induced vibe after they head-scratchingly declared that the "Spirit of
Aloha" trumps what they see as a 2nd Amendment that doesn't apply to their
island state. Christopher Wilson, the defendant in this legal dramedy,
found himself on the wrong side of a court that apparently consults its
cultural roots more eagerly than its constitutional texts.

Wilson, who was presumably just enjoying a scenic stroll through the West
Maui Mountains with a 10mm handgun in his possession was arrested on
December 7, 2017. His crime? Carrying a gun without a permit (and
apparently ammo too, which was a second charge), an apparently shocking act
in a state where the only acceptable forms of defense are presumably shaka
signs and good vibes.

Wilson's legal saga began when his lawyers moved to dismiss the charges,
arguing they violated his 2nd Amendment rights when viewed in the context
of the Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association
v. Bruen. The lower court granted the motion on that basis, but the state
appealed the ruling citing Wilson didn't apply for a carry permit as the
state requires.

Citing the island's history as an independent kingdom and the radical
notion that muskets from 1791 weren't designed for modern mass shootings,
the state Supreme Court performed a legal hula dance around the 2nd
Amendment. They concluded, with a straight face, that in Hawaii, there’s no
constitutional right to carry firearms in public. This interpretation is as
imaginative as it is befuddling, suggesting that perhaps the court
consulted a crystal ball rather than legal precedent.

In its judgment, the court essentially argued that the 2nd Amendment's
references to a "well-regulated militia" and the right to "bear arms" were
quaint relics of a bygone era, best left to history books and passionate
reenactors. The justices seemed to suggest that modern public safety laws
should not be constrained by the fashions, technology, or constitutional
understandings of the 18th century. Because, clearly, the Founding Fathers
couldn't possibly have foreseen the future complexities of a state where
surfing is practically a divine right.

Critics, like attorney Kostos Moros who works with the California Rifle &
Pistol Association, were quick to skewer the ruling, accusing the court of
rehashing old, debunked arguments about collective rights. Meanwhile,
Wilson's attorney, Benjamin Lowenthal, was left scratching his head,
pondering the existential question of what, exactly, the court had been
smoking.

But the Hawaii Supreme Court didn't stop there. They doubled down on their
creative jurisprudence by essentially saying, "Thanks, U.S. Supreme Court,
but we prefer our own brand of constitutional interpretation." By arguing
that the islands' unique cultural and historical context somehow negates
the need to align with the broader constitutional protections recognized by
the nation, the court has boldly gone where no court has gone before. And
in doing so, they've penned a ruling that reads more like a rejected script
for HAWAII 5-0 (the new version; Jack Lord would never have tried this
nonsense) than a sober legal decision.

"As the world turns, it makes no sense for contemporary society to pledge
allegiance to the founding era's culture, realities, laws, and
understanding of the Constitution," the court said.

To add insult to injury, the court referenced THE WIRE, a TV show known
more for its gritty portrayal of the drug-infested Baltimore streets than
its nuanced analysis of constitutional law, to justify its stance. The
ruling actually quoted a line from THE WIRE with, "The thing about the old
days, they the old days."

This move alone should have legal scholars and TV critics alike wondering
whether the court's next legal citation might come from GAME OF THRONES or
perhaps THE MANDALORIAN.

As ludicrous as it is and offensive to any true rule of law in the nation,
the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision is a masterclass in judicial
creativity, blending equal parts legal reasoning and cultural homage with a
dash of audacious reinterpretation of fundamental rights designed to suit
the state's desired outcome rather comporting with the law. It's a reminder
that in Hawaii, the spirit of aloha (whatever that is) and a good
television drama can apparently shape the law in ways the Founding Fathers
could never have imagined.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/say-aloha-to-your-guns-hawaii-court-gets-creative-aka-stupid-on-the-second-amendment/

