For how long, precisely? If the entire population of the united states, all three hundred and thirty million individuals, decided overnight to cease being employed and earning their own living, and chose instead to become dependent upon government to provide for their well being, exactly how long would such a system be sustainable when everyone is taking and contributing absolutely nothing?
The person who works for what he has and overcomes his disabilities - or even rejects that they are disabilities - has ultimate freedom. A person dependent on government to care for them is no more free than a dog chained to a stake in the ground and tossed a handful of feed every night. They can never leave their home or their government agency or they have no way to get their handful of feed. For a human being to accept that way of life is despicable and shameful. I would die trying to make it on my own before I'd surrender my liberty and freedom for a bowl of dogfood.
There are those that can’t fend for themselves, and there are those that suffer short term situations needing a lifeline. In the US, we provide aid for people in both situations, but they must avail themselves to seek that aid, in most, but not all cases. In some cases, aid is extended if the system encounters those in need. If someone wants to work, even with disabilities, there is are a large variety of means to do so. I am retired, but helped start and continue to mentor (without compensation, an employee owned and run business, where many the employees are either disabled vets or disabled civilians and all participate in it’s management. I often mentor young people, not by, telling them what to do, but helping them to develop self reliance and self determination. As an example, I have mentored a teen since he was 11, who used online resources to learn computer skills, three computer languages (lots resources for that), and now heading off to college at age 17, he earned enough through freelance programming (several places on line to get work doing that) to have enough money to pay for his education... he turned down financial assistance from his parents and two very lucrative job offers he thought distracting to his goals. My brother, one of the earliest patients to receive a bone transplant; while cured, he was left with a debilitating inability to form tears to lubricate his eyes. He is now married, with two children and supports his family with his art, some with painting and some with recycled cast off furniture which he turns into amazing furniture pieces. As for me, I work more in retirement than before, building custom fly rods, doing art, and doing original research in an emerging field, neural anthropology... all more activities I consider more enjoyment than work. Everyone has value, but they must decide to have value. There are huge numbers of people that overcome amazing obstacles to be self sufficient and independent... just browsing YouTube a bit will show many, many examples. I have read the works of many philosophers and many have interesting perspectives if you can internalize their words to fit you. Among the many I like such as Descartes and Bacon, I read Marcus Aurelius when I was in secondary school... The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it. Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking. Those words, became mine, as did so many other bits of his wisdom, https://wisdomquotes.com/marcus-aurelius-quotes/
I disagree 100%. I am absolutely satisfied being dependent. I work as a housekeeper and my parents provide for me. This arrangement is good for everyone.
Huh? Where does the Federal Government get the authority to do that? How is it my problem to care for those who chose not to care for themselves? Short term situations needing a lifeline are nothing more than evidence of lack of planning. For instance, all those who don't have toilet paper, hand sanitizer, or Kleenex - Tough Doo-doo. I got some. I had some. I didn't have to buy a damn thing to prepare for a Pandemic. Wise people have prepared for thousands of years. Foolish people, in spite of the teachings of those wiser than us all, continue to not be prepared for anything at all and continue to depend on robbery to fill their lamps.
I agree with you, 100%, that you are satisfied being dependent. I've said it before: people get what they want out of life. Some people, like you for example, are happiest being miserable, dependent, poor, and having much to whine about. Others are happiest creating things, building businesses that actually raise the quality of life for themselves, their families, and for many, if not thousands, around them. Most of us land in between those two extremes - dependency and creating. You live at the bottom end of it - a bottom feeder, as it were. A lot of people talk about wishing they were millionaires but if they wanted to be millionaires they would be millionaires. It's not easy to do but it is absolutely doable. Most people who complain about not being a millionaire are happier complaining than doing and that's why they're not millionaires. They don't want to be one; they only want to complain about those who are.
