what a joke ruling by the courts

[Zhukov]

You've had multiple oppurtunities to defend your position. You have chosen not to. Have a nice day.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
You've had multiple oppurtunities to defend your position. You have chosen not to. Have a nice day.

:

 

[AtlantaWalter]

"He went on to say that the amendment was designed to protect the citizens against a potentially oppressive federal government."


He should have added "and stupid judges".

 

[acludem]

This judge's interpretation of the second amendment is entirely reasonable. The person who quoted the second amendment actually added a comma between Militia and being. The amendment was designed to allow people to keep firearms in their home because there was no standing army, so militias were necessary to defend the country. Anyone heard of the Whiskey Rebellion? Who did George Washington call to end this? Why the state militias of course. A bunch of civilians who had flintlock rifles at home.

The other part is also correct, DC is not a state and therefore is not subject to parts of the constitution, like the parts about having Senators and a voting member of the house (DC has neither).

Personally I'm opposed to banning handguns. I support requiring trigger locks and I support banning assualt weapons. No one needs an AK-47 or an Uzi at home.

acludem

 

[AtlantaWalter]

Originally posted by acludem
This judge's interpretation of the second amendment is entirely reasonable. The person who quoted the second amendment actually added a comma between Militia and being. The amendment was designed to allow people to keep firearms in their home because there was no standing army, so militias were necessary to defend the country. Anyone heard of the Whiskey Rebellion? Who did George Washington call to end this? Why the state militias of course. A bunch of civilians who had flintlock rifles at home.

The other part is also correct, DC is not a state and therefore is not subject to parts of the constitution, like the parts about having Senators and a voting member of the house (DC has neither).

Personally I'm opposed to banning handguns. I support requiring trigger locks and I support banning assualt weapons. No one needs an AK-47 or an Uzi at home.

acludem

What rock have you been hiding under? Did you get a magick decoder ring with your membership to the whiney-assed-liberal club?

"This judge's interpretation of the second amendment is entirely reasonable." You forgot to add "for a commie".

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by acludem
This judge's interpretation of the second amendment is entirely reasonable.
acludem

"Since the Bengals were down 21-0 at the half, and haven't overcome a three touchdown deficit to win a game since the 1980's, I decided to come home".

Now that is a clumsy, laborious sentence. But it's not too hard to figure out what it's fundamental thought is. What is the principal action taking place? Which part of the sentence, unlike any other part, can stand alone? Simply, "I decided to come home".

Apply this same logic to the Second Amendment. What is the fundamental thought? What is the principal action taking place? Which part of the sentence, unlike any other part, can stand alone? Simply, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Incidentally, my apologies to Marvin Lewis and the hard-working Bengals. They are much improved.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
This judge's interpretation of the second amendment is entirely reasonable. The person who quoted the second amendment actually added a comma between Militia and being. The amendment was designed to allow people to keep firearms in their home because there was no standing army, so militias were necessary to defend the country. Anyone heard of the Whiskey Rebellion? Who did George Washington call to end this? Why the state militias of course. A bunch of civilians who had flintlock rifles at home.

Excuse me, your ignorance has clouded the issue.

The Bill of rights is taken VERBATIM from: http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights.html

That is the NATIONAL ARCHIVES.

Here is the intro on the page:

"The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights." "

If you have anything else, you have let some idiot tell you history after they changed it. You are now part of the problem in propigating it instead of the solution.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Personally I'm opposed to banning handguns. I support requiring trigger locks and I support banning assualt weapons. No one needs an AK-47 or an Uzi at home.

acludem

Why do you want assault weapons banned? What do you consider an assault weapon? Do you realize that assault weapons are not very well defined and often have to do with how it looks? Do you know that few crimes are committed by criminals with assault weapons, and do you think that armed violent criminals who would use them are going to care that they are banned?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by tim_duncan2000
Why do you want assault weapons banned? What do you consider an assault weapon? Do you realize that assault weapons are not very well defined and often have to do with how it looks? Do you know that few crimes are committed by criminals with assault weapons, and do you think that armed violent criminals who would use them are going to care that they are banned?

Not only that, it doesn't say anything about guns. It says "arms". Look up the definition of "arms". Either we are allowed to carry appendages, or we are allowed to carry any type of weaponry considered a gun, cannon, or missile launcher, etc.

