Andrew Russo

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago on Letter: Tea Party is not racially motivated

("I guess that I do not read the same cases from SCOTUS that you do… I fail to see where the freedom to travel is not a right….")

Could be. The presumed right to travel IS firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. However, as the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress).

Much the same as Judicial Review, firmly entrenched in American law and politics. However, the Constitution does not mention “Judicial Review” and does not explicitly establish the concept.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago on Letter: Tea Party is not racially motivated

Education is more than just schooling. As one of my favorite philosophers said, "If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library."

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago on Letter: Tea Party is not racially motivated

("We have it pretty darn good here, despite the efforts of Congress and the Government.")

Yep, as Will Rogers once said about government, "Things will get better - despite our efforts to improve them."

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago on Letter: Tea Party is not racially motivated

Many think that they have a basic right to travel where they want, when they want — but there is nothing in the Constitution about a right to travel. This was no oversight because the Articles of Confederation did list such a right. Several Supreme Court cases have ruled that this basic right exists and that the state can’t interfere with travel. Perhaps the authors of the Constitution thought that the right to travel was so obvious that it didn’t need to be mentioned. Then again, perhaps not. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Heterosexuals seem to take it for granted that they have a right to marry whom they want; there is no such right in the Constitution, however. The Constitution says nothing at all about marriage and the regulation of marriage is left to the states. In theory, a state could ban all marriages, or all interfaith marriages, without violating anything explicitly stated in the Constitution. Equal protection of the laws must be maintained; otherwise, marriage can be restricted in lots of ways. People may also assume that as with marriage, they have a right to have children. Also as with marriage, there is nothing in the Constitution about procreation. If a state banned procreation, required licenses for procreation, or selectively banned procreation for people with mental disabilities, physical disabilities, or other problems, nothing in the Constitution would automatically be violated. You have no explicit Constitutional right to procreate.

("You bring up a lot of religious rhetoric in your statements as well…. I find that interesting")

Isn't it? Can you see how the Bible can be interpreted several different ways much like the Constitution? Ask Fred Phelps who can quote bible verses all day about how God hates practically everyone and hates the U.S.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago on Letter: Tea Party is not racially motivated

Apparently, you have no concept of law, how they are challenged and either upheld by courts, ultimately SCOTUS, or struck down. Educate yourself.... Because I and a couple federal judges consider the Florida law to be unconstitutional doesn't mean it is, YET, it still may be. That law has been blocked by a federal judge, temporarily, until it's decided for good by the Supreme Court of the United States. If that law is upheld by SCOTUS it will be law and has to be followed no matter what I believe. That doesn't mean I agree with or defend it. Defense of the law is up to the state's Solicitor General. I OBEY the law as you SHOULD. If you think the idea of obeying the law, whether you agree with it or not, is a "crazy argument" then when why even live in a nation of laws? Go somewhere else and live in anarchy. I don't defend a certain law, I'm not DEFENDING any law. I OBEY all laws created by state or federal legislature under authority of the Constitutional of the United States. My sworn duty is to uphold and defend the Constitution. I may not think a certain law is Constitutional but that is for neither me nor you to decide. I may not agree with it but have to follow it because it is either federal, state or local statute. SCOTUS just upheld the practice of strip searching anyone brought into a jail facility for any reason, felony or misdemeanor. I and you might consider that to be an invasion of privacy and an impingement on our civil rights, doesn't matter. Seat belt laws are state statutes. If you THINK they infringe upon your civil rights too bad. Either obey them or pay the fine you'll get if caught while driving and not wearing one. If you believe the fine is unconstitutional, don't pay it and have your day in court with a judge. How you or I interpret the Constitution is irrelevant. It is now part of politics and policy that federal courts and ultimately SCOTUS interprets the Constitution If these "points make no sense" to you then get an education. I feel no need to argue with the uneducated, you can't seem to grasp the simple concept of obeying the law.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago on Letter: Tea Party is not racially motivated

If the law says that those people seeking public assistance must take a drug test, then they must take a drug test whether you or I agree with that law or not. It's a pretty simple concept.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago on Letter: Tea Party is not racially motivated

It is not me you have to agree with. If the law says wear a seat belt when you drive, then either wear a seat belt or break the law. Deal with it...

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago on Letter: Tea Party is not racially motivated

I misread nothing. The only evidence I can show is the Constitution of the United States (the law of the land) U.S. Code and state statutes. If your "pursuit of happiness" is in direct violation of state statute it's illegal. Same as any other person whose "pursuit of happiness" might be contrary to state or federal statutes be they traffic offenders, thieves or murderers. Your "civil rights" don't allow you to break laws. You don't have to agree with me or the law but you do have to obey the law or face the consequences.

0

Andrew Russo 2 years, 8 months ago on Letter: Tea Party is not racially motivated

("I think when the government makes laws like the seat belt law they are taking away my freedoms.")

Exactly which article or amendment in the U.S. Constitution gives you the right or "freedom" to travel, let alone drive a vehicle? More enlightenment, please. Can't take away a "freedom" you don't have. Driving is a privilege that can be taken away at any time. As much as you, I or anyone else may not like the rules of the state, play by them, don't play by them (don't wear your seat belt, speed, don't obey traffic laws) and suffer the consequences or don't drive.

0