There was nothing in my statement addressing the ‘choice’ of not caring for themselves. As for the federal Government having the authority, it was a series of laws passed by the legislative branch that have been allowed to stand, just as have laws regarding taxation. As for people not planning for the turn of events, many don’t, or foresee such events as falling ill and being unable to work, or face the unforeseen loss of their livelihood, but their are those that live assuming they will be taken care of after many decades accepting becoming dependent upon the promises of those they elect to Government, in effect surrendering their destinies to the government. That doesn’t necessarily count those that have leveraged that to live off those that pay the taxes that allow some politicians a means for maintaining control over the resources they leverage to maintain power. I, like, you, and many posting here, long ago decided not to abdicate my destiny, as well as I can, to the Government. Still, there are somethings out of my control. I came to this country at age 17 with very little, put myself through college (two masters degrees) without financial assistance from any source, and have earned a living for over 50 years, paying into the system far more than the majority. But, I don’t count on anyone’s assistance. Still, I do donate money, quite a lot, actually, directly, to those in obvious desperate need.
Hard work is hard if thought of as hard work. I am not a millionaire, but I enjoy the work I do. I retired from work I liked for the opportunity to other work I wanted to try. And, I make a living at it, still beholding to no one.
The legislative branch can't give powers to government that the Constitution did not already grant. And I care nothing at all about those, as a group, that chose not to care for themselves and prepare, financially or otherwise, for emergencies. Why should I pay for those who did nothing to prepare? Why would you donate? You donated at the office at the end of a gun barrel. There are a few charities I donate to but I get to choose so those are my donations. For those who surrendered their destinies to the government, as you say, they'll learn really quickly when they get hungry. When you hear talk of jobs Americans won't do, and if we stop illegal immigration who will pick our lettuce - slave talk - they completely ignore that Americans would absolutely do those jobs if they were hungry. When Americans get paid more to sit at home and do nothing, of course they're not going to do work. That's why the left wants modern slavery to replace the slaves of old. Those who don't work should not eat.
”Donated at the office at the end of a gun barrel”.... you will have to explain that to me. As for the Legislature, not having the power to give powers away, they have as is evident by the ‘73 War Powers Act. Over the last 100 years there have been many examples of the Government not abiding by the Constitution that have gone unchallenged. The growing number of executive orders over the years that in effect encroach on the enumerated powers of Congress is one example, as has been the judicial activism in Federal Courts that subvert the Constitution. I have long hoped, more recently, for the SCOTUS to take up the challenge of reviewing the separation of powers, but the erosion of Constitution reason continues unabated and has become ‘Faction’ driven, a concern Madison warned against in the Federalist Papers. As for who and why you donate, that is your prerogative. Those I help are those I personally know, and are not given help without expectation. But, I am prepared to, and do offer mentoring. And, I also, have worked provide opportunities as well. I do agree, the left operates by putting people in a state of dependence as opposed to providing opportunity, to sustain power... something the electorate began to reject in 2016 by electing Trump. However, there are those in real need, as opposed to those choosing dependence, but that culture of dependence has been built over many decades and will take time to dismantle without abandoning those ‘enslaved’ as you frame it; 40 acres and a cow won’t suffice anymore. The best path is strengthening the economy, create opportunity, and build an economic infrastructure that is conducive to encouraging people toward accepting responsibility over their own destinies.
From a report by the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee: "The growing suicide rate in the United States is driven in large part by the lethality and easy accessibility of guns.... An analysis of 14 scientific studies found that having access to a firearm triples the risk of death by suicide.... "Lifetime medical and work-loss costs due to suicides and suicide attempts are estimated at almost $70 billion per year. "For each 10 percentage-point increase in household gun ownership, the youth suicide rate increases by more than 25 percent.... "About 85 percent of those who attempt suicide with a gun die compared to only about five percent without a gun." https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_...0167fe4311e9/jec2019-gunsandsuicide-final.pdf Easy access to firearms is really hurting America and should be significantly reduced.
Meaning the report is only as valid as the so-called "studies" that were examined for the sake of this so-called report. Such studies have been analyzed and examined in the past, with the majority of them being little more than opinion pieces meant to push a political narrative, dressed up to resembled so-called "studies" that are not of a scientific nature. Case in point, no individual decides to commit suicide simply because they have a firearm. The firearm does not serve to motivate an individual to end their own existence simply because it is present. The nation of Japan is evidence of such, as it experiences a much higher number of suicides than the united states, despite a total absence of firearms. Much like use of illicit narcotic substances, an individual ending their own existence is a personal choice that does not affect anyone else. It is a decision that should be respected, rather than society attempting to claim that it knows better than the individual.