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 06:44:45 +0000
BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "Your Constitution doesn't comport with our culture so we don't have
> to follow it."
>
> Those seem like secessionist treasonous words, don't they? But I
> always forget: it's "different" when Democrats do it. The same people
> who were screaming that Abbott should be arrested for treason for
> daring to try to secure the border are cheering Hawaii on as it
> thumbs its nose at the U.S. Supreme Court.
>
> If this court's "culture supersedes law" theory is valid, even to the
> point of negating guaranteed constitutional rights, then we can
> certainly forget about ordinary laws, too. Silencers and full-auto
> rifles are about to be for sale at convenience stores in Texas and
> some new Spirit of Immigration Enforcement will be spreading across
> the southern border in no time.
>
> This is the same Hawaii government that banned cops from carrying guns
> while off duty and had the balls to say it applied to federal agents
> also.
>
> The FBI and Secret Service sent a joint letter to the Hawaii attorney
> general and made it perfectly clear that the state government of
> Hawaii had no constitutional authority to regulate firearms
> possession by federal agents, nor did it have any business dictating
> to federal law enforcement when its agents are on the clock and when
> they aren't, noting that FBI and Secret Service special agents are
> considered on duty 24/7, practically daring the state to try to
> enforce this law against them.
>
> Hawaii never rescinded its law as it applied to federal law
> enforcement but it also never dared to actually try and prosecute any
> federal employee under its law.
>
> ------------------
> From the department of "you can't make this shit up," the Hawaii
> Supreme Court appears to now be simply making their laws up out of
> some Maui Wowi-induced vibe after they head-scratchingly declared
> that the "Spirit of Aloha" trumps what they see as a 2nd Amendment
> that doesn't apply to their island state. Christopher Wilson, the
> defendant in this legal dramedy, found himself on the wrong side of a
> court that apparently consults its cultural roots more eagerly than
> its constitutional texts.
>
> Wilson, who was presumably just enjoying a scenic stroll through the
> West Maui Mountains with a 10mm handgun in his possession was
> arrested on December 7, 2017. His crime? Carrying a gun without a
> permit (and apparently ammo too, which was a second charge), an
> apparently shocking act in a state where the only acceptable forms of
> defense are presumably shaka signs and good vibes.
>
> Wilson's legal saga began when his lawyers moved to dismiss the
> charges, arguing they violated his 2nd Amendment rights when viewed
> in the context of the Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle
> & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The lower court granted the motion on
> that basis, but the state appealed the ruling citing Wilson didn't
> apply for a carry permit as the state requires.
>
> Citing the island's history as an independent kingdom and the radical
> notion that muskets from 1791 weren't designed for modern mass
> shootings, the state Supreme Court performed a legal hula dance
> around the 2nd Amendment. They concluded, with a straight face, that
> in Hawaii, there’s no constitutional right to carry firearms in
> public. This interpretation is as imaginative as it is befuddling,
> suggesting that perhaps the court consulted a crystal ball rather
> than legal precedent.
>
> In its judgment, the court essentially argued that the 2nd Amendment's
> references to a "well-regulated militia" and the right to "bear arms"
> were quaint relics of a bygone era, best left to history books and
> passionate reenactors. The justices seemed to suggest that modern
> public safety laws should not be constrained by the fashions,
> technology, or constitutional understandings of the 18th century.
> Because, clearly, the Founding Fathers couldn't possibly have
> foreseen the future complexities of a state where surfing is
> practically a divine right.
>
> Critics, like attorney Kostos Moros who works with the California
> Rifle & Pistol Association, were quick to skewer the ruling, accusing
> the court of rehashing old, debunked arguments about collective
> rights. Meanwhile, Wilson's attorney, Benjamin Lowenthal, was left
> scratching his head, pondering the existential question of what,
> exactly, the court had been smoking.
>
> But the Hawaii Supreme Court didn't stop there. They doubled down on
> their creative jurisprudence by essentially saying, "Thanks, U.S.
> Supreme Court, but we prefer our own brand of constitutional
> interpretation." By arguing that the islands' unique cultural and
> historical context somehow negates the need to align with the broader
> constitutional protections recognized by the nation, the court has
> boldly gone where no court has gone before. And in doing so, they've
> penned a ruling that reads more like a rejected script for HAWAII 5-0
> (the new version; Jack Lord would never have tried this nonsense)
> than a sober legal decision.
>
> "As the world turns, it makes no sense for contemporary society to
> pledge allegiance to the founding era's culture, realities, laws, and
> understanding of the Constitution," the court said.
>
> To add insult to injury, the court referenced THE WIRE, a TV show
> known more for its gritty portrayal of the drug-infested Baltimore
> streets than its nuanced analysis of constitutional law, to justify
> its stance. The ruling actually quoted a line from THE WIRE with,
> "The thing about the old days, they the old days."
>
> This move alone should have legal scholars and TV critics alike
> wondering whether the court's next legal citation might come from
> GAME OF THRONES or perhaps THE MANDALORIAN.
>
> As ludicrous as it is and offensive to any true rule of law in the
> nation, the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision is a masterclass in
> judicial creativity, blending equal parts legal reasoning and
> cultural homage with a dash of audacious reinterpretation of
> fundamental rights designed to suit the state's desired outcome
> rather comporting with the law. It's a reminder that in Hawaii, the
> spirit of aloha (whatever that is) and a good television drama can
> apparently shape the law in ways the Founding Fathers could never
> have imagined.
>
> https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/say-aloha-to-your-guns-hawaii-court-gets-creative-aka-stupid-on-the-second-amendment/

