A Majority of people polled want the Supremes to rule based upon what the Constitution means today.

[Uncensored2008]

So YOU say....of course, we can, and do, change the interpretation of the Constitution without changing the words. Obviously. Legally. Regardless of what armchair Constitutionalists may think or feel.

Reality is.

So then this is a dictatorship, not a representative republic, and you like that.

 

[postman]

Well regulated means "well armed.".

That has never been the meaning of "well regulated". In fact, it carries the the opposite meaning.

 

[postman]

You're nuts. So, you are OK with a judge determining that the constitution in 2018 should mean "X"?

In times of yore, an identification of a criminal, to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" required an eye witness to put them at the crime scene. Later, a latent finger print could provide adequate proof. Now a single hair left at the scene can suffice. If you asked if a hair or a fingerprint left at the scene could identify somebody "beyond a reasonable doubt" when the constitution was written, they would have laughed in your face.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

So YOU say....of course, we can, and do, change the interpretation of the Constitution without changing the words. Obviously. Legally. Regardless of what armchair Constitutionalists may think or feel.

Reality is.

So then this is a dictatorship, not a representative republic, and you like that.

Have you ever noticed..that you are debating yourself..using your own terms...and not addressing what I say at all? Do you vote? If you believe that this is a Dictatorship, why?
Yes, warts and all, I like my country and I support our form of govt. even when I disagree with it.

Either you are completely lost..or you are exaggerating for effect.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So YOU say....of course, we can, and do, change the interpretation of the Constitution without changing the words. Obviously. Legally. Regardless of what armchair Constitutionalists may think or feel.

Hence the need to read it with an originalist's eye. If you change the meaning of the words from their 18th Century definitions to whatever they may be accepted as now, you change the meaning of the Constitution, and by that process it is not permitted.

 

[SavannahMann]

Well regulated means "well armed.".

That has never been the meaning of "well regulated". In fact, it carries the the opposite meaning.

In context, we’ll regulated meant the Governors had the power to appoint officers. Militia that had been called up, which consisted of every able bodied free man, were subject to military orders and discipline. Not the idea that they were to be unarmed. In fact, men were required to own weapons in several states.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well regulated means "well armed.".

That has never been the meaning of "well regulated". In fact, it carries the the opposite meaning.

Ah, a lying Stalinist - how unusual.

Sorry Comrade, you are full of shit.

{
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."


1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.}


http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Try again.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're nuts. So, you are OK with a judge determining that the constitution in 2018 should mean "X"?

In times of yore, an identification of a criminal, to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" required an eye witness to put them at the crime scene. Later, a latent finger print could provide adequate proof. Now a single hair left at the scene can suffice. If you asked if a hair or a fingerprint left at the scene could identify somebody "beyond a reasonable doubt" when the constitution was written, they would have laughed in your face.

False, there was never a requirement for eye witness testimony.

You just make shit up that you think will further the Communist agenda, with zero regard for whether it happens to be true.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

So YOU say....of course, we can, and do, change the interpretation of the Constitution without changing the words. Obviously. Legally. Regardless of what armchair Constitutionalists may think or feel.

Hence the need to read it with an originalist's eye. If you change the meaning of the words from their 18th Century definitions to whatever they may be accepted as now, you change the meaning of the Constitution, and by that process is not permitted.

Yes..yes it is permitted...obviously. You may argue that it is not right...but that it is permitted..is beyond question. In most cases, the meaning of the words is not changed..but the struggle is how to apply them to real-world situations that the FF's never envisioned.

As an aside, people on the right are not above changing words meanings to support their agendas....such as the idiocy of claiming that 'well-regulated' means well armed.

Regulated means controlled..simple as that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So YOU say....of course, we can, and do, change the interpretation of the Constitution without changing the words. Obviously. Legally. Regardless of what armchair Constitutionalists may think or feel.

Hence the need to read it with an originalist's eye. If you change the meaning of the words from their 18th Century definitions to whatever they may be accepted as now, you change the meaning of the Constitution, and by that process is not permitted.

Yes..yes it is permitted...obviously. You may argue that it is not right...but that it is permitted..is beyond question. In most cases, the meaning of the words is not changed..but the struggle is how to apply them to real-world situations that the FF's never envisioned.

As an aside, people on the right are not above changing words meanings to support their agendas....such as the idiocy of claiming that 'well-regulated' means well armed.