Try not paying your donation to the welfare system and you'll see the gun barrel to which I refer in the hands of the IRS agent that arrests you. They have the power; they don't have the legal or constitutional authority. That the people have not revolted and used their own guns to challenge the abuses of government does not make those abuses legal. That those in government use the threat of their guns to exercise unjust power is not the same as having authority to do what they are doing. I've said this many times; I'm not sure why it's so hard for some to understand it. The Constitution created the Federal Government and without it there is no Federal Government. It is all the authority they have. The Constitution is the absolute limit of governmental authority; they cannot give themselves more authority. When those who, coincidentally, have jobs or roles in government, act outside of the Constitution they are not acting as representatives of government but, instead, are acting as tyrants, strongmen, or warlords, using the threat of their guns and strength to subjugate those who cannot stand against them. This is why they want our guns, to make sure that their tyranny can never be challenged.
There is a lot to unpack in your post and I am not going to address it all. Throughout the History of the US, there has been a continual struggle between those that have different interpretations of the Constitution, those that seek nuanced means to circumvent it for their own purposes, and those that are intent on discarding its principles to maintain and increase power. I consider myself an originalist in its interpretation, and tend to resist those (regardless of political (Faction) ideology) that seek to undermine the principles; the mechanisms for modifying the Constitution were provided by the original draft, but often are not used for various reasons. When the different branches of the Government assume powers not enumerated in the Constitution, while not in accord with the Constitution’s originalist interpretation, are left unchallenged, they often become institutionalized and rationalized by various devices, and take on a life of their own. We could fill many volumes with discussion of current law and government practice that are in conflict with the Constitution, for instance, civil asset forfeiture without due process or some of the practices of the IRS. However... they stand as unchallenged. In the Federalist Papers, there are discussions why amendments have the difficult process they must follow to be approved. In the Federalist Papers, Madison and Hamilton both envisioned that the Constitution should be subjected to review and revision once each generation, loosely defined as once every 20 years in recurring Constitutional Conventions...that has never happened. Taxation, welfare law, and other law enacted by Congress, have gone unchallenged for a long time. Is it right? I have my opinion. As for those seeking to remove guns from citizens, I see it as removing one of the major checks on tyrannical power, that of the removing the people having the right to challenge Government authority, something, Franklin suggested was every one’s duty. One of my favorite quotes of Franklin’s was supposedly uttered in response to a question he was asked on leaving the first Constitutional convention...’what kind of Government did you give us’... he replied, ‘a Republic, if you can keep it’... a lot in packed in that quote.
Your post is nothing more than empty words - ramblings unsupported by any reasonable documentation to back it up. Show me a single Supreme Court case decided on the idea that the violation of the Constitution had gone on for so long that it now is legal and constitutional. The Constitution is very clear in its meaning. The only time we actually need to go to original intent is when there's a question about definition of words then versus now. It doesn't matter if a thing is unchallenged; if the Constitution doesn't allow it then it is unconstitutional. Do you simply surrender yourself to be ruled by any person stronger than you? Do you accept it as your only fate? I hereby make you my servant. You must now do as I say in all things... As for Madison and Hamilton making any such statement, in the Federalist Papers, about review and revision once ever generation, 20 years, or any other recurrence, please provide the quote or you're just making it up. I've read those documents cover to cover, more than once, and I searched again tonight for anything I missed. Show me what you got, as the saying goes.