It is absolutely ASTOUNDING that the Hawaii Supreme Court came up with
that ruling. This is judicial activism taken to a whole new level
and demands to be challenged.

Please tell me that the defendant is going to appeal this to the US
Supreme Court and that the US Supreme Court will have the jurisdiction
to overrule the state Supreme Court.

--
Rhino

On 2/9/24 9:02 AM, Rhino wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 06:44:45 +0000
> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Your Constitution doesn't comport with our culture so we don't have
>> to follow it."
>>
>> Those seem like secessionist treasonous words, don't they? But I
>> always forget: it's "different" when Democrats do it. The same people
>> who were screaming that Abbott should be arrested for treason for
>> daring to try to secure the border are cheering Hawaii on as it
>> thumbs its nose at the U.S. Supreme Court.
>>
>> If this court's "culture supersedes law" theory is valid, even to the
>> point of negating guaranteed constitutional rights, then we can
>> certainly forget about ordinary laws, too. Silencers and full-auto
>> rifles are about to be for sale at convenience stores in Texas and
>> some new Spirit of Immigration Enforcement will be spreading across
>> the southern border in no time.
>>
>> This is the same Hawaii government that banned cops from carrying guns
>> while off duty and had the balls to say it applied to federal agents
>> also.
>>
>> The FBI and Secret Service sent a joint letter to the Hawaii attorney
>> general and made it perfectly clear that the state government of
>> Hawaii had no constitutional authority to regulate firearms
>> possession by federal agents, nor did it have any business dictating
>> to federal law enforcement when its agents are on the clock and when
>> they aren't, noting that FBI and Secret Service special agents are
>> considered on duty 24/7, practically daring the state to try to
>> enforce this law against them.
>>
>> Hawaii never rescinded its law as it applied to federal law
>> enforcement but it also never dared to actually try and prosecute any
>> federal employee under its law.
>>
>> https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/say-aloha-to-your-guns-hawaii-court-gets-creative-aka-stupid-on-the-second-amendment/
>
> It is absolutely ASTOUNDING that the Hawaii Supreme Court came up with
> that ruling. This is judicial activism taken to a whole new level
> and demands to be challenged.
>
> Please tell me that the defendant is going to appeal this to the US
> Supreme Court and that the US Supreme Court will have the jurisdiction
> to overrule the state Supreme Court.

You know it's interesting: this is clearly unconstitutional, but I'm not
exactly sure where it explicitly says "states cannot overrule the Bill
of Rights" - I guess it's roughly the "Supremacy Clause" (Article VI,
para. 2).

