The Right To Bear Arms

[Quantum Windbag]

Some lawyers learn not to ask a question if they do not know the answer. Good premise.

Did I ask a question?

No, I asked the question, where is the Supreme Court given the power in the constitution to interpret the constitution and no one replied. So I answered the question myself, it was not.

You did not ask that question, you asked if anyone can show where in the 14th amendment it mentions incorporation, or what part of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitution.

I answered yes.

 

[Billo_Really]

Can you provide documentation, or are we supposed to take your word for it?

Although I think my word is pretty kick-ass, I will grant your request.

The Right’s Second Amendment Fraud

Drafted by a congressional committee that seemed a bit challenged in the precise use of punctuation, it reads: “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.”

No where in there does it say "defending against the federal government".

 

[regent]

Did I ask a question?

No, I asked the question, where is the Supreme Court given the power in the constitution to interpret the constitution and no one replied. So I answered the question myself, it was not.

You did not ask that question, you asked if anyone can show where in the 14th amendment it mentions incorporation, or what part of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitution.

I answered yes.

Both questions are related to the same answer. If the constitution never gave the Court the power in the constitution to interpret the constitution then the Court could not have interpreted the the 14th. amendment applying the Bill of Rights to the states. But the Court took the power unto itself and the nation accepted it. If you can show in the constitution where the Court was given the power, I'll listen, but it's a dead issue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can you provide documentation, or are we supposed to take your word for it?

Although I think my word is pretty kick-ass, I will grant your request.

The Right’s Second Amendment Fraud

Drafted by a congressional committee that seemed a bit challenged in the precise use of punctuation, it reads: “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.”

No where in there does it say "defending against the federal government".

Strange, you never said it didn't say anything about defending against the federal government, you claimed that the founders intended the 2nd to apply only to a well regulated militia. So far you have provided no evidence to back that claim up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I asked the question, where is the Supreme Court given the power in the constitution to interpret the constitution and no one replied. So I answered the question myself, it was not.

You did not ask that question, you asked if anyone can show where in the 14th amendment it mentions incorporation, or what part of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitution.

I answered yes.

Both questions are related to the same answer. If the constitution never gave the Court the power in the constitution to interpret the constitution then the Court could not have interpreted the the 14th. amendment applying the Bill of Rights to the states. But the Court took the power unto itself and the nation accepted it. If you can show in the constitution where the Court was given the power, I'll listen, but it's a dead issue.

Article 3 Section 2, original text.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
​

11th Amendment.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
​

Care to explain how, if the Supreme Court is not allowed to read, and interpret, the Constitution, they can possibly use it to rule on cases? Are they supposed to make things up as they go along?

As for incorporation, the 14th Amendment says:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
​

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Care to explain how, if the Supreme Court is not allowed to read, and interpret, the Constitution,

Actually they are obviously allowed to read it, but not to interpret it in anything but a literal way.

Of course it never would have been passed if it was understood that it meant nothing and could be intrepreted to mean anything the judges wanted it to mean.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Founders intended for the 2nd amendment to be for a well regulated militia, not to give citizens the right to shoot their elected representatives.

Does this qualify as reaseoned discourse in your circles?
Do you think this is particularly witty, clever or compelling?

I ask, because to reasoned and knowledgeable people, this is a 4th rate strawman and an inidicator of a pre-pubescent level of understandin of the subject.

 

[regent]

You did not ask that question, you asked if anyone can show where in the 14th amendment it mentions incorporation, or what part of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitution.

I answered yes.

Both questions are related to the same answer. If the constitution never gave the Court the power in the constitution to interpret the constitution then the Court could not have interpreted the the 14th. amendment applying the Bill of Rights to the states. But the Court took the power unto itself and the nation accepted it. If you can show in the constitution where the Court was given the power, I'll listen, but it's a dead issue.

Article 3 Section 2, original text.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
​

11th Amendment.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
​

Care to explain how, if the Supreme Court is not allowed to read, and interpret, the Constitution, they can possibly use it to rule on cases? Are they supposed to make things up as they go along?

As for incorporation, the 14th Amendment says:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
​

Two issues, both can be explained by reading two court cases, one Barron v. Baltimore and two, Marbury v. Madison. Marbury is the most famous case and generally found in most high school texts. Remember the Midnight judges? Basic history.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...

... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...

... and the threat of overkill firepower...

... for the average citizen.

Repeal it, then.

 

[Billo_Really]

Does this qualify as reaseoned discourse in your circles?

Yes, I think taking what the Constitution actually says and not claiming things that it doesn't, is reasonable.

What is not reasonable, is to lop off the first 12 words of that amendment and claim something entirely different for its inclusion in the Constitution.

Do you think this is particularly witty, clever or compelling?

Never entered my mind.

I ask, because to reasoned and knowledgeable people, this is a 4th rate strawman and an inidicator of a pre-pubescent level of understandin of the subject.

Really?

Why would the Founders, who just created a new country and deliberately made the federal government supreme over the states, enact a law that would legalize a military coup over that government or compromise its authority?