Empty words, eh? Sorry to disappoint. I would agree that the Constitution is clear in meaning, at least to me, but frequently there are arguments regarding intent of meaning, not just among political opponents, but even among justices as evidenced by dissenting opinions and dicta that are submitted to record in SCOTUS cases. There are various opinions regarding how to interpret the words in the Constitution with some advocating a modern interpretation, some strict definition of words, and others with ferreting the original intent of the founding fathers given historic context and the meaning of word usage in their times. The endless debates over the 2A give ample examples, often biased to purpose, of the different views of how the 2A should be interpreted. Using the the HELLER vs DC case as an example, A reading of the majority, constituting the ruling and supporting dicta by Scalia along with the dissenting opinions of Hell vs DC gives flavor of how the Justices themselves favor interpretations should be handled. As for examples of long standing ruled unconstitutional, aside from Heller vs DC and the ripple effect it has cased because of the ruling, there is ROE vs WADE over turning the long standing laws of many states. As for more, I figure you can find a few here, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-10.pdf I am not sure what this is in reference to? Some idea you think I have suggested that? If so… I would find that an interesting assessment if you’ve had a flavor of my posts. I have never initiated conflict in my life, but I have a long history of experience resisting authority when that authority is one of oppression... I was raised Catholic in West Belfast at the epicenter of the beginning of the Troubles Aug 13-16 ‘69, living on Percy St a couple blocks from Divis Flats and Divis Tower and the of the beginning of the Troubles. I was a member of the Fianna and was a signatory member of the NICRA (modeled on the civil rights methods of MLK). I lost my home in that fight. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Civil_Rights_Association https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Northern_Ireland_riots Then a few years after leaving Northern Ireland, after being interned without ever being formerly charged with a crime, I came to the US, but found myself a volunteer, because of my idealism and my post grad field work in Guatemala, with militarized relief unit helping Mayan resistance against the oppressive, often murderous, suppressive Guatemalan Government authority in the 80’s that was waging what could be considered genocide, in removing indigenous people from areas of valuable resources, specifically, exotic woods, disappearing those that resisted. So to suggest I would aquifers to authority; not then and not now. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Civil_War I made a slight mistake here, when looking over my library… the memory was of a letter sent byp Jefferson to Madison in 1789, linked below, conflated with my memory of Federalist paper #85. Jefferson’s letter to Madison (Jefferson I think was writing from Paris) https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison Federalist #85 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed85.asp It appears, the group back in Philadelphia, decided not to have an expiration and renewal of the Constitution, but instead opted for the adopting the processes of modifying the Constitution as dictated by Article V of the Constitution.
There have been Supreme Court Justices who have openly advocated for ruling in contradiction to the Constitution. Justice Ginsburg insists that all judges, at all levels, should consider international law and opinion when deciding constitutionality in the United States. I posted others, some lawyers, from the Democratic Party who complain that we need to get the Constitution out of their way. Lawyers and even judges depend on constitutional debate for their livelihood. That they can find ridiculous arguments to further their employment does not mean that any of them believe, or that they are in fact, the arguments they make are legitimate. Once again, the Constitution must be interpreted according to original intent. Any other interpretation is clearly flawed with the intent of changing the role of government without going through the processes in Article V. Those arguing for a living document with determination of the meaning of words lie when they say that it is allowable under the Constitution. It's not that they have a different opinion or misunderstand. They lie. They know that any contract is bound by its original intent and changing times with changing definitions of words does not change the intent of the contract. That the Justices have, or claim to have, different interpretations, only proves that their interpretations are often politically motivated. That 9 justices cannot agree on something shows that their education and experience is generally meaningless in the discussion. Their words are interesting and should be studied but are never to be taken as the final or only answer on any topic. As for ROE v WADE, the fact that the left has fought so hard against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh only goes to show that, in-spite of long standing rulings, the rulings of the Court are not law and are not final. The Court has, in at least enough cases to make it count, reversed itself. That means that no ruling that is unconstitutional need stay that way for ever. Things are either constitutional or unconstitutional, not because the Gods in Black say so but, instead, because the thing is permitted or not permitted based on original intent of the Constitution. No court ruling ever changes the constitutionality or unconstitionality of a thing. The courts simply express their "opinion" on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality - as proven by dissention and overturned opinions. Then why is it that you accept assertions of power from the Government that the Government has no authority to assert? Now you're telling me you're a revolutionary but earlier you suggest that governments have power simply because they say they have power. It's a problem I commonly see in first- and second-generation Americans. They don't understand the traditional, historical, independent spirit of Americans that led our Founders to create the Constitution as they did. This is why people like Steve Hilton and other first-generation Americans want to turn the United States into their home country. Americans then, and I now, accept no man's right to rule over me other than that granted explicitly in the Constitution of the United States of America or the Constitution of any particular state I am in. To exercise authority beyond that which they legally have is tyranny. I may bow to tyranny temporarily because of the armies and might of the tyrants but that does not mean I accept it as my due or their right. From the Declaration of Independence: The letter is an obscure set of random thoughts without any resolution of principle on the part of Jefferson where Jefferson, in fact, says it's just something he's been thinking and asks for Madison's opinion. Here's what Jefferson says in opening: By Jefferson's own words, the Legislature would be allowed to revoke any land grant given to one generation, or even land sold to one generation, reassigning that land in the next generation. How do you think that would work out if all the earnings of a generation were taken by the government and all the promises to one generation were revoked in the next? Your father builds a family farm. When he dies it reverts to the State. The thought was nothing more than a thought and it was wrong. To bring that to the topic at hand, you're claiming that this discussion equates to ratifying the Constitution each generation. The idea, though Jefferson never mentions it, would be that those who ratified the Constitution in 1789 had no right to burden the next generation with the same. I'm curious. Are you a citizen of the United States? Did you take this oath: Since, if you took it, you took the oath under your own free will, how about living up to the oath you took. There's no evidence that Jefferson or Madison ever considered whether the Constitution should be reviewed every generation or 20 years or at any other time.