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 06:44:45 +0000
> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Your Constitution doesn't comport with our culture so we don't have
>> to follow it."
>>
>> Those seem like secessionist treasonous words, don't they? But I
>> always forget: it's "different" when Democrats do it. The same people
>> who were screaming that Abbott should be arrested for treason for
>> daring to try to secure the border are cheering Hawaii on as it
>> thumbs its nose at the U.S. Supreme Court.
>>
>> If this court's "culture supersedes law" theory is valid, even to the
>> point of negating guaranteed constitutional rights, then we can
>> certainly forget about ordinary laws, too. Silencers and full-auto
>> rifles are about to be for sale at convenience stores in Texas and
>> some new Spirit of Immigration Enforcement will be spreading across
>> the southern border in no time.
>>
>> This is the same Hawaii government that banned cops from carrying guns
>> while off duty and had the balls to say it applied to federal agents
>> also.
>>
>> The FBI and Secret Service sent a joint letter to the Hawaii attorney
>> general and made it perfectly clear that the state government of
>> Hawaii had no constitutional authority to regulate firearms
>> possession by federal agents, nor did it have any business dictating
>> to federal law enforcement when its agents are on the clock and when
>> they aren't, noting that FBI and Secret Service special agents are
>> considered on duty 24/7, practically daring the state to try to
>> enforce this law against them.
>>
>> Hawaii never rescinded its law as it applied to federal law
>> enforcement but it also never dared to actually try and prosecute any
>> federal employee under its law.
>>
>> ------------------
>> From the department of "you can't make this shit up," the Hawaii
>> Supreme Court appears to now be simply making their laws up out of
>> some Maui Wowi-induced vibe after they head-scratchingly declared
>> that the "Spirit of Aloha" trumps what they see as a 2nd Amendment
>> that doesn't apply to their island state. Christopher Wilson, the
>> defendant in this legal dramedy, found himself on the wrong side of a
>> court that apparently consults its cultural roots more eagerly than
>> its constitutional texts.
>>
>> Wilson, who was presumably just enjoying a scenic stroll through the
>> West Maui Mountains with a 10mm handgun in his possession was
>> arrested on December 7, 2017. His crime? Carrying a gun without a
>> permit (and apparently ammo too, which was a second charge), an
>> apparently shocking act in a state where the only acceptable forms of
>> defense are presumably shaka signs and good vibes.
>>
>> Wilson's legal saga began when his lawyers moved to dismiss the
>> charges, arguing they violated his 2nd Amendment rights when viewed
>> in the context of the Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle
>> & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The lower court granted the motion on
>> that basis, but the state appealed the ruling citing Wilson didn't
>> apply for a carry permit as the state requires.
>>
>> Citing the island's history as an independent kingdom and the radical
>> notion that muskets from 1791 weren't designed for modern mass
>> shootings, the state Supreme Court performed a legal hula dance
>> around the 2nd Amendment. They concluded, with a straight face, that
>> in Hawaii, there’s no constitutional right to carry firearms in
>> public. This interpretation is as imaginative as it is befuddling,
>> suggesting that perhaps the court consulted a crystal ball rather
>> than legal precedent.
>>
>> In its judgment, the court essentially argued that the 2nd Amendment's
>> references to a "well-regulated militia" and the right to "bear arms"
>> were quaint relics of a bygone era, best left to history books and
>> passionate reenactors. The justices seemed to suggest that modern
>> public safety laws should not be constrained by the fashions,
>> technology, or constitutional understandings of the 18th century.
>> Because, clearly, the Founding Fathers couldn't possibly have
>> foreseen the future complexities of a state where surfing is
>> practically a divine right.
>>
>> Critics, like attorney Kostos Moros who works with the California
>> Rifle & Pistol Association, were quick to skewer the ruling, accusing
>> the court of rehashing old, debunked arguments about collective
>> rights. Meanwhile, Wilson's attorney, Benjamin Lowenthal, was left
>> scratching his head, pondering the existential question of what,
>> exactly, the court had been smoking.
>>
>> But the Hawaii Supreme Court didn't stop there. They doubled down on
>> their creative jurisprudence by essentially saying, "Thanks, U.S.
>> Supreme Court, but we prefer our own brand of constitutional
>> interpretation." By arguing that the islands' unique cultural and
>> historical context somehow negates the need to align with the broader
>> constitutional protections recognized by the nation, the court has
>> boldly gone where no court has gone before. And in doing so, they've
>> penned a ruling that reads more like a rejected script for HAWAII 5-0
>> (the new version; Jack Lord would never have tried this nonsense)
>> than a sober legal decision.
>>
>> "As the world turns, it makes no sense for contemporary society to
>> pledge allegiance to the founding era's culture, realities, laws, and
>> understanding of the Constitution," the court said.
>>
>> To add insult to injury, the court referenced THE WIRE, a TV show
>> known more for its gritty portrayal of the drug-infested Baltimore
>> streets than its nuanced analysis of constitutional law, to justify
>> its stance. The ruling actually quoted a line from THE WIRE with,
>> "The thing about the old days, they the old days."
>>
>> This move alone should have legal scholars and TV critics alike
>> wondering whether the court's next legal citation might come from
>> GAME OF THRONES or perhaps THE MANDALORIAN.
>>
>> As ludicrous as it is and offensive to any true rule of law in the
>> nation, the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision is a masterclass in
>> judicial creativity, blending equal parts legal reasoning and
>> cultural homage with a dash of audacious reinterpretation of
>> fundamental rights designed to suit the state's desired outcome
>> rather comporting with the law. It's a reminder that in Hawaii, the
>> spirit of aloha (whatever that is) and a good television drama can
>> apparently shape the law in ways the Founding Fathers could never
>> have imagined.
>>
>> https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/say-aloha-to-your-guns-hawaii-court-gets-creative-aka-stupid-on-the-second-amendment/
>
> It is absolutely ASTOUNDING that the Hawaii Supreme Court came up with
> that ruling. This is judicial activism taken to a whole new level
> and demands to be challenged.
>
> Please tell me that the defendant is going to appeal this to the US
> Supreme Court and that the US Supreme Court will have the jurisdiction
> to overrule the state Supreme Court.

