ACORN Vegas Office Raided in Voter Fraud Investigation

#76
#76
All right, I'll continue to school you. The Second Amendment (unlike every other single amendment except for the grand-jury clause of the 5th Amendment), is NOT BINDING on the states. It's true.

It's a legal fiction called incorporation, which the Supreme Court instituted in the early 20th century -- through this legal fiction, all the other amendments are binding on the states, otherwise they could institute state-run religions and search your house. If you think I'm making this up, read a book about constitutional law (something you would say to me).

Hence, the states CAN pass gun-control laws if the people so desire.

Let me say one more thing -- if you're a states-rights fan, that's great. That is, after all, how the Framers designed the system.

But for crying out loud, BE CONSISTENT. BE PRINCIPLED. States rights means that the states can pass laws that you LIKE and DON'T LIKE. They can outlaw abortion. Or they can not. It's the political process that controls. Be a conservative that has principles, not like the robed cheaters who wrote Bush v. Gore, the most brazen abdication of states' rights ever.
 
#77
#77
Let me say one more thing -- if you're a states-rights fan, that's great. That is, after all, how the Framers designed the system.

But for crying out loud, BE CONSISTENT. BE PRINCIPLED. States rights means that the states can pass laws that you LIKE and DON'T LIKE. They can outlaw abortion. Or they can not. It's the political process that controls. Be a conservative that has principles, not like the robed cheaters who wrote Bush v. Gore, the most brazen abdication of states' rights ever.
Point out an inconsistency in my arguments, please.

You are trying to state what the original intent and spirit that the Framers intended for the 2nd Amendment based on an Amendment passed in the 1860s (the 14th) and interpretations of that Amendment made in the 1900s.
 
#78
#78
Are you trying to argue with me against the spirit and intent of the 2nd Amendment by quoting a Supreme Court decision in the 1900s?

Classic.

Wow. This is a very simple concept.

The amendments were not binding on the states when the first congress amended the constitution to add them.

Over time, the Court has incorporated the amendments to be binding on the states, one by one, through a process (that you would probably call a usurpation of state power) called incorporation. This has been an EXPANSION of federal power.

However, the blessed Second Amendment REMAINS as it was when the Congress added it (by the way, the Framers didn't design the amendments, Congress did. That's why they're called amendments).

Thus, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. The second amendment constrains only the federal government, not the states. It's true. I may not know the difference between "bomb" and "invade," but I know this.

Why don't you at least try an argument that has potential, like (hint) the curtailing of CONGRESS'S power to pass gun-control laws by D.C. v. Heller?
 
#79
#79
Wow. This is a very simple concept.

The amendments were not binding on the states when the first congress amended the constitution to add them.

Over time, the Court has incorporated the amendments to be binding on the states, one by one, through a process (that you would probably call a usurpation of state power) called incorporation. This has been an EXPANSION of federal power.

However, the blessed Second Amendment REMAINS as it was when the Congress added it (by the way, the Framers didn't design the amendments, Congress did. That's why they're called amendments).

Thus, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. The second amendment constrains only the federal government, not the states. It's true. I may not know the difference between "bomb" and "invade," but I know this.

Why don't you at least try an argument that has potential, like (hint) the curtailing of CONGRESS'S power to pass gun-control laws by D.C. v. Heller?
James Madison is the one who proposed the First 10 Amendments to Congress...
 
#80
#80
James Madison is the one who proposed the First 10 Amendments to Congress...

A-ha -- I see you have no response to my principal argument, you have only a response to a little subsidiary point that I made (in parentheses).

OK, well even with respect to that, the "intent" as you say can't be measured only by the drafter, but also by those who adopted the amendments, i.e. the entire Congress. Thus, any records of floor debates or contemporaneous writings of the other members of Congress are equally valuable evidence of intent. I would concede that Madison's writings are probably the strongest evidence of intent, but of course, he was only one of the Framers.
 
#81
#81
A-ha -- I see you have no response to my principal argument, you have only a response to a little subsidiary point that I made (in parentheses).

