CDZ My child's right to a safe school versus your right to guns

[JakeStarkey]

Thus, we need to have a national figures out how to keep guns away from crazies without affecting the right of others to have them.

Well Jake we regulate movies so you have to mature into them! What if we raised the age to own a semi auto to 25? Now this would not have stopped Paddock, but the other shootings? MAY have helped. It does NOT remove the right only says you have to mature into it. Fury

Perhaps so.

How about having to pass a mental examination to own a gun and every three years after that.

How about having to pass a test to vote and every 3 years after that?

Your example, RGS, of a relative false equivalency is excellent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Xelor's scree is laughable and need not be addressed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thus, we need to have a national figures out how to keep guns away from crazies without affecting the right of others to have them.

Well Jake we regulate movies so you have to mature into them! What if we raised the age to own a semi auto to 25? Now this would not have stopped Paddock, but the other shootings? MAY have helped. It does NOT remove the right only says you have to mature into it. Fury

Perhaps so.

How about having to pass a mental examination to own a gun and every three years after that.

How about having to pass a test to vote and every 3 years after that?

Your example, RGS, of a relative false equivalency is excellent.

Wrong a constitutional right can not be limited by test the Supreme Court so ruled.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My child has a constitutional right to go to school safely. I believe that outweighs a nut case's right to own and bear guns.

We need to find a way to break that access link between a nut and a gun.

We need to identify the first problem, which is

My child has a constitutional right to go to school safely.

?? What clause(s) of Constitution declare or grant anyone the right to safety of any sort, let along the specific type called "school safety," aside from "safety" (freedom) from certain acts, means and modes of federal government imposition?

AFAIK, the only part of the Constitution that even alludes to notions of ensuring public safety is in the preamble.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

The Constitution, largely via Articles I and IV, empowers Congress to pass laws -- "lesser" laws, laws that derive from interpretations of the Constitution, but that are not themselves in the Constitution -- designed to protect Americans' safety, both in total and individually. Such laws, though they find general acceptance among the polity and the judiciary deems them lawful, are not, however, Constitutional rights.

The reasons the Constitution does not guarantee safety or grant a right thereunto are easily understood:

• Nobody and no creature has a right to safety; however, all creatures desire safety and act to obtain it.
• Safety cannot be guaranteed.

The Founders didn't expressly and in general desire that anyone's safety be denied, risked or compromised, but they knew quite well that nothing they might pen on paper would guarantee it, to say nothing of elevate it to right status. The best they could do is facilitate the government's ability to attempt to ensure the people's and nation's safety, and that's what they did.

As for the theme of image/meme (?) in the OP, I think one can credibly make the case that Congress has abrogated its duty to pass laws that alter the "value proposition," if you will, of acting on one's murderous intentions to visit death and injury on children -- particularly while they are at school and/or schooled as a result of being students of one or more schools -- and adults caring for them. The "value proposition" as it relates to attacking schools and their occupants is not, however, the only one pertaining to unlawfully and immorally lethal behavior that Congress has failed to satisfactorily manage. It is merely the one that presently most pervades and impassions American public discourse.

See post #199.

 

[Picaro]

Thus, we need to have a national figures out how to keep guns away from crazies without affecting the right of others to have them.

Well Jake we regulate movies so you have to mature into them! What if we raised the age to own a semi auto to 25? Now this would not have stopped Paddock, but the other shootings? MAY have helped. It does NOT remove the right only says you have to mature into it. Fury

Perhaps so.

How about having to pass a mental examination to own a gun and every three years after that.

How about having to pass a test to vote and every 3 years after that?

Your example, RGS, of a relative false equivalency is excellent.

The Constitution doesn't have squat to do with your personal safety , Jake. You're just some narcissist who can't accept the fact almost nothing on this Earth has you as its reason for existing, that's all. Your name appears nowhere in the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Picaro is lost in la la land as usual.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The gunners running away from logical argument

 

[SFC Ollie]

Good to see you haven't changed any Jake.... But first you must present a logical argument.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Thus, we need to have a national figures out how to keep guns away from crazies without affecting the right of others to have them.

Well Jake we regulate movies so you have to mature into them! What if we raised the age to own a semi auto to 25? Now this would not have stopped Paddock, but the other shootings? MAY have helped. It does NOT remove the right only says you have to mature into it. Fury

Perhaps so.

How about having to pass a mental examination to own a gun and every three years after that.

How about having to pass a test to vote and every 3 years after that?

Your example, RGS, of a relative false equivalency is excellent.

Wrong a constitutional right can not be limited by test the Supreme Court so ruled.

Where in COTUS is Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803); where in COTUS is the power of the President to issue an EO?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good to see you haven't changed any Jake.... But first you must present a logical argument.

I did above, Ollie, and the far right cry and jump up and down, yet cannot logically argue against it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well Jake we regulate movies so you have to mature into them! What if we raised the age to own a semi auto to 25? Now this would not have stopped Paddock, but the other shootings? MAY have helped. It does NOT remove the right only says you have to mature into it. Fury

Perhaps so.

How about having to pass a mental examination to own a gun and every three years after that.

How about having to pass a test to vote and every 3 years after that?

Your example, RGS, of a relative false equivalency is excellent.

Wrong a constitutional right can not be limited by test the Supreme Court so ruled.

Where in COTUS is Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803); where in COTUS is the power of the President to issue an EO?

RGS, please think and reconsider.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Good to see you haven't changed any Jake.... But first you must present a logical argument.

I did above, Ollie, and the far right cry and jump up and down, yet cannot logically argue against it.

I guess I just don't see it....