Of course they'll appeal and I'd like to think SCOTUS would not let such a
direct challenge to its authority go unaddressed but this guy's probably
going to have to first start all over again in the federal district court
with a new federal suit for deprivation of his civil rights.

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>"Your Constitution doesn't comport with our culture so we don't have to
>follow it."

>Those seem like secessionist treasonous words, don't they? But I always
>forget: it's "different" when Democrats do it. The same people who were
>screaming that Abbott should be arrested for treason for daring to try to
>secure the border are cheering Hawaii on as it thumbs its nose at the U.S.
>Supreme Court.

In my state of corruption, there are famous rulings that don't appear to
be based on law, such as a referendum on an annexation into the city of
Chicago that failed but the judge allowed the annexation to take place
anyway. In 1970, when the initial bonds were paid off and tolls were to
be removed from the Illinois Tollway, an extension to one of the
tollways was allowed to be built that was not authorized by the state
legislature, keeping tolls in place on the older system. The judge ruled
that the legislature must authorize new tollways but allowed this
extension to be built despite his own ruling on the law. Every time
bonds get paid off, new tollways have been built to keep them in place.

Culture!

Seriously, let's say that the supreme court tried to apply the law with
care instead of making shit up. Are there instances in which laws that
were in place when Hawaii was a sovereign nation that are still in place
today? We see this with Louisiana and sometimes even within the entire
former Louisiana Territory that Napoleonic Code and not common law
applies for precedent. Louisiana's version of community property is
supposed to be based on French law, and they haven't adopted portions of
the Uniform Commercial Code as again, they got something similar in
their laws governing contracts based on French law.

I thought the article made some interesting points.

>. . .

In article <uq5pk3$2o495$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >"Your Constitution doesn't comport with our culture so we don't have to
> >follow it."
>
> >Those seem like secessionist treasonous words, don't they? But I always
> >forget: it's "different" when Democrats do it. The same people who were
> >screaming that Abbott should be arrested for treason for daring to try to
> >secure the border are cheering Hawaii on as it thumbs its nose at the U.S.
> >Supreme Court.
>
> In my state of corruption, there are famous rulings that don't appear to
> be based on law, such as a referendum on an annexation into the city of
> Chicago that failed but the judge allowed the annexation to take place
> anyway. In 1970, when the initial bonds were paid off and tolls were to
> be removed from the Illinois Tollway, an extension to one of the
> tollways was allowed to be built that was not authorized by the state
> legislature, keeping tolls in place on the older system. The judge ruled
> that the legislature must authorize new tollways but allowed this
> extension to be built despite his own ruling on the law. Every time
> bonds get paid off, new tollways have been built to keep them in place.
>
> Culture!
>
> Seriously, let's say that the supreme court tried to apply the law with
> care instead of making shit up. Are there instances in which laws that
> were in place when Hawaii was a sovereign nation that are still in place
> today? We see this with Louisiana and sometimes even within the entire
> former Louisiana Territory that Napoleonic Code and not common law
> applies for precedent. Louisiana's version of community property is
> supposed to be based on French law, and they haven't adopted portions of
> the Uniform Commercial Code as again, they got something similar in
> their laws governing contracts based on French law.