No matter what logic anyone TRIES to induce into a gun control argument, the plain fact is that the language is direct and intended. The word gun existed then , and so did the word arm.

 

[Hobbit]

"If we make everyone who owns a gun a criminal, then only criminals will own guns."

They've already had these problems in Australia. The government banned all civilians from carrying guns, so a bunch of bandits went cruising the Outback, murdering families in their homes and stealing all their possessions because the honest, hard-working families had turned in their guns and were no longer capable of defending themselves.

The lowest crime rate in the world is in Switzerland, where every citizen between 18 and 40 is in the national guard and carries around an assault rifle. All criminals know they will be shot on sight, so they aren't ever seen.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by acludem
Personally I'm opposed to banning handguns. I support requiring trigger locks and I support banning assualt weapons. No one needs an AK-47 or an Uzi at home.

acludem [/B]

While I am relieved to see that you are OK with the most basic tenet of the 2nd Amendment, I balk at your other positions.

Requiring trigger locks on guns renders the gun unavailable for immediate use, which is why most people (including me) have guns in the first place. The liberal's argument for trigger locks is that kids won't be able to accidentally shoot the gun with them on. I think that this should be a choice left up to the individual gun owner, not the federal gov't.

Banning assault weapons... who are you (or anyone else) to determine what I do or don't "need?" It's my house, I'll defend it how I deem necessary. If I think I need a machine gun because I have had death threats from a gang of thugs, why should I not be allowed to get one? Personally, I don't think I would want anything bigger than an M-60 (wouldn't that be sweet?) but again, it's a choice that should be left to the individual. You, being an ACLU member, should be able to sympathize with that.

 

[acludem]

First, let me respond to the argument about the definition of "arms" in the Constitution. When the document was written, the only arms most people could get was a simple flintlock rifle or a Brown Bess, both of which required powder and a ramrod. When the Constitution was written, when the bill of rights was written, the founders had no idea that weapons would be created for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in as short an amount of time as possible. Somehow, if those weapons had existed at that time, I think they would've written the 2nd amendment differently.

The reason why I'm opposed to the citizenry having assault rifles is illustrated beautifully in Iraq. How do the police, the army, or anyone else do their job when everyone has a cache of large weaponry in the closet? That's the reality in Iraq, and that's why it's a killing field. The right is so hypocritical on this issue, from one side of their mouths they talk about the need for the Patriot Act to restrict liberties so they can spy on us for "security" and in the very next breath they want to let everyone have a rocket launcher at home. That doesn't sound too secure to me. I'm for reasonable compromise on both issues. The Patriot Act goes too far, and so does a ban on all handguns. I do think that reasonable limits can be set, including deciding that the public at large doesn't need to own weapons designed for use by the military in warfare.

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
First, let me respond to the argument about the definition of "arms" in the Constitution. When the document was written, the only arms most people could get was a simple flintlock rifle or a Brown Bess, both of which required powder and a ramrod.

Absolutely. Nobody had ever seen a cannon and explosives had never been used.

What planet are you on?

When the Constitution was written, when the bill of rights was written, the founders had no idea that weapons would be created for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in as short an amount of time as possible. Somehow, if those weapons had existed at that time, I think they would've written the 2nd amendment differently.

Riggghhhht. Again, explosives and cannons WERE used, but you conveniently ignore that. You also conveniently ignore also that we had a revolution for a purpose: A TYRRANICAL OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT. The Constitution simply declares us the right to defend AGAINST that. It also gives THE PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS that power with arms being the last defense.

They wrote it perfectly.
You cant defend against government when they have better weapons.

The reason why I'm opposed to the citizenry having assault rifles is illustrated beautifully in Iraq. How do the police, the army, or anyone else do their job when everyone has a cache of large weaponry in the closet? That's the reality in Iraq, and that's why it's a killing field. The right is so hypocritical on this issue, from one side of their mouths they talk about the need for the Patriot Act to restrict liberties so they can spy on us for "security" and in the very next breath they want to let everyone have a rocket launcher at home. That doesn't sound too secure to me. I'm for reasonable compromise on both issues. The Patriot Act goes too far, and so does a ban on all handguns. I do think that reasonable limits can be set, including deciding that the public at large doesn't need to own weapons designed for use by the military in warfare.

acludem

Because you would invite the clamp down on SOME rights and SOME guns, both, you are about as dangerous as any socialist our system has seen. It is this kind of thinking that keeps people away from the actual TEXT of our Constitution and replaces it with OPINION on how to apply logic to SUBVERT the Constitution from your FEELINGS.