Levant Response Part I I too, have seen democrats that have made blanket statements regarding the Constitution being in the way of their objectives. I have also seen supposed Conservatives, supposed supporters of the Constitution, distort interpretation of the Constitution to support their objectives as well; what immediately pops to mind with Dems are those continually attempting to subvert the 2A (more on this later) and among the GOP, justification for violating the 4A, citing safe guarding Americans by NSA’s or some other means of domestic surveillance or by advocating civil forfeiture without due process, something originally supposedly billed as of tool of for law enforcement for impeding the drug trade it has been often abused by local and state authorizes. Funny, when I hear of those trashing the Constitution and stating it is a flawed document, I often say, ‘OK, what specifically would you change?”… I have never gotten an answer, usually I find a counter to my question as them launching into how the Constitution didn’t free the slaves and how flawed slave owners like Jefferson and Washington were as opposed to giving me an answer. It is, I suppose a counter to deflect of my question because they are regurgitating a mantra and not originating their own ideas. After listening to such a diatribe, I usually follow up by asking ‘Does slavery exists now. No? Why do you suppose that is?’ Regarding Ginsburg, aside from disagreeing with many, but not all, of her judicial opinions, I always found her friendship with Scalia interesting; it demonstrates that friendship can occur between those of differing opinions. My closest friend, someone of personal high integrity, is an extreme liberal, having opinions that are 180^ from mine (a fan of the Constitution only when it suits) and we argue (probably for sport) continually, but our differences do not undermine our friendship; our political differences are compartmentalized. I find our arguments of value, because I, at times, find myself doing deeper research and factually refining the foundation of my views, framing many of my arguments from a position of Constitutional interpretation. I have also been asked, more than once, ‘well, shouldn’t justices reach a compromise on rulings?’ to which I say ‘no’. You don’t compromise in judicial review. The law is what it is in the original text or follow on amendments. Want a change? Then Article V is the path. Again, in regard to Ginsberg, (or more notably the 9th Circuit) who often are culprits of judicial activism, I am a major critic of Judicial activism. But it is frequently pushed by Dems with the objective to avoid trying an Article V path because they would be likely to fail in that endeavor; a ruling from the bench it’s figured not only avoids that, but in their mind become the new legal interpretation with the legitimacy of the SCOTUS stamp. My opinion is the the Founding Fathers attempted to insulate the Courts from political considerations to have some semblance of having impartiality, else they would have provisioned for a new court (not unlike the Brits in many ways) in concert with elections; a major reason justices have tenure for life. To me, judicial activism represents the SCOTUS having a means of by-passing Constitutional provisions for amending the Constitution; it is akin to essentially giving 9 people a power never intended; the power to change the Constitution without going through the process of Amending it and having the input of the elected and of the States. True, aside from my objections of judicial activism in the courts which can be influenced by arguments of scholars and by flawed lower court rulings (Think of how many times the 9th Circuit’s rulings have been overturned. A simple query will show from 1999 to 2008, of the 0.151% of Ninth Circuit Court rulings that were reviewed by the Supreme Court, 20% were affirmed, 19% were vacated, and 61% were reversed; the median reversal rate for all federal appellate courts was 68.29% for the same period.) The opinions of scholars and lawyers are just that; opinions, often biased by financial reward or some other benefit, but, this is the US and they are free to have their opinions even if you or I think they are wrong. Fortunately, there are those that provide counter perspective with opinions and arguments based in an examination of original intent. The endless attempts to parse the 2A, particularly in recent times to enable its infringement is a good example of attempts to subvert original intent. Rather than seek repeal or a rewrite of the 2A using the process prescribed in the Constitution, the goal of anti 2A activists is to convince Americans that day is night, rather than attempt pushing for amending the Constitution; understandable from those pushing the anti gun agenda because at no time in US history, even at the height of anti gun sentiment, has their been the votes in Congress or among the States to get a 2A amendment repeal or revision effort a chance of success, so the strategy has long been to attempt to convince people the 2A means something other than what it’s text clearly means or to push for judicial activism to accomplish their goals. Anti 2A advocates, probably more than any other group campaigns