Well, like Hawaii, Texas was its own nation before it joined the Union.
I don't think leftists have thought through the consequences of this
"culture supersedes law" theory.

Unless maybe they're just planning on making this yet another of their
double standards: culture can only supersede law if the results are good
for 'progressives'; if they're good for conservatives, then only the law
matters.

I can easily see these lunatics making that argument.

Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:

>>. . .

>You know it's interesting: this is clearly unconstitutional, but I'm not
>exactly sure where it explicitly says "states cannot overrule the Bill
>of Rights" - I guess it's roughly the "Supremacy Clause" (Article VI,
>para. 2).

It's not. That applies to the supremacy of statutes of the United States
over statutes of state legislatures.

Civil rights of state citizens were supposed to be protected in state law
and state constitutions. But under the Dred Scott decision, blacks had no
rights nor privileges under the Constitution as they weren't citizens under
any circumstances. It didn't matter whether they were slaves or freed men
(Scott argued that he'd been freed as he'd been taken into free territory)
or born into freedom outside of slave states.

Most clauses in the Bill of Rights -- Amendments 1 and 3 through 8 --
never applied against the states. This changed with the passage of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Nearly all clauses in Amendments 3 through 8 were
"incorporated against" the states its Due Process clause and sometimes
through the Equal Protection clause. It was intended to be incorporated
against the states through the Privileges or Immunities clause, but the
Democrats on the activist Supreme Court in a series of counter
Reconstruction opinions in cases called "the civil rights cases"
invalidated that legal theory. But that was what the Radical Republicans
intended in drafting that clause.

Later, the entire First Amendment (I think) was incorporated against the
states, despite the legal illogic "Congress shall make no law". Some
state constitutions had stronger protections but it's hard to bring
those up in court.

If Scalia's theory of the Second Amendment was correct, then it
shouldn't have been incorporated against the states through the
Fourteenth Amendment. "The right of the people" is a right from the
Second Amendment without being incorporated through the Fourteenth.

The Ninth Amendment is about the unenumerated rights retained by the
people, and the Tenth Amendment is a restatement of federalism.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>>"Your Constitution doesn't comport with our culture so we don't have to
>>>follow it."

>>>Those seem like secessionist treasonous words, don't they? But I always
>>>forget: it's "different" when Democrats do it. The same people who were
>>>screaming that Abbott should be arrested for treason for daring to try to
>>>secure the border are cheering Hawaii on as it thumbs its nose at the U.S.
>>>Supreme Court.

>>In my state of corruption, there are famous rulings that don't appear to
>>be based on law, such as a referendum on an annexation into the city of
>>Chicago that failed but the judge allowed the annexation to take place
>>anyway. In 1970, when the initial bonds were paid off and tolls were to
>>be removed from the Illinois Tollway, an extension to one of the
>>tollways was allowed to be built that was not authorized by the state
>>legislature, keeping tolls in place on the older system. The judge ruled
>>that the legislature must authorize new tollways but allowed this
>>extension to be built despite his own ruling on the law. Every time
>>bonds get paid off, new tollways have been built to keep them in place.
>>Culture!

>>Seriously, let's say that the supreme court tried to apply the law with
>>care instead of making shit up. Are there instances in which laws that
>>were in place when Hawaii was a sovereign nation that are still in place
>>today? We see this with Louisiana and sometimes even within the entire
>>former Louisiana Territory that Napoleonic Code and not common law
>>applies for precedent. Louisiana's version of community property is
>>supposed to be based on French law, and they haven't adopted portions of
>>the Uniform Commercial Code as again, they got something similar in
>>their laws governing contracts based on French law.

>Well, like Hawaii, Texas was its own nation before it joined the Union.
>I don't think leftists have thought through the consequences of this
>"culture supersedes law" theory.

