• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Message to John Pierce in reference to his opinon on proposed amendment no. 3, Nov. 4

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
No court in the country is going to rule that any right is absolute. They just aren't. Therefore, they need a yardstick by which to judge the validity of laws. ...

Your move. I don't live there. I was just trying to answer a question for a friend.

John
I'm not talking about ruling on a right, I'm talking about judges who obviously rule contrary to the constitution.
OC for ME: It is not correcting a errant judge's decision, it is the removal of that judge(s) who blatantly rules contrary to the federal and possibly state constitution's clear and unambiguous language.
Also...
Right to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and certain accessories--exception--rights to be unalienable.

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.

Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 17.

(Amended August 5, 2014)

(2004) Section does not prohibit the General Assembly from enacting statutes allowing or disallowing the carrying of concealed weapons; the Concealed-Carry Act is therefore constitutional. Brooks v. State, 128 S.W.3d 844 (Mo.banc).
It is really simple, to me anyway, the legislature and the people need to hold judges accountable for their whacky rulings based on twisted logic. When called out on their whacky rulings they fall back on "...well, that specific question/point was not brought up..." Puh-lease! I understand it is the system and it is the system we have to work with, however holding a judge to account for his official misconduct (whacky rulings) is no different than holding a cop accountable for his official misconduct (whacky applications of a law that was not broken).

When the court is our only recourse, and the court (judge) cannot be held to account under the law, then there is no avenue for a redress of wrongs. Good judges stay, bad judges get shown the door.
 
Top