to hijack and redefine common language to achieve their objective as seen by their continual redefinition of word meanings and phrases like ‘assault rifles’, ‘assault weapons’, ‘semi-auto’, ‘reasonable’, ‘common sense’, or one of my recent favorites, ‘fully semi-auto’, and they do this through continual repetition in a strategy to normalize their revised misleading language. I agree. There are ample examples where alternate definitions are concocted for purpose. My view is that, aside from the clarity of meaning (to me), there is ample reference in the contemporary discourse of the 1700’s, dictionaries of the time, historic cultural and political context, common law, and even the sources the Founding Fathers would have, both, studied, and even plagiarized for text in the Constitution such as the works of Montesquieu, Burke, Blackstone, Locke, and others of the rationalist philosophers of the time. An excellent example of the analysis of original intent and meaning is that found in the supporting arguments for the ruling in the HELLER vs DC case (often deliberately completely dismissed) by anti-gun advocates that also deliberately misinterpret the ruling. As far as the Constitution being a living document, the Founding Fathers would probably have said it was what they gave us when they created including Article V, a prescribed means for correcting any flaws or to meet the needs of following generations. BTW, how many of the world’s constitutions contain such a provision? Aside from other elements of the Constitution that I think are well crafted, I find the inclusion of Article V one of the top elements that have allowed the Constitution, yet the best document ever crafted as scripture for governing, to serve us for so long and enable us to withstand some of the challenges we have. Agreed. But there are 9 of them so you’d hope a majority would get it right. Reviewing the majority opinion, dissent opinions along with any dicta often reveals their thinking but also provides an indication of the probability of whether rulings will stand the test of time or be overturned. As an aside, the Dems have been unhappy with many of the recent rulings and have advocated discussions on changes to the SCOTUS (term limits and different numbers of Justices) they think will tip the balance to a court they would like. (They didn’t like the 2016 results, so there too, they are advocating a change in election law because they think it will give them an advantage). Like children playing on a losing team, change the rules of the game to improve chances of winning, rather than playing the game well. There is no doubt, politics plays a part in their perspective opinions; it’s hard to be immune to politics, the political pressures are immense. It is why ‘stacking’ the Court, has become a political objective, one even the GOP advocated (for some it’s meant to restore previous Stacking picks) rather than advocating jurist impartiality and adhering to the original intent codified in the Constitution. Lifetime appointments were supposed to insulate justices from political whim, but it has been not been a magic solution for impartial judicial review despite the wishes of Constitutionalist idealists such as myself. The legacy of an Administration of their court appointments long outlasts time in office, and to the chagrin of Dems, given the number of picks by the current Admin, the court system will be shaped for a long time to come. My opinion of appointment candidates is shaped by my research on their history of rulings (and I do it) and writings, and I in doing so, I ignore the supposed the media labeling of political alignment, rather, I look to see how closely their opinions and analysis strategies are in concert to original intent. Those with political objectives hoping to have a Court with a balance fitting their agendas will go to great lengths to oppose nominations (even to the point of unchecked character assassination) of candidates that don’t fit the profile suited to their political agenda or oppose those they perceive to be resistant to political pressure. The most egregious example of applying political pressure to the SCOTUS was that of Schumer’s, not so veiled, threat aimed at justices Neil Gorshuch and Brett Kavanaugh from the Steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite Schumer being criticized, I note he was never sanctioned. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...upreme_court_justices_is_never_ok_142586.html When a ruling is issued, it generally becomes the base for law until overturned which can take years, if not decades. Rarely does a new Court take objection and originate a review of previous cases until a party with standing (usually based on an appeal from lower court's case) or a suit submits a Writ of Certiorari and the Court agrees to hear the case. Again, the rippling impact of Heller vs DC, on state and local law is still happening as evidenced since by not only lesser court rulings, but also in other legislation changes, such as states moving from ‘may issue’, to ‘shall issue’ and even the large shift in recent year of States moving to ‘Constitutional Carry’. I think, given the current court composition, and the number of States with GOP majorities