Regulated means controlled..simple as that.

No Comrade, it sure doesn't.

Outfitted to regulation,

 

[OKTexas]

OK, you are the one who is wrong on this.

Feel free to point to my mistake in the verbiage of the contract. Or you could provide the agreement to the alteration, signed by the parties to the contract. Those are the only ways to prove me wrong..

Your errors have been rebutted many times with factual, objective evidence, and you simply go to the equivalent of "nuh uh, what about you."

(1) The OP is correct about how the majority want the Constitution handled in American law.

(2) SCOTUS has made it clear that it will decide how to do that, not the far right.

Yet you can't demonstrate what in the Constitution gives the feds the right to regulate the potted tomato plant on your patio. Other than unelected lawyers says they can. Good job, commie.


.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

So YOU say....of course, we can, and do, change the interpretation of the Constitution without changing the words. Obviously. Legally. Regardless of what armchair Constitutionalists may think or feel.

Hence the need to read it with an originalist's eye. If you change the meaning of the words from their 18th Century definitions to whatever they may be accepted as now, you change the meaning of the Constitution, and by that process is not permitted.

Yes..yes it is permitted...obviously. You may argue that it is not right...but that it is permitted..is beyond question. In most cases, the meaning of the words is not changed..but the struggle is how to apply them to real-world situations that the FF's never envisioned.

As an aside, people on the right are not above changing words meanings to support their agendas....such as the idiocy of claiming that 'well-regulated' means well armed.

Regulated means controlled..simple as that.

No Comrade, it sure doesn't.

Outfitted to regulation,

No dumb-ass..you are wrong...again..or still. You need some better spin..because that shyte is lame.

 

[OKTexas]

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

By today's standards, the FFs are the barbarous ancestors. Thomas Jefferson had the foresight to know that.

Yep, that's why they included Article 5. Commies prefer the courts.


.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So YOU say....of course, we can, and do, change the interpretation of the Constitution without changing the words. Obviously. Legally. Regardless of what armchair Constitutionalists may think or feel.

Hence the need to read it with an originalist's eye. If you change the meaning of the words from their 18th Century definitions to whatever they may be accepted as now, you change the meaning of the Constitution, and by that process is not permitted.

Yes..yes it is permitted...obviously. You may argue that it is not right...but that it is permitted..is beyond question. In most cases, the meaning of the words is not changed..but the struggle is how to apply them to real-world situations that the FF's never envisioned.

As an aside, people on the right are not above changing words meanings to support their agendas....such as the idiocy of claiming that 'well-regulated' means well armed.

Regulated means controlled..simple as that.

No Comrade, it sure doesn't.

Outfitted to regulation,

No dumb-ass..you are wrong...again..or still. You need some better spin..because that shyte is lame.

Learn to read, stupid.

A Majority of people polled want the Supremes to rule based upon what the Constitution means today.

Fucking Stalinists....

 

[Uncensored2008]

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

By today's standards, the FFs are the barbarous ancestors. Thomas Jefferson had the foresight to know that.

Yep, that's why they included Article 5. Commies prefer the courts.


.

Courts who USURPED a power not granted by the Constitution they seek to pervert.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

OK, you are the one who is wrong on this.

Feel free to point to my mistake in the verbiage of the contract. Or you could provide the agreement to the alteration, signed by the parties to the contract. Those are the only ways to prove me wrong..

Your errors have been rebutted many times with factual, objective evidence, and you simply go to the equivalent of "nuh uh, what about you."

(1) The OP is correct about how the majority want the Constitution handled in American law.

(2) SCOTUS has made it clear that it will decide how to do that, not the far right.

Yet you can't demonstrate what in the Constitution gives the feds the right to regulate the potted tomato plant on your patio. Other than unelected lawyers says they can. Good job, commie.


.

Wow..I wonder if you actually read what you write? We, the people, decide...and we have said, over time, that the Federal govt. can do certain things..you may or may not agree, but our government governs with the permission of the governed. You can, and no doubt will, argue that, yet it is the reality.

This may shock you, but there is more to the philosophical and legal underpinnings of our country..than just the Constitution.

BTW..I find it amusing...this insistence on referring to the SCOTUS as 'unelected lawyers' in a discussion of the very Constitution that established their authority as one of the Branches of our govt..