>Unless maybe they're just planning on making this yet another of their
>double standards: culture can only supersede law if the results are good
>for 'progressives'; if they're good for conservatives, then only the law
>matters.

>I can easily see these lunatics making that argument.

Does Texas claim to have laws on the books that are from Spain, Mexico,
and when Texas was a republic? I actually don't think that's contrary to
the United States Constitution, without claiming supremacy.

After all, isn't common law in and of itself an inheritance of statutes
(yes, which were re-codified by the first Congress) and their legal
interpretation by judges in another country?

Again, I'm not saying that the Hawaii supreme court isn't just
making shit up.

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 18:07:00 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Seriously, let's say that the supreme court tried to apply the law with
>care instead of making shit up. Are there instances in which laws that
>were in place when Hawaii was a sovereign nation that are still in place
>today? We see this with Louisiana and sometimes even within the entire
>former Louisiana Territory that Napoleonic Code and not common law
>applies for precedent. Louisiana's version of community property is
>supposed to be based on French law, and they haven't adopted portions of
>the Uniform Commercial Code as again, they got something similar in
>their laws governing contracts based on French law.
>
>I thought the article made some interesting points.
>
That's one thing I've never understood about Louisiana law - the
United State made the Louisiana purchase in 1803 yet the Code Napoleon
was not instituted in France until March 1804. So either Louisiana
instituted the Code Napoleon AFTER purchase by the United States or
their law is based on the pre-Napoleonic laws. Which is it?

(Quebec does the same but they were conquered by Britain in 1759 but
were allowed to keep the French civil code by the British and this was
incorporated into the Canadian constitution in 1867 when Quebec passed
from a British colony (like the rest of the original Canadian
provinces) to become a Canadian province.)

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 12:04:03 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>Well, like Hawaii, Texas was its own nation before it joined the Union.
>I don't think leftists have thought through the consequences of this
>"culture supersedes law" theory.
>
>Unless maybe they're just planning on making this yet another of their
>double standards: culture can only supersede law if the results are good
>for 'progressives'; if they're good for conservatives, then only the law
>matters.
>
>I can easily see these lunatics making that argument.

Perhaps but I would think that argument wouldn't be allowed for more
than 5 minutes after the learned judges stopped laughing.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Fri, 9 Feb 2024 18:07:00 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>Seriously, let's say that the supreme court tried to apply the law with
>>care instead of making shit up. Are there instances in which laws that
>>were in place when Hawaii was a sovereign nation that are still in place
>>today? We see this with Louisiana and sometimes even within the entire
>>former Louisiana Territory that Napoleonic Code and not common law
>>applies for precedent. Louisiana's version of community property is
>>supposed to be based on French law, and they haven't adopted portions of
>>the Uniform Commercial Code as again, they got something similar in
>>their laws governing contracts based on French law.

>>I thought the article made some interesting points.

>That's one thing I've never understood about Louisiana law - the
>United State made the Louisiana purchase in 1803 yet the Code Napoleon
>was not instituted in France until March 1804. So either Louisiana
>instituted the Code Napoleon AFTER purchase by the United States or
>their law is based on the pre-Napoleonic laws. Which is it?

After

The Napoleonic Code wasn't new law. It was based on civil law tradition
inherited from Rome. It was going through a codification process during
the same period that the Louisiana Purchase was made. As local lawyers
were writing down civil law, they based their work on the codification
process already taking place in France rather than reinventing the
wheel. 70% of the civil code of 1825 was based on the Napoleonic Code.
It took until the late 1800s to write the code in English.

There was a compromise that civil law would be used for private law --
inheritance and contracts -- but common law for public law -- criminal.

https://www.nola.com/news/does-louisiana-use-the-napoleonic-code-louisianswers/article_efcb7e79-99e1-53df-8e74-6b432ed29b28.html

>(Quebec does the same but they were conquered by Britain in 1759 but
>were allowed to keep the French civil code by the British and this was
>incorporated into the Canadian constitution in 1867 when Quebec passed
>from a British colony (like the rest of the original Canadian
>provinces) to become a Canadian province.)

There was no choice but to keep civil law in place. Contracts already
in effect were based on civil law. If the change to common law was
forced, then existing contracts would have had no basis in law. Same
with inheritance.