that trend will continue. A couple more states, such as Ohio, already a State that allows open carry without a license and is a ‘shall issue’ state for CC, have bills that will likely be considered in 2020, and if they do, the number of ‘Constitution Carry’ states will be approaching half the County’s states. That is likely to encourage other states to do the same. No state has reversed from ‘shall issue’ or ‘constitutional carry’ that I am aware of (an aside, still waiting for the promised ‘blood in the streets’. The SCOTUS can, of course, reverse a ruling, but in the instance where standing rulings are based in original meaning interpretations, the bar becomes pretty high to reverse and would likely be perceived as judicial activism if it happens. If a lower federal court issues a ruling that is not based on an original intent interpretation and is not challenged via an appeal or not the appeal is denied a hearing by the Supreme Court, that ruling stands and can be used a precedent in other cases. Conversely, when a lower federal court or the SCOTUS rules a law as unconstitutional, it becomes law that ruling extends to the conception of the legislation, for instance, anyone serving time for violating such a law declared unconstitutional, they must be immediately released and the conviction for that crime expunged from record as if the law never existed. With those, that are financially impacted, it is less clear to me what remedy is available. For instance, if, the SCOTUS rules that Civil forfeiture (several parties are working toward submitting Writs for judicial review of the practice)( without due process is unconstitutional, I don’t know what avenues are available to seek financial restitution because I don’t have knowledge of such instances in the past.
Levant Response - Part II BTW, I believe some states under the 9th’s purview, pass legislation that they know may not pass scrutiny at the SCOTUS, but do so anyway because they can act on the Law, figuring the 9th will uphold their law, and despite the high rate which the 9th’s rulings are overturned by the SCOTUS, know that process may take years. Then to keep the gest of the law in effect, new, tweaked, legislation is introduced that in effect accomplishes the same goal… in effect, they stay one step, and often years ahead of the appeals process; there are no penalties for deliberately introducing unconstitutional legislation. I am thinking I either wasn’t clear or you didn’t understand what I was my post. Politics is all about power and influence. While The Constitution is explicit in it’s limiting of government and with implementing a three branch model as Montesquieu (where the idea originated) advocated in his contemporary 1700’s philosophical suggestions for a Governing model complete with the checks and balances against the accumulation of tyrannical power, different political factions have pushed the boundaries of the Constitutional enumeration of the limited powers that were codified for each branch. There are many examples of this reaching back to Lincoln (directing the blockade of the South, ordering the Treasury to advance money for Military purposes, Suspending the writ of habeus corpus, etc.), and the successive Administrations using Executive Orders beyond policy applicable within the Executive to in effect make law(encroaching on the powers of the Legislative Branch), or Congress abdicating their War powers to the Executive in ’73 and the Executive operating as if those powers are now part of the Executive’s purview, and even in the Judicial activism seen in Federal Courts which in effect encroaches on powers of the legislature and the States. There are many examples of the erosion of the powers the Constitution prescribes and limits, and, if no one makes a challenge, the practice continues. It is one reason why I have advocated a sort of a reset, a reinterpretation of the separation of power as was intended in the Constitution. But, I suspect, having the SCOTUS doing a separation of powers review that might limit the judicial activism in the Federal Court is comparable to having Congress reduce their compensation or perks. It’s asking the foxes to vote to not invade the chicken coop. I guess I would challenge that statement. First, at least for me. Having been born in the US, but raised in the North of Ireland, from early childhood I was obsessed with everything American, including its history. I immersed myself in the Study of US history (also of Ireland, Europe and the rest of the world), passed my GCSE’s at an early age and then began attending university as Queens, where I was fortunate to take several in-depth classes on US History and emersion in the development and the logic behind the US Constitution, taught by an American Professor. My Studies were particularly poignant, because of the Civil Rights movement in the North of Ireland and because of the selective application of Civil Rights by an ever-repressive British government in regard to Ireland. It is something few American understand or even care to understand. While the American colonies were able to escape the tyranny of Britain, the revolution in Ireland, part of an 800-year struggle wasn’t successful for the entire Island; tyranny