Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

[johnwk]

Are you now beginning to realize there is far more to determining the meaning of words in our Constitution than coming up with your "literal meaning"?

JWK

Nope. I am more convinced than ever that folks take plainly written words and add unneeded layers of complexity to them. But, I will concede that I would likely starve as a lawyer - let alone a judge.

This has nothing to do with lawyers and everything to do with adhering the meaning of words as they were understood when our Constitution was adopted, and precluding those who hold political power from attaching their own meanings to words in our Constitution.

Apparently you are comfortable with attaching your own meaning to words as they appear in our Constitution, even if they were not understood by our founders as you define them, which is exactly how our Constitution is now being subverted by those who hold political power.

Your sense of reasoning not only defies common sense, but the most fundamental rules of constitutional law.


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[candycorn]

Are you now beginning to realize there is far more to determining the meaning of words in our Constitution than coming up with your "literal meaning"?

JWK

Nope. I am more convinced than ever that folks take plainly written words and add unneeded layers of complexity to them. But, I will concede that I would likely starve as a lawyer - let alone a judge.

According to the website: Bill of Rights Transcript Text

This is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution:

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Wouldn't that mean that only those belonging to a "well regulated Militia" would be able to keep and bear Arms....if the state (50 states that is) prohibits gun ownership otherwise?

 

[konradv]

Apparently you are comfortable with attaching your own meaning to words as they appear in our Constitution, even if they were not understood by our founders as you define them, which is exactly how our Constitution is now being subverted by those who hold political power.

That seems to their "intent", i.e. that future generations interpret the Constitution in light of the situation at the time. Why else would they have given us such a short document, open to interpretation?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you now beginning to realize there is far more to determining the meaning of words in our Constitution than coming up with your "literal meaning"?

JWK

Nope. I am more convinced than ever that folks take plainly written words and add unneeded layers of complexity to them. But, I will concede that I would likely starve as a lawyer - let alone a judge.

This has nothing to do with lawyers and everything to do with adhering the meaning of words as they were understood when our Constitution was adopted, and precluding those who hold political power from attaching their own meanings to words in our Constitution.

Apparently you are comfortable with attaching your own meaning to words as they appear in our Constitution, even if they were not understood by our founders as you define them, which is exactly how our Constitution is now being subverted by those who hold political power.

Your sense of reasoning not only defies common sense, but the most fundamental rules of constitutional law.


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

So, as to the meaning of words, there is no mention whatsoever of fetuses or the unborn in the Constitution,

therefore, the correct ruling in Roe v. Wade should have been that a woman has the right to an abortion ANY time during a pregnancy, not just in the first trimester,

based on her right of privacy.

Agree or disagree?

 

[konradv]

Are you now beginning to realize there is far more to determining the meaning of words in our Constitution than coming up with your "literal meaning"?

JWK

Nope. I am more convinced than ever that folks take plainly written words and add unneeded layers of complexity to them. But, I will concede that I would likely starve as a lawyer - let alone a judge.

According to the website: Bill of Rights Transcript Text

This is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution:

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Wouldn't that mean that only those belonging to a "well regulated Militia" would be able to keep and bear Arms....if the state (50 states that is) prohibits gun ownership otherwise?

Also, since the 2nd says "the people" instead of "person" like in other amendments, wouldn't that make it a collective, rather than an individual, right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The argument would be that SCOTUS would leave such decisions up to the states, according to the neanderthals. And matters such as slavery, women's rights, and so forth.

 

[Katzndogz]

Nope. I am more convinced than ever that folks take plainly written words and add unneeded layers of complexity to them. But, I will concede that I would likely starve as a lawyer - let alone a judge.

This has nothing to do with lawyers and everything to do with adhering the meaning of words as they were understood when our Constitution was adopted, and precluding those who hold political power from attaching their own meanings to words in our Constitution.

Apparently you are comfortable with attaching your own meaning to words as they appear in our Constitution, even if they were not understood by our founders as you define them, which is exactly how our Constitution is now being subverted by those who hold political power.

Your sense of reasoning not only defies common sense, but the most fundamental rules of constitutional law.


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

So, as to the meaning of words, there is no mention whatsoever of fetuses or the unborn in the Constitution,

therefore, the correct ruling in Roe v. Wade should have been that a woman has the right to an abortion ANY time during a pregnancy, not just in the first trimester,

based on her right of privacy.

Agree or disagree?