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, Ollie.

Hope you are well.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

My child has a constitutional right to go to school safely. I believe that outweighs a nut case's right to own and bear guns.

We need to find a way to break that access link between a nut and a gun.

We need to identify the first problem, which is

What kind of person puts a Flame OP in CDZ?

 

[SFC Ollie]

OK, Ollie.

Hope you are well.

I'm still vertical...

 

[Frankeneinstein]

My child has a constitutional right to go to school safely. I believe that outweighs a nut case's right to own and bear guns.

We need to find a way to break that access link between a nut and a gun.

We need to identify the first problem, which is

You are so worried about your childs safety that you left out the evil constitution in your theory

 

[Picaro]

Good to see you haven't changed any Jake.... But first you must present a logical argument.

Far too high a bar for Jake to jump over.

 

[Picaro]

My child has a constitutional right to go to school safely. I believe that outweighs a nut case's right to own and bear guns.

We need to find a way to break that access link between a nut and a gun.

We need to identify the first problem, which is

You are so worried about your childs safety that you left out the evil constitution in your theory

You think Jake has ever had heterosexual relations that would lead to having children? With another human, I mean, not a female puppy or something.

 

[usmbguest5318]

My child has a constitutional right to go to school safely. I believe that outweighs a nut case's right to own and bear guns.

We need to find a way to break that access link between a nut and a gun.

We need to identify the first problem, which is

My child has a constitutional right to go to school safely.

?? What clause(s) of Constitution declare or grant anyone the right to safety of any sort, let along the specific type called "school safety," aside from "safety" (freedom) from certain acts, means and modes of federal government imposition?

AFAIK, the only part of the Constitution that even alludes to notions of ensuring public safety is in the preamble.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

The Constitution, largely via Articles I and IV, empowers Congress to pass laws -- "lesser" laws, laws that derive from interpretations of the Constitution, but that are not themselves in the Constitution -- designed to protect Americans' safety, both in total and individually. Such laws, though they find general acceptance among the polity and the judiciary deems them lawful, are not, however, Constitutional rights.

The reasons the Constitution does not guarantee safety or grant a right thereunto are easily understood:

• Nobody and no creature has a right to safety; however, all creatures desire safety and act to obtain it.
• Safety cannot be guaranteed.

The Founders didn't expressly and in general desire that anyone's safety be denied, risked or compromised, but they knew quite well that nothing they might pen on paper would guarantee it, to say nothing of elevate it to right status. The best they could do is facilitate the government's ability to attempt to ensure the people's and nation's safety, and that's what they did.

As for the theme of image/meme (?) in the OP, I think one can credibly make the case that Congress has abrogated its duty to pass laws that alter the "value proposition," if you will, of acting on one's murderous intentions to visit death and injury on children -- particularly while they are at school and/or schooled as a result of being students of one or more schools -- and adults caring for them. The "value proposition" as it relates to attacking schools and their occupants is not, however, the only one pertaining to unlawfully and immorally lethal behavior that Congress has failed to satisfactorily manage. It is merely the one that presently most pervades and impassions American public discourse.

See post #199.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law. “But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’ The Constitution ‘says’ that in the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of procedural due process, where the Supreme Court has held that students have a “legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property right.” (Goss v. Lopez)

I have read post 199.

students have a “legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property right.”

Entitlement to public education is not "a Constitutional right to safety" of any sort, yet the notion of safety as right is what post 219 addresses. It is a right to public education. The two are not the same things.

Is being safe while being educated someone one should expect, require, demand, etc? Yes, of course. It's even reasonable to expect jurisdictions to take reasonable (but not extraordinary) actions to establish safety at public schools. That said, none of that gives safety the status of a right.

What are rights?

• Natural rights --> Movement, existence, property (temporary and limited), and nourishment
• Declared rights --> Freedom of expression, freedom to bear arms, due process, etc.

Nature definitely doesn't accord to any creature safety. Safety is nothing other than status (not a right) that must be earned and sometimes defended. For the reasons outlined in post 219, safety has yet to be declared as a Constitutional right. Does the absence of safety portend to compromise one, several or all of one's rights? It sure does, but that still doesn't make safety itself be a right.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law.

??? -- I don't know what you think you were communicating by that sentence.

• Case law (also called common law) is laws that have come about of been enacted based on court rulings. These laws are developed based on rulings that have been given in older court cases. (Source)
• Constitutional Law is the body of law that defines the relationship between different entities within a nation, most commonly the judiciary, the executive and the legislature bodies. (Source)
• Statutory Laws are laws that have been written down and codified by the legislative branch of a country. The law has been set down by a legislature or legislator. (Source)

The Constitution is part of statutory law; therefore, while it's correct to say that common/case law exists within the context of the Constitution, it's not accurate to say that the Constitution exists within the context of common law. It's not accurate to say also because case/common law results from courts' interpretations and applications of statutes/statutory laws.

In other words, the "cart" must follow the "horse," not the other way round. Or, if one prefers mathematics analogies, there is no "commutative property" of case and statutory laws as there is with multiplication or addition; "order of operations" matters when describing the relationship among genres of law.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Doesnt surprise me Jake left out the most IMPORTANT part.
The COTUS

Just out of curiosity, why do you use that abbreviation?

It is the United States Constitution, and there is no such thing as the Constitution of the United States. In fact the wording in the Constitution's preamble calls itself is a "Constitution for the United States of America."

Just a pet peeve of mine!

Another is using SCOTUS instead of the more correct USSC, which is shorter and more accurate.

I understand POTUS and FLOTUS, but never got why we should use the other two.