persisted in the North’s 6 Counties. In the North if you weren’t among the privileged, you had limited access to housing, to work, and civil rights didn’t apply. You could be arrested and incarcerated without trial, your home could be invaded and searched without a warrant (both happened to me), and the Brits even permitted and even assisted in the killing of citizens (some unarmed) of the wrong persuasion. While I can’t attest to the understanding of all immigrants. Many I have met from other parts of the world where they lived under repressive or oppressive governments have their own experiences of what that it means (something I find many Americans have lost perspective on) to be oppressed (as were the early colonists) and often are greatly appreciative and protective of the US Government and the Civil Rights they enjoy here because they have seen what it means not to have those rights. I have a close Irish Expat that always has a pocketbook copy of the Constitution in his pocket. As to ‘understand the traditional, historical, independent spirit of Americans that led our Founders to create the Constitution as they did’ I would say many are on par with the product of the American education system. Your understanding may not be universally shared among Americans; a good thing if you are both better informed and protective of the Constitution. I believe strongly in individual liberty and see it, as, many Founding Fathers, as the first responsibility of those elected to serve the electorate in public office. Individual liberty has been the image projected to the world (‘Land of the Free’). However, I am not an anarchist, I do believe in following the rule of law, law that I and every American participate in the process of creating through voting and freely voicing opinion. There are laws that I believe Counter to the Constitution, but thus far I haven’t gone to war over it. Where that Law is counter to the Constitution, I have long been actively involved in pursuing political change, in many instances as a product of my work these last 40 years which has been as a political and management consultant to local and State governments. But, I have also been an activist, one advocating for Constitutional logic to be applied to law. Though now retired to pursue other interests, I am still involved in some political and management consulting and mentoring, but have concentrated more in both North and South Irish politics pushing for a United Ireland (high probability a vote will happen and be successful this year or next as a consequence of Brexit) and often write editorial opinions in an Irish publication called An Phoblacht. In the US, many would see my political persuasion as that of a Libertarian, often labeled incorrectly a Trump fan, but, strange as it might seem, in Ireland, I am seen as a leftist… mostly because I oppose British privileged class law and their concept of the selective applicability of Civil Rights. If tyranny surfaced in this country, from any quarter, I’d be in the mix working toward a restoration of the Constitution’s prescription that was forged by an enlightened few that plagiarized and stole ideas from many enlightened sources. I would try to do my push back by peaceful means, but I can see an unlikely possibility a peaceful approach might not be possible; I left the Troubles of the North of Ireland, seen things I wish I hadn’t seen in Guatemala, but I will not run from my country of birth. BTW, while not specifically relevant, Éamon de Valera, involved in the movement for independence for Ireland, wasn’t born there. He traveled to Ireland from NY City and brought with him copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Ireland’s Declaration nailed to the National Postoffice door in 1916 rising was based a great deal on that of this country and later when Ireland formed it’s government, the US Constitution weight heavily on the model they implemented. I don’t dispute that and haven’t; I indicated, the C Authors, opted for other means of meeting addressing modifications to the Constitution in Article V. See my previous comment. I think it important to note that Jefferson didn’t attend the Philadelphia convention. Had he been there, his comments would have been debated and quickly dispatched or it’s possible he’d been persuaded to change his mind… no way to know. What we do know is Article V was created to address the need for future modifications of the Constitution. I don’t know if he ever voiced an objection to article V before or after the Constitution’s ratification. I was born of an American Woman and a Naturalized Irishman(who came the US and entered into service to fight for the US, who joined the US Air Force when it was created then US (He was a Radar specialist, directing mobile radar units in Europe) at the end of the War. Within a month Or two after birth, he took us to the North of Ireland, where he was part of a team, originally sent to NI to assess the placement of US Radar facilities at the Belfast International or another UK NI, location at the beginning of the Cold War, both pre-NATO and after it was established. He worked with several installations in the 50’s and early 60’s in places like Greenland, Germany, Belgium, and France. I