OK, well even with respect to that, the "intent" as you say can't be measured only by the drafter, but also by those who adopted the amendments, i.e. the entire Congress. Thus, any records of floor debates or contemporaneous writings of the other members of Congress are equally valuable evidence of intent. I would concede that Madison's writings are probably the strongest evidence of intent, but of course, he was only one of the Framers.
Fair enough.

Members of Congress in 1789 that were also part of the Philadelphia Convention:
Oliver Ellsworth
William S. Johnson
Richard Bassett
George Read
William Few
Caleb Strong
John Langdon
William Patterson
Robert Morris
Pierce Butler
Roger Sherman
Abraham Baldwin
Daniel Carroll
Elbridge Gerry
Nicholas Gilman
George Clymer
Thomas Fitzsimmons
James Madison
 
#82
#82
A-ha -- I see you have no response to my principal argument, you have only a response to a little subsidiary point that I made (in parentheses).

OK, well even with respect to that, the "intent" as you say can't be measured only by the drafter, but also by those who adopted the amendments, i.e. the entire Congress. Thus, any records of floor debates or contemporaneous writings of the other members of Congress are equally valuable evidence of intent. I would concede that Madison's writings are probably the strongest evidence of intent, but of course, he was only one of the Framers.


I would argue that action is a pretty strong indicator of intent. Head back to my post that brought the second amendment up in the first place and let me know how the Framers and/or Congress intended for the government to implement the entitlement programs mentioned. Give me a response to my principal argument.
 
#83
#83
Fair enough.

Members of Congress in 1789 that were also part of the Philadelphia Convention:
Oliver Ellsworth
William S. Johnson
Richard Bassett
George Read
William Few
Caleb Strong
John Langdon
William Patterson
Robert Morris
Pierce Butler
Roger Sherman
Abraham Baldwin
Daniel Carroll
Elbridge Gerry
Nicholas Gilman
George Clymer
Thomas Fitzsimmons
James Madison

OK, so some of the Framers were also members of the 1st Congress. You still haven't addressed my main point.

The states can still pass gun-control laws, and nothing can stop them. Why do you think it was the D.C. law that was challenged in court? Because there was a legal basis for such, i.e. it's not a state. Thus, it's under the control of Congress and bound by the Second Amendment.

The other states are not bound by the Second Amendment, therefore they can pass gun laws. Why do you care? You probably live in a red state so there's no danger of losing your gun rights (unless Congress tries to do so). You should be happy, because the will of the people in each state is respected. Liberal states like NY and Cal can have tougher restrictions, and rural states can have more lax rules. It's states' rights, man.
 
#84
#84
I would argue that action is a pretty strong indicator of intent. Head back to my post that brought the second amendment up in the first place and let me know how the Framers and/or Congress intended for the government to implement the entitlement programs mentioned. Give me a response to my principal argument.

I have a feeling that our friend does not understand what "intent" and "spirit" mean. He is exhausting his efforts trying to prove to me what it was that Madison felt about the 2nd Amendment by providing evidence of interpretations made 70 to 150 years later...
 
#85
#85
I have a feeling that our friend does not understand what "intent" and "spirit" mean. He is exhausting his efforts trying to prove to me what it was that Madison felt about the 2nd Amendment by providing evidence of interpretations made 70 to 150 years later...

That's interesting, I never once purported to know what Madison's intent was.

By the way, "intent" is a legal term that has meaning. The courts are very concerned with the intent behind all sorts of acts, including legislation. "Spirit" is a meaningless term with no legal significance. It sounds like something that you picked up from one of your hippie college professors.
 
#86
#86
I would argue that action is a pretty strong indicator of intent. Head back to my post that brought the second amendment up in the first place and let me know how the Framers and/or Congress intended for the government to implement the entitlement programs mentioned. Give me a response to my principal argument.

The Framers surely were not thinking about entitlement spending when they designed the Constitution.

But the question is whether the words "general welfare" can encompass programs like Social Security. I argue that those words are so broad that they can. I'm sure the Framers didn't design the U.S. government to operate a space program, yet we sent someone to the moon in 1969. The Constitution was deliberately designed with broad language to stand the test of time -- that's part of the enduring genius of the Framers. The flip side of that is that as times change, you have to allow the document to move forward with the rest of the world.
 