The Constitution is not a relative document. It is practical and detailed leaving nothing to chance and to be applied as a strict rule book, the highest in the land, that rules our BEHAVIOR as adressed through HUMAN NATURE. The document does NOT say "under these conditions". It was never supposed to. These people were of a solid Christian foundational belief that you cannot control government without a moral base. The moral base is what they adressed. They then rely on the people to make laws to CLARIFY in lower level rulings and laws, all the places there needs to be ADDITIONAL law, not restriction of rights, and not interpretation.

Maybe you ought to read this thing in its entirety.

 

[Reilly]

Two hundred years of constitutional scholarship disagrees with you. The Constitution is far from detailed. It was meant to be vague so that it could be interpreted as new situations arose. That is why it has remained relevant for this long. Is the phrase "due process of law" a detailed statement? How about "reasonable" search and seizure? The courts, as is their perogative under Article III & Marbury v. Madison, have interpreted the Constitution to address issues it never dealt with directly. That is their mandate and the nature of our government.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
Two hundred years of constitutional scholarship disagrees with you. The Constitution is far from detailed. It was meant to be vague so that it could be interpreted as new situations arose. That is why it has remained relevant for this long. Is the phrase "due process of law" a detailed statement? How about "reasonable" search and seizure? The courts, as is their perogative under Article III & Marbury v. Madison, have interpreted the Constitution to address issues it never dealt with directly. That is their mandate and the nature of our government.

Fine. Assuming your argument correct, show me JUST ONE place where the Constitution says anyone is allowed to INTERPRET it.

If you have questions about "due process" and "resonable", lets take them one step at a time.

Ask a specific question about either and I will adress them quite easily.

Justifying lower court subversion of the higher is still impossible. It is illegal and incorrect.

Again, I ask for your proof.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Fine. Assuming your argument correct, show me JUST ONE place where the Constitution says anyone is allowed to INTERPRET it.

If you have questions about "due process" and "resonable", lets take them one step at a time.

Ask a specific question about either and I will adress them quite easily.

Justifying lower court subversion of the higher is still impossible. It is illegal and incorrect.

Again, I ask for your proof.

The point of my post was not to determine what "due process of law" means today. The point is that the phrase is not defined in the Constitution. The Constitution is not detailed. One must look to sources outside the scope of the text to determine whether due process has been fulfilled or to determine what "reasonable" means. Someone must make the determination whether a search is "reasonable," and that body is the courts. They use any number of bases to define these terms, from the thoughts of the founders, historical precedent predating the Constitution, prior judicial decisions, evolving notions of morality, etc.

The basis for judicial review is based not any any specific words in the Constitution, but an analysis of the structure of the Constitution itself. Since Congress passes the laws and it is the Executive that enforces the laws, it would be too dangerous to allow the Executive to interpret the law as it sees fit and also dangerous for the Congress to interpret laws becuase it is beholden to public pressure (voting). Therefore, analysis of the law is left to the judiciary as a check to the power of the other branches. This is a safeguard against tyranny. Since the Constitution is the Supreme law of the United States, it is the courts who determine when any other law violates the Constitution. As such, the Court must determine what the Constitution means itself. Since the Constitution is often vague, the courts must interpret the Constitution as well. For instance, the Constitution, Amend. 11, forbids suits against the states. Does it also forbid suits against state officials? The text of the Constitution isn't clear on this point, so the Supreme Court has had to resolve that issue itself.

Here is a quote from a DC Bar Discussion of Marbury v. Madison that discusses the issue:

Marshall said it was absolutely clear that all of those who had framed written constitutions—an implicit reference to the various state constitutions—intended those documents to be supreme. As a result, "an act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void. This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered, by this Court, as one of the fundamental principles of our society."

Marshall was now defending the perimeter of judicial authority. In a sentence that has echoed through the years, the chief justice announced that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." And then, the critical link in his argument: The Constitution was law. It could be interpreted by the courts in ordinary litigation. "If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." If a law and the Constitution are in conflict, and if both apply to a particular case, "the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is the essence of judicial duty."

