How is this not a felony?

I often claim people are in violation of 18 USC 241 and/or 242 and know it will almost certainly not result in even a sideways glance from a prosecutor.

But via Alan Korwin we have something that has me baffled.

This is from HR2578 (“To authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms to known or suspected terrorists.”):

No district court of the United States or court of appeals of the United States shall have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section…

The writers of this have to know they are attempting to create a law that will be thrown out as unconstitutional. Otherwise they wouldn’t care if it were reviewed by the courts for constitutionality. Right?

If they are knowingly working together to infringe upon rights, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, then tell me how a prosecutor can squint their eyes, twist the meaning of words, and claim what these people are doing is not a conspiracy to deny rights?

For your easy review 18 USC 241:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

18 USC 242:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

These people need to be prosecuted.

15 thoughts on “How is this not a felony?

  1. There’s also perjury (of their oath of office).

    That clause reminds me of the equivalent clause in the Dutch “constitution”. Its effect is to (attempt to) render the Constitution a dead letter.

    I don’t think I’ll be voting for Sen. Ayotte ever again, for any office whatsoever.

    • Is there actually a perjury penalty for the violation of their oath of office? I didn’t know that! I always just figured they could just laugh it off and think, “Sure, whatever. I’ll say whatever words you want me to say to get into office.”

      • I don’t know about a specific penalty for violating the oath of office, but perjury in general is a felony and I’d apply that.

        Then there’s this:

        In like manner, if in a limited government the public functionaries exceed the limits which the constitution prescribes to their powers, every such act is an act of usurpation in the government, and, as such, treason against the sovereignty of the people, which is thus endeavored to be subverted, and transferred to the usurpers.—St. George Tucker, Of the Several Forms of Government

        I just found a free for the download copy of his writings at http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/693. Nice.

    • Sent to sen. Kelly Ayotte via her web page, 6/24/2016.

      Subject: I condemn your support of HR 2578

      Dear Sen. Ayotte,

      After reading an article by Alan Korwin about your work, I just read HR 2578.

      I am dismayed and disgusted that you would put your name on this travesty. It utterly demolishes the rule of law, the Constitutional requirement of due process, the presumption of innocence, and the Second Amendment. No person who has even the slightest understanding of what the Constitution means, or what the Congressional Oath of Office requires, could possibly support such a bill.

      Unless you withdraw all support for this bill and actively oppose its passage, as well as the passage of anything similar, I will never again support you for any political office and I will actively encourage others to oppose you as well.

      Sincerely,
      — paul koning

      • “No person who has even the slightest understanding of what the Constitution means, or what the Congressional Oath of Office requires, could possibly support such a bill.”

        Wrong. There are those who understand what the constitution means and what the Oath of Office requires and simply don’t subscribe to them, and therefore they support the bill. They’re approaching the point where, if you disagree with the authoritarians, you are, ipso facto, a “terrorist”.

        They’re for “law and order” (as they see it) and the constitution stands in their way, so the constitution must go. This isn’t new. Progressives have been talking about it openly for over 100 years. We’re just now starting to see what they meant.

        Some fifteen or twenty years ago now, I heard a candidate for Latah County sheriff complain about “those damned Constitutionalists!” There are a number of those scum out there too, itching to stuff that “goddamned constitution” right down your throat and force you to choke on it.

  2. On the Korwin blog you referenced (thanks!) I posted this comment:

    It also says that, if you appeal, the appeals court will affirm the denial “based on a reasonable suspicion … of conduct constituting, in preparation of, in aid of, or related to terrorism…”

    In other words, nothing even remotely resembling a burden of proof here. Not even the weak “preponderance of evidence” standard.

    The other problem is the “Selectee list” which appears to be a secret list operating by secret rules. The bill certainly doesn’t say what the rules are, only that the “standard as of June 16, 2016” is to apply. Whatever that may mean.

  3. It’s even sneakier than you think — this provision doesn’t mean it can’t be reviewed, it just means that it has to go straight to the SCOTUS.

    Which, being a justice down, is in 4-4 deadlock on partisan issues, and this is certainly a partisan issue.

    So what they are doing is providing the appearance of review, confident that their Dirty Four will vote against whatever, and in deadlock, the law stands.

    If a lower court were allowed to review it, though, then we could end up with a case like the South Texas Immigration Case, where the court ruled against them and the 4-4 deadlock leaves the lower court decision in place.

  4. Do these idiots want violent revolution? Because this is how you get violent revolution.

    Or not even violent. Just cold war style, ‘go screw yourself’ behavior from states that actually consider the Constitution something more than just an old document.

    • It could be a straightforward and orderly thing.

      A number of states could declare that the entirety of the federal government, to include the executive, legislative and judicial branches and all departments and organizations created under their purview, are in rebellion against the Constitution of the United States of America.

      The states are NOT seceding. The Federal Government seceded by being persistently and consistently in violation of the limitations built into the Constitution. The powers bestowed by the Constitution are voided as result of failure to adhere to the whole.

      The Federal government being in rebellion, all property asserted to belong to the Federal government reverts to the control of the state it is physically in. All employees of the Federal government are transferred to the supervision of the state’s local equivalent official, such as all military organizations reporting to the state’s adjutant general. Many are simply cashiered. All ambassadors and diplomatic staff are recalled. Ambassador Pro Tem to the United Nations is nominated by a majority of the governors of the states.

      A federal government would be re-constituted after a convention of the states is convened to propose amendments to the Constitution to arrest the observed development of corruption and self-serving nature of elected and appointed officials and bureaucrats, and adoption by the several states by popular vote, provided that such amendments shall also apply to state and local elected officials as well.

      Well… I can dream. But I predict that is this sort of thing doesn’t happen in an orderly manner, it will happen in a disorderly manner, sooner or later.

  5. It’s a proposed amendment. The GOP is willing to let the D Senators throw their tantrum over S.Amdt 4720 , but not even vote on it. We want the parent bill (The one this one’s trying to amend, H.R. 2578) to pass: It bars the BATF from blocking importation of US-made and exported now-C&Rs from being brought back into the country. (Those ~87k South Korean M1 Garands and ~840k M1 Carbines. Remember?)

  6. My mistake: It was an amendment to an amendment: SA4814 to SA4685 to H.R. 2578. But the upshot was the same: The amendment to the proposed bill isn’t going to happen. And even if it did, it’d still have to make it through reconciliation.

    • My point isn’t whether it’s a serious threat to us. My point is that it looks like a conspiracy to violate constitutionally protected rights, they know it, and are attempting to bypass the judicial system. How can this not be a felony?

    • I don’t get it. I just read a bill that has Ayotte’s name on it as sponsor that is an affront to the Constitution. I really don’t care what her excuse is or what parliamentary maneuvers this is part of; her name is on a pile of dirt and she needs to face consequences for that.

Comments are closed.