#87
#87
That's interesting, I never once purported to know what Madison's intent was.

By the way, "intent" is a legal term that has meaning. The courts are very concerned with the intent behind all sorts of acts, including legislation. "Spirit" is a meaningless term with no legal significance. It sounds like something that you picked up from one of your hippie college professors.

You obviously have a strong knowledge base of Constitutional Law. And I would agree that the courts do have a high level of concern for intent. In your opinion, what do the courts consider the best way to measure or determine intent?
 
#88
#88
The Framers surely were not thinking about entitlement spending when they designed the Constitution.

But the question is whether the words "general welfare" can encompass programs like Social Security. I argue that those words are so broad that they can. I'm sure the Framers didn't design the U.S. government to operate a space program, yet we sent someone to the moon in 1969. The Constitution was deliberately designed with broad language to stand the test of time -- that's part of the enduring genius of the Framers. The flip side of that is that as times change, you have to allow the document to move forward with the rest of the world.


Agreed, the Framers couldn’t have foreseen the need for a space program. However, during the late 1700s there were old people, sick people and poor people. If “general welfare” extended to these people, why didn’t they mandate that the federal government take care of them back then?
 
#89
#89
You obviously have a strong knowledge base of Constitutional Law. And I would agree that the courts do have a high level of concern for intent. In your opinion, what do the courts consider the best way to measure or determine intent?

Interesting question. It depends on the judge, and there are lots of different thoughts on this.

In terms of the intent behind the Constitution, the Federalist Papers carry huge sway, as do other writings of the Framers and the philosophers that they studied. For example, the "separation of church and state" phrase comes from a letter that Jefferson wrote. There are all sorts of debates that they had among each other that are recorded, which carry weight. With the Amendments (and statutes), the procedural history attached to the amendment as it went through Congress (e.g. floor debates, hearings, etc.).

There is another school of thought called textualism, which basically says that the intent is totally irrelevant -- you read the words and apply the meaning that a reasonable person would have applied to those words at the time when the legislation was enacted. Justice Scalia is a proponent of this view. He does not give a rip about intent, contrary to what lots of people think.
 
#90
#90
Agreed, the Framers couldn’t have foreseen the need for a space program. However, during the late 1700s there were old people, sick people and poor people. If “general welfare” extended to these people, why didn’t they mandate that the federal government take care of them back then?


The question is whether the document permits such legislation, and just because the founders didn't envision it doesn't mean that the document doesn't authorize such activity.

I gotta go to bed, nice talking with you.
 
#91
#91
True that! If one wants to speculate about the Framers’ intended role of the federal government, one need look no further than what the Framers practiced after the start of our country. If they had meant for there to be Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or other entitlement programs (read UHC), they would have instituted them in the early years of the Republic.

This goes for the Second Amendment also. If they meant that only those in a state sponsored militia should have arms, then they would have confiscated all guns owned by those that were not a member of a militia. Now I’m digressing so I will wrap it up.

The question is whether the document permits such legislation, and just because the founders didn't envision it doesn't mean that the document doesn't authorize such activity.

I gotta go to bed, nice talking with you.

Actually the question I posed above was regarding the Framers’ intended role of the federal government not if the Constitution permits such legislation. This may be a fine line, but a line none the less. The Framers didn’t have to envision a world where there would be people in need. In their time, there were plenty of people that needed help. I believe that if they intended for the federal government to offer entitlement programs they would have stated their intent through action.

Well, we can pick this up at a later date. I have a 7am flight and my pregnant wife is calling for me to come to bed. I know better than to question her intent. Have a good one and its been fun.
 
#92
#92
right, i already posted the thread and the link. Now i have to do your work for you?

:good!:

why does this surprise you, cleveland and youngstown are some of the nastiest places on earth with regards to corruption.


you forgot about chicago!!!! Isn't that the home of noted racists like farakhan and wright, terrorists like ayers. Community organizeres like; daily, obama, capone and nitti and there were also few admitted gangsters living there over time too.

how long did mrs. Obama work in the same law office with william "weathermen" ayers wife???????
 

VN Store



Back
Top