At that point, Marshall’s conclusion was inescapable. If the courts are obliged to interpret the Constitution, and if the Constitution "is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature—the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."

Earlier in the Court’s decision, Marshall had recognized vast areas of political discretion that were not subject to judicial scrutiny. Now, in conclusion, he was driving home the point that the Constitution was a legal document and that, in matters of law, the decision of the Court was final. It was a principle, he said, "essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

And that is where Constitutional interpretation stands - and has stood for over two hundred years.

 

[NewGuy]

Where it stands is where one man justified a power grab. Just because he did it doesn't make it true or right:

Marshall was now defending the perimeter of judicial authority. In a sentence that has echoed through the years, the chief justice announced that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

Fine. -But, since the Constitution cannot be overridden, he can only encompass lower level law.

And then, the critical link in his argument: The Constitution was law. It could be interpreted by the courts in ordinary litigation.

BIG jump with no foundation, logic, nor support. Where is there any documentation to support that in the Constitution? NOWHERE. The Constitution is law, yes, but subject to no authority but its own by nature of its own text. This guy illegaly claimed he had authority over it.

"If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." If a law and the Constitution are in conflict, and if both apply to a particular case, "the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is the essence of judicial duty."

Again, illegal. He bases this off his former opinion.

If this is what 200 years of law stands on, then you have just done a tremendous service by pointing this out. Everything following, as a result of that ruling then, would be illegal.

 

[Reilly]

Okay, let me try this a different way. I will give you the precise question you called for.

Is it an unreasonable search, forbid by the Constitution, to search all the black men in a bar full of black men, because you received an anonymous tip that a black man in the bar was carrying an unregister firearm?
My initial thought is this is an unreasonable intrusion on the rights of everyone that was searched.

What if the anonymous tip was that the man was carrying a bomb and intended to destroy the entire building?

What if the tip was that the man was in his apartment and about to set off a nuclear device?

Well, under these circumstances, it seems more reasonable in to execute the search, but who is to make the final decision? Where do you draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable?

Somebody has to make that call. Somebody has to interpret what the vague phrase "unreasonable search" entails. Under our system of government, it is the courts that make this determination - that interpret the vague words of the Supreme law of the country.

How can that phrase stand alone, without interpretation?

For another example, the Constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech. Is that to be read literally? Is the government absolutely forbidden from arresting or preventing a person from inciting a violent mob riot. Most people would say no. That kind of activity is not protected. But who is to decide what Freedom of Speech means? The courts, obviously.

 

[acludem]

The idea that the judiciary interprets the laws and can declare them unconstitutional was established by the case Marbury vs. Madison in 1801. This is hardly some new-age power grab. The Constitution set up an independent judiciary as a specific check on the powers of both the executive and legislative branches. The independent judiciary was to be the protector and interpreter of the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison defined this principle as being carried out by judicial review.

acludem

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by acludem
First, let me respond to the argument about the definition of "arms" in the Constitution. When the document was written, the only arms most people could get was a simple flintlock rifle or a Brown Bess, both of which required powder and a ramrod. When the Constitution was written, when the bill of rights was written, the founders had no idea that weapons would be created for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in as short an amount of time as possible. Somehow, if those weapons had existed at that time, I think they would've written the 2nd amendment differently.

Well I dont think they would have written it differently at all. If we ban assault weapons, why not hand guns? I mean the people can still weld swords cant they? but then why not ban swords as well, people can carry quarterstaffs right? Heck why not just let the people teach themselves martial arts and forget about weapons all together. Its a very slippery slope when you compromise on one tennent of the constitution.

The reason why I'm opposed to the citizenry having assault rifles is illustrated beautifully in Iraq. How do the police, the army, or anyone else do their job when everyone has a cache of large weaponry in the closet? That's the reality in Iraq, and that's why it's a killing field.

Well personally i think citizens having guns to blow away anyone who tries to steal, or hurt their families, would let the police and army focus on real problems like the terrorists. I mean if you are a thief or a murderer are you going to try to attack anyone if they have assault weapons? Only if you have a death wish.

The problem with the attacks is less the weapons, and more the fact that these people are willing to kill themselves to hurt us.