A strict interpretation would be that abortion is a personal matter of the woman, which would NOT prohibit prosecution of anyone performing an abortion. Such an interpretation would prohibit the use of public funds to pay someone to perform an abortion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This has nothing to do with lawyers and everything to do with adhering the meaning of words as they were understood when our Constitution was adopted, and precluding those who hold political power from attaching their own meanings to words in our Constitution.

Apparently you are comfortable with attaching your own meaning to words as they appear in our Constitution, even if they were not understood by our founders as you define them, which is exactly how our Constitution is now being subverted by those who hold political power.

Your sense of reasoning not only defies common sense, but the most fundamental rules of constitutional law.


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

So, as to the meaning of words, there is no mention whatsoever of fetuses or the unborn in the Constitution,

therefore, the correct ruling in Roe v. Wade should have been that a woman has the right to an abortion ANY time during a pregnancy, not just in the first trimester,

based on her right of privacy.

Agree or disagree?

A strict interpretation would be that abortion is a personal matter of the woman, which would NOT prohibit prosecution of anyone performing an abortion. Such an interpretation would prohibit the use of public funds to pay someone to perform an abortion.

Constitutionally? What do you prosecute an abortion doctor for? Practicing medicine?

 

[NYcarbineer]

This has nothing to do with lawyers and everything to do with adhering the meaning of words as they were understood when our Constitution was adopted, and precluding those who hold political power from attaching their own meanings to words in our Constitution.

Apparently you are comfortable with attaching your own meaning to words as they appear in our Constitution, even if they were not understood by our founders as you define them, which is exactly how our Constitution is now being subverted by those who hold political power.

Your sense of reasoning not only defies common sense, but the most fundamental rules of constitutional law.


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

So, as to the meaning of words, there is no mention whatsoever of fetuses or the unborn in the Constitution,

therefore, the correct ruling in Roe v. Wade should have been that a woman has the right to an abortion ANY time during a pregnancy, not just in the first trimester,

based on her right of privacy.

Agree or disagree?

A strict interpretation would be that abortion is a personal matter of the woman, which would NOT prohibit prosecution of anyone performing an abortion. Such an interpretation would prohibit the use of public funds to pay someone to perform an abortion.

In a strict interpretation, the surgical removal of a fetus would be constitutionally no different than the surgical removal of an appendix.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So, as to the meaning of words, there is no mention whatsoever of fetuses or the unborn in the Constitution,

therefore, the correct ruling in Roe v. Wade should have been that a woman has the right to an abortion ANY time during a pregnancy, not just in the first trimester,

based on her right of privacy.

Agree or disagree?

A strict interpretation would be that abortion is a personal matter of the woman, which would NOT prohibit prosecution of anyone performing an abortion. Such an interpretation would prohibit the use of public funds to pay someone to perform an abortion.

In a strict interpretation, the surgical removal of a fetus would be constitutionally no different than the surgical removal of an appendix.

A progressive right wing pro-lifer would want big government intervention on her behalf.

 

[Katzndogz]

So, as to the meaning of words, there is no mention whatsoever of fetuses or the unborn in the Constitution,

therefore, the correct ruling in Roe v. Wade should have been that a woman has the right to an abortion ANY time during a pregnancy, not just in the first trimester,

based on her right of privacy.

Agree or disagree?

A strict interpretation would be that abortion is a personal matter of the woman, which would NOT prohibit prosecution of anyone performing an abortion. Such an interpretation would prohibit the use of public funds to pay someone to perform an abortion.

In a strict interpretation, the surgical removal of a fetus would be constitutionally no different than the surgical removal of an appendix.

Then a fetus is not a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. I don't see any exclusions in the Constitution. A woman's right to privacy in the inner workings of her body would likely be respected. A third party interfering would be murder.

We, today, prosecute the murder of an unborn child as a murder. Ask Scott Peterson if you don't believe me. We just draw a distinction between medical professionals acting on the request of the mother and outright killers who might also be acting at the request of the mother. It is no defense to murder of an unborn child that the mother has consented to being beaten in the belly until she miscarried. There is no provision in the Constitution for this kind of distinction. It's just not there! I might also add that it is medical malpractice to surgically remove an appendix that is not diseased.

 

[johnwk]

Are you now beginning to realize there is far more to determining the meaning of words in our Constitution than coming up with your "literal meaning"?

JWK

Nope. I am more convinced than ever that folks take plainly written words and add unneeded layers of complexity to them. But, I will concede that I would likely starve as a lawyer - let alone a judge.

According to the website: Bill of Rights Transcript Text

This is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution:

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Wouldn't that mean that only those belonging to a "well regulated Militia" would be able to keep and bear Arms....if the state (50 states that is) prohibits gun ownership otherwise?