 

[Uncensored2008]

OK, you are the one who is wrong on this.

Feel free to point to my mistake in the verbiage of the contract. Or you could provide the agreement to the alteration, signed by the parties to the contract. Those are the only ways to prove me wrong..

Your errors have been rebutted many times with factual, objective evidence, and you simply go to the equivalent of "nuh uh, what about you."

(1) The OP is correct about how the majority want the Constitution handled in American law.

(2) SCOTUS has made it clear that it will decide how to do that, not the far right.

Yet you can't demonstrate what in the Constitution gives the feds the right to regulate the potted tomato plant on your patio. Other than unelected lawyers says they can. Good job, commie.


.

Wow..I wonder if you actually read what you write? We, the people, decide...and we have said, over time, that the Federal govt. can do certain things..you may or may not agree, but our government governs with the permission of the governed. You can, and no doubt will, argue that, yet it is the reality.

This may shock you, but there is more to the philosophical and legal underpinnings of our country..than just the Constitution.

BTW..I find it amusing...this insistence on referring to the SCOTUS as 'unelected lawyers' in a discussion of the very Constitution that established their authority as one of the Branches of our govt..

Oh, you decide through unelected judges who are appointed for life with virtually no checks or balances?

You Stalinists sure are smart....

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

So YOU say....of course, we can, and do, change the interpretation of the Constitution without changing the words. Obviously. Legally. Regardless of what armchair Constitutionalists may think or feel.

Hence the need to read it with an originalist's eye. If you change the meaning of the words from their 18th Century definitions to whatever they may be accepted as now, you change the meaning of the Constitution, and by that process is not permitted.

Yes..yes it is permitted...obviously. You may argue that it is not right...but that it is permitted..is beyond question. In most cases, the meaning of the words is not changed..but the struggle is how to apply them to real-world situations that the FF's never envisioned.

As an aside, people on the right are not above changing words meanings to support their agendas....such as the idiocy of claiming that 'well-regulated' means well armed.

Regulated means controlled..simple as that.

No Comrade, it sure doesn't.

Outfitted to regulation,

No dumb-ass..you are wrong...again..or still. You need some better spin..because that shyte is lame.

Learn to read, stupid.

A Majority of people polled want the Supremes to rule based upon what the Constitution means today.

Fucking Stalinists....

Fucking idiot! You link another lame post..to justify your current lame post! Learn to think..you poster child for Darwinist culling.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

OK, you are the one who is wrong on this.

Feel free to point to my mistake in the verbiage of the contract. Or you could provide the agreement to the alteration, signed by the parties to the contract. Those are the only ways to prove me wrong..

Your errors have been rebutted many times with factual, objective evidence, and you simply go to the equivalent of "nuh uh, what about you."

(1) The OP is correct about how the majority want the Constitution handled in American law.

(2) SCOTUS has made it clear that it will decide how to do that, not the far right.

Yet you can't demonstrate what in the Constitution gives the feds the right to regulate the potted tomato plant on your patio. Other than unelected lawyers says they can. Good job, commie.


.

Wow..I wonder if you actually read what you write? We, the people, decide...and we have said, over time, that the Federal govt. can do certain things..you may or may not agree, but our government governs with the permission of the governed. You can, and no doubt will, argue that, yet it is the reality.

This may shock you, but there is more to the philosophical and legal underpinnings of our country..than just the Constitution.

BTW..I find it amusing...this insistence on referring to the SCOTUS as 'unelected lawyers' in a discussion of the very Constitution that established their authority as one of the Branches of our govt..

Oh, you decide through unelected judges who are appointed for life with virtually no checks or balances?

You Stalinists sure are smart....

So..you're saying that the FF's were Stalinists? Since they set it up that way....in our Constitution.

You really are quite stupid...please continue to demonstrate it to us all. Your fellow travelers on the right are no doubt cringing at what a poor case you are making.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You're nuts. So, you are OK with a judge determining that the constitution in 2018 should mean "X"?

In times of yore, an identification of a criminal, to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" required an eye witness to put them at the crime scene. Later, a latent finger print could provide adequate proof. Now a single hair left at the scene can suffice. If you asked if a hair or a fingerprint left at the scene could identify somebody "beyond a reasonable doubt" when the constitution was written, they would have laughed in your face.

Irrelevant, you still have to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing has changed.