 

[Billo_Really]

Strange, you never said it didn't say anything about defending against the federal government, you claimed that the founders intended the 2nd to apply only to a well regulated militia. So far you have provided no evidence to back that claim up.

Yes I have!

If they wanted it to apply to something else, they would've said so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Care to explain how, if the Supreme Court is not allowed to read, and interpret, the Constitution,

Actually they are obviously allowed to read it, but not to interpret it in anything but a literal way.

Of course it never would have been passed if it was understood that it meant nothing and could be intrepreted to mean anything the judges wanted it to mean.

Really?

Tell me something, what is the literal interpretation of the Constitution?

 

[Billo_Really]

Really?

Tell me something, what is the literal interpretation of the Constitution?

How the fuck would you know?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Both questions are related to the same answer. If the constitution never gave the Court the power in the constitution to interpret the constitution then the Court could not have interpreted the the 14th. amendment applying the Bill of Rights to the states. But the Court took the power unto itself and the nation accepted it. If you can show in the constitution where the Court was given the power, I'll listen, but it's a dead issue.

Article 3 Section 2, original text.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
​

11th Amendment.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
​

Care to explain how, if the Supreme Court is not allowed to read, and interpret, the Constitution, they can possibly use it to rule on cases? Are they supposed to make things up as they go along?

As for incorporation, the 14th Amendment says:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
​

Two issues, both can be explained by reading two court cases, one Barron v. Baltimore and two, Marbury v. Madison. Marbury is the most famous case and generally found in most high school texts. Remember the Midnight judges? Basic history.

Marbury v Madison, the case where the Supreme Court ruled Congress could not simply rewrite the Constitution and give the Supreme Court more power by making new laws. One would think that anyone that actually opposed Congress making laws not covered by the Constitution would cheer about that case.

Baron v Baltimore, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights does not restrict the states. Since that case was handed down in 1833, and the 14th Amendment was not ratified until 1868, I am not sure why anyone would even bring it up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Strange, you never said it didn't say anything about defending against the federal government, you claimed that the founders intended the 2nd to apply only to a well regulated militia. So far you have provided no evidence to back that claim up.

Yes I have!

If they wanted it to apply to something else, they would've said so.

They did.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Really?

Tell me something, what is the literal interpretation of the Constitution?

How the fuck would you know?

If I knew would I ask? Is your brain short circuiting?

 

[Billo_Really]

If I knew would I ask? Is your brain short circuiting?

I gave you a literal interpretation and you still questioned that!

 

[regent]

Article 3 Section 2, original text.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
​

11th Amendment.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
​

Care to explain how, if the Supreme Court is not allowed to read, and interpret, the Constitution, they can possibly use it to rule on cases? Are they supposed to make things up as they go along?

As for incorporation, the 14th Amendment says:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
​

Two issues, both can be explained by reading two court cases, one Barron v. Baltimore and two, Marbury v. Madison. Marbury is the most famous case and generally found in most high school texts. Remember the Midnight judges? Basic history.

Marbury v Madison, the case where the Supreme Court ruled Congress could not simply rewrite the Constitution and give the Supreme Court more power by making new laws. One would think that anyone that actually opposed Congress making laws not covered by the Constitution would cheer about that case.

Baron v Baltimore, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights does not restrict the states. Since that case was handed down in 1833, and the 14th Amendment was not ratified until 1868, I am not sure why anyone would even bring it up.

No. The importance of Marbury is that the Court ruled a law of Congress unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution gave the Court that power but they said they had the power and we accepted it. Today, the Court can decide the constitutionally of laws, acts of presidents, acts of states and other constitutional questions all based on Marbury.
Regarding Barron that is correct, the Court ruled that the Bill of Rights applied to the national government not the state governments. Since Barron, however, the Court has been interpreting many rights in the Bill of Rights as applying to the states as well as the national government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Does this qualify as reaseoned discourse in your circles?

Yes, I think taking what the Constitution actually says and not claiming things that it doesn't, is reasonable.

You say, after posting "., not to give citizens the right to shoot their elected representatives."
You cannot cite a single person who has ever claimed such a thing - and thus, you argue a 4th-rate strawman.

What is not reasonable, is to lop off the first 12 words of that amendment and claim something entirely different for its inclusion in the Constitution.

Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Why would the Founders, who just created a new country and deliberately made the federal government supreme over the states, enact a law that would legalize a military coup over that government or compromise its authority?

No one has claimed that any such law has been enacted, and so you have presented yet another strawman.
Excellent work - keep it up. Peopel like you are why the anti-gun loons are losing the national debate.

 

[regent]

There are a few ways justices have interpreted the constitution for example one is original intent. Using this interpretation a justice tries to find the original intent of the framers was when they wrote the constitution. Another method is literal, or go by the exact words of the framers in the constitution. If for example the framers wrote Congress shell make no law...then that means no law, period. An originalist might say that the framers did not mean no law if the law was used to overthrow the government, that was not the framers original intent. And then what of justices that believe a law might violate some of the wording but was good for the nation?