In a poll of many eligible voters of these United States it was decided to ratify the Constitution of these United States and to adopt the 10 amendments to the Constitution now known as the Bill of Rights.

Part of the constitution established the form of government, methods of changing the Constitution, electing representatives and three branches of the government.

The Legislative branch, to create laws and pass budgets.
The Executive branch, to fulfil the requirements of the laws of these United States.
The Judicial branch, to pass judgement based on the laws of the land.

These three equal branches of government are created to be in conflict with each other and to be a stop on the power of each other. As President Andrew Jackson famously said “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” The executive branch could just fail to enforce a judicial decision.

Going back to Schoolhouse Rock we know that Congress, as the legislature creates bills which can become law.

There is really nothing to stop a Senator or Representative from proposing laws that are in conflict with other laws. Sometimes this is on purpose, the law removes or changes some other law for example.

Congress is suppose to represent the will of the people they represent and the states they represent. If they are using polling to determine the will of the people, that’s ok. We actually have official polling every year. We vote for new representatives and other actions where the peoples voice is directly heard.

When Congress passes and the President signs a bill into law it is not actually checked to see if it is legal. When the bill is introduced it is suppose to state the clause under the Constitution that allows for the bill but often that is just noise.

The important point is a law is not required to be Constitutional when passed. When it goes into effect it is assumed to be “legal” until proven otherwise.

Which takes us to the point of this article.

The Supreme Court of these United States is the final arbitrator on what is and is not Constitutional. Their job is to examine the laws as written to determine if the law is legal and what limits there might be on the law. Or on whether a law was properly applied or on whether an individuals rights were denied to them.

Thus the following is reasonable rhetoric from a legislator:

A POLITICO/Morning Consult poll out this morning shows that Americans overwhelmingly favor common-sense legislation to address gun violence.

  • 88% of Americans support requiring background checks on all gun sales.
    • In 2021, House Democrats passed H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, which would require background checks on all gun sales.
    • House Democrats also passed H.R. 1446, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021, which would close the ‘Charleston Loophole’ and work to prevent firearms from reaching the hands of prohibited gun owners.
  • 84% of Americans support preventing sales of all firearms to people reported as dangerous to law enforcement by a mental health provider.
    • During the first week of the June work period, the House will take up legislation to enact a national Red Flag law that would prevent those who pose a threat to themselves or others from being able to legally possess a firearm.

Senate Republicans should listen to the American people and work with Democrats on common-sense gun legislation that will take important steps towards ending gun violence in America.
Polls show Americans want action on common-sense gun legislation

The issue is that so many liberals on the court and in the media are pushing the Supreme court to issue opinions based on polls rather than the law founded on the Constitution.

The court isn’t there to issue opinions based on what the people want.

The court is there to issue opinions based on the law.

If the people want to get a different result, they have to change the law. And that is their problem.

As much as the liberals and gun rights infringers want to ban or restrict firearm ownership they can’t. They intend to write many bills and create many laws that in the end will be found unconstitutional. That won’t stop them. They know it will take years for the courts to strike down whatever they pass today.

They think that they can tax firearm ownership out of existence. They have polls that say they can. But poll taxes are unconstitutional. That likely means that firearm taxes will be found unconstitutional at some point.

They think that they can expand “sensitive locations” to encompass so many places that it is impossible to travel with a firearm. If a bar is defined as a sensitive location as well as a bubble 50 yards in radius that would put most cities and towns off limits. I doubt you could walk through any part of NYC that isn’t within 50 yards (or 100 yards) of a bar.

This is the type of polling that is shouted from the tree tops:

It is also worth noting that gun laws are already more representative of gun lobby clout than the will of the people. Polls show that over 90% of Americans support background checks on all gun sales, 84% want safety education required before first-time gun purchases, and 75% support a 30-day waiting period for gun purchases. Majorities want all private guns registered, a license required for purchases, and assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines banned. Yet none of these stances is the law of the land. Concealed carry laws are also not reflective of public will. About 70% of Americans choose not to own a gun at all, much less carry one in public. Polls show only 12% to 22% support for allowing concealed carry without a permit.
Alternate Facts, Dueling Realities, and the Second Amendment: On NYSRPA v. Bruen

For a better article on the task of the Supreme Court, go read: Once Again: It Is Not the Supreme Court’s Job to Follow ‘Majority Public Opinion’

Spread the love

By awa

6 thoughts on “Polling shows”
  1. If we were really a “nation of laws, not of men” why does it really matter who gets to be seated as a SC justice?
    The reality is that we are in the turbulent phase of giving lip service to the Constitution but engaging in power politics, moving into pure power politics.
    1784 was the misstake. Should have hung all who violated their oaths and did not fix the Articles.

  2. “The important point is a law is not required to be Constitutional when passed.
    Not true, for several reasons, which can be found in the Constitution.
    Article 1 Section 1: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress…”
    Article 1 Section 8: “The Congress shall have the powers to … and to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
    Article 6: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”
    So the Constitution states that legislative powers are those granted by the Constitution, and that the laws shall be “necessary and proper” to the powers that were granted. And furthermore, the Members of Congress are bound by oath to support the Constitution.
    The way I see it, this means that they, each and every one of them severally, are duty bound to pass only laws that are constitutional. Seen that way, any time a law is found unconstitutional there ought to be adverse consequences for each member who voted for that law, and for the President who signed it (if he did so). That would be a proper enforcement of the mandate of Article 6.

    1. pkoning, you touch on the key point – lawmakers take an oath to support the constitution. The problem is – not everyone (libs) has the same opinion on what is constitutional or not. The result is we have a system where lawmakers can pass whatever they want, presidents can sign anything into law (bills or EOs) and its up to the people to push back and call it unconstitutional. The recourse for the people is use the legal system to make the determination whether it is or is not, with the final determination being the SCOTUS. In a perfect world everyone would be originalists, not treating our found documents as “living”, meaning they can change with the times.

      Be careful with Article 6, if lawmakers and POTUS passed conservative leaning legislation, and a liberal leaning SCOTUS rejects it as unconstitutional, those consequences you speak of can swing back in our direction.

  3. One would think, with such overwhelming support for these laws, that it would be a simple matter to write and approve a constitutional ammendment enacting it.

    For some reason they don’t try to do this. I wonder perhaps if they doubt their own polls.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.