To answer your question we must first determine the intentions for which the first ten amendments were proposed and adopted. Keep in mind that prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution and its first ten amendment, the people of each State had already adopted a State Constitution and Declaration of Rights!

The simple truth is, after creating our federal Constitution which became effective in 1789, ten amendments were quickly adopted [1791] which were intentionally designed “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of “ the new government’s “powers“, and is so stated in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .

The fact is, the first ten amendments were prohibitions placed upon the newly created federal government and had nothing to do with the internal affairs of the States or the people therein. As a matter of fact Madison during the adoption of the amendments informs us the very object of the amendments were in support of preserving “federalism” our Constitutions plan:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

Now, with regard to fundamental rights of individuals and the protection of these rights within the various states, let us take a look at what the people, for example, of the State of Pennsylvania, agree upon before our federal government was even created, and did so in their State’s fundamental law otherwise known as Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights, adopted in 1776.


I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

II. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding: And that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent: Nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship: And that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.

III. That the people of this State have the sole, exclusive and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.
IV. That all power being originally inherent in, and consequently derived from, the people; therefore all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants, and at all times accountable to them.

V. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family, or soft of men, who are a part only of that community, And that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish government in such manner as shall be by that community judged most conducive to the public weal.

VIII. That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence of that protection, and yield his personal service when necessary, or an equivalent thereto: But no part of a man's property can be justly taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of his legal representatives: Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent, nor are the people bound by any laws, but such as they have in like manner assented to, for their common good.

IX. That in all prosecutions for criminal offences, a man hath a right to be heard by himself and his council, to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses, to call for evidence in his favour, and a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury of the country, without the unanimous consent of which jury he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; nor can any man be justly deprived of his liberty except by the laws of the land, or the judgment of his peers.

X. That the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers, and possessions free from search and seizure, and therefore warrants without oaths or affirmations first made, affording a sufficient foundation for them, and whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or persons, his or their property, not particularly described, are contrary to that right, and ought not to be granted.

XI. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the parties have a right to trial by jury, which ought to be held sacred.

XII. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained.

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

XIV. That a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep a government free: The people ought therefore to pay particular attention to these points in the choice of officers and representatives, and have a right to exact a due and constant regard to them, from their legislatures and magistrates, in the making and executing such laws as are necessary for the good government of the state.

XV. That all men have a natural inherent right to emigrate from one state to another that will receive them, or to form a new state in vacant countries, or in such countries as they can purchase, whenever they think that thereby they may promote their own happiness.

XVI. That the people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the legislature for redress of grievances, by address, petition, or remonstrance.




So, as it turns out with respect to Pennsylvania, documented history tells us the people therein protected themselves from the exercise of state government power by their State‘s Constitution, and, by the adoption of the 2nd Amendment they went on to specifically forbid the federal government from infringing upon the people’s right already established under State authority, that is, to keep and bear arms already established by their state Declaration of Rights.

When one reads the 2nd Amendment it is declaring by its very wording the federal government shall not infringe upon a right already established. And, the Tenth Amendment further declares the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.


JWK

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you now beginning to realize there is far more to determining the meaning of words in our Constitution than coming up with your "literal meaning"?

JWK

Nope. I am more convinced than ever that folks take plainly written words and add unneeded layers of complexity to them. But, I will concede that I would likely starve as a lawyer - let alone a judge.

According to the website: Bill of Rights Transcript Text

This is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution:

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Wouldn't that mean that only those belonging to a "well regulated Militia" would be able to keep and bear Arms....if the state (50 states that is) prohibits gun ownership otherwise?

No, it means you can regulate the militia, not guns.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nope. I am more convinced than ever that folks take plainly written words and add unneeded layers of complexity to them. But, I will concede that I would likely starve as a lawyer - let alone a judge.

This has nothing to do with lawyers and everything to do with adhering the meaning of words as they were understood when our Constitution was adopted, and precluding those who hold political power from attaching their own meanings to words in our Constitution.

Apparently you are comfortable with attaching your own meaning to words as they appear in our Constitution, even if they were not understood by our founders as you define them, which is exactly how our Constitution is now being subverted by those who hold political power.

Your sense of reasoning not only defies common sense, but the most fundamental rules of constitutional law.


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

So, as to the meaning of words, there is no mention whatsoever of fetuses or the unborn in the Constitution,

therefore, the correct ruling in Roe v. Wade should have been that a woman has the right to an abortion ANY time during a pregnancy, not just in the first trimester,

based on her right of privacy.

Agree or disagree?

Not only do I disagree with that, so do you, and I can prove it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The argument would be that SCOTUS would leave such decisions up to the states, according to the neanderthals. And matters such as slavery, women's rights, and so forth.

They should, except in cases where the Constitution over rules states. Which is why your argument is stupid, since the 14th clearly over rides states on those issues, despite the ruling of SCOTUS to the contrary.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, as to the meaning of words, there is no mention whatsoever of fetuses or the unborn in the Constitution,

therefore, the correct ruling in Roe v. Wade should have been that a woman has the right to an abortion ANY time during a pregnancy, not just in the first trimester,

based on her right of privacy.

Agree or disagree?

A strict interpretation would be that abortion is a personal matter of the woman, which would NOT prohibit prosecution of anyone performing an abortion. Such an interpretation would prohibit the use of public funds to pay someone to perform an abortion.

In a strict interpretation, the surgical removal of a fetus would be constitutionally no different than the surgical removal of an appendix.

In a strict interpretation there is always differences between medical procedures, unless you are an idiot who does not understand the difference between left and right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A strict interpretation would be that abortion is a personal matter of the woman, which would NOT prohibit prosecution of anyone performing an abortion. Such an interpretation would prohibit the use of public funds to pay someone to perform an abortion.

In a strict interpretation, the surgical removal of a fetus would be constitutionally no different than the surgical removal of an appendix.

In a strict interpretation there is always differences between medical procedures, unless you are an idiot who does not understand the difference between left and right.

Really? Where in the constitution is there any reference whatsoever to a fetus?

You can't get to 'fetus' without 'interpretation', or without drawing on resources outside the Constitution.

Using the Constitution strictly and literally, in the manner johnwk insists on, show us the difference between an abortion and an appendectomy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A strict interpretation would be that abortion is a personal matter of the woman, which would NOT prohibit prosecution of anyone performing an abortion. Such an interpretation would prohibit the use of public funds to pay someone to perform an abortion.

In a strict interpretation, the surgical removal of a fetus would be constitutionally no different than the surgical removal of an appendix.

Then a fetus is not a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. I don't see any exclusions in the Constitution. A woman's right to privacy in the inner workings of her body would likely be respected. A third party interfering would be murder.

We, today, prosecute the murder of an unborn child as a murder. Ask Scott Peterson if you don't believe me. We just draw a distinction between medical professionals acting on the request of the mother and outright killers who might also be acting at the request of the mother. It is no defense to murder of an unborn child that the mother has consented to being beaten in the belly until she miscarried. There is no provision in the Constitution for this kind of distinction. It's just not there! I might also add that it is medical malpractice to surgically remove an appendix that is not diseased.

We're talking about the Constitution and a strict application of the same. There is absolutely no reference to the unborn in the Constitution,

therefore, Constitutionally, a fetus cannot be 'murdered', because it has no standing as a person in a strict application of the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This has nothing to do with lawyers and everything to do with adhering the meaning of words as they were understood when our Constitution was adopted, and precluding those who hold political power from attaching their own meanings to words in our Constitution.

Apparently you are comfortable with attaching your own meaning to words as they appear in our Constitution, even if they were not understood by our founders as you define them, which is exactly how our Constitution is now being subverted by those who hold political power.

Your sense of reasoning not only defies common sense, but the most fundamental rules of constitutional law.


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

So, as to the meaning of words, there is no mention whatsoever of fetuses or the unborn in the Constitution,

therefore, the correct ruling in Roe v. Wade should have been that a woman has the right to an abortion ANY time during a pregnancy, not just in the first trimester,

based on her right of privacy.

Agree or disagree?

Not only do I disagree with that, so do you, and I can prove it.

I didn't say that was my opinion. That is the conclusion I come to applying the principles of johnwk,

i.e., that you can't read into the Constitution anything that isn't there, or make up new meanings for words.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The argument would be that SCOTUS would leave such decisions up to the states, according to the neanderthals. And matters such as slavery, women's rights, and so forth.

They should, except in cases where the Constitution over rules states. Which is why your argument is stupid, since the 14th clearly over rides states on those issues, despite the ruling of SCOTUS to the contrary.

The right of privacy, which is Constitutionally protected, overrides any rights granted a fetus, which has absolutely no Constitutional protection in a strict interpretation.

Go read Roe v. Wade and remind yourself how the court came to the conclusion that post first trimester fetuses could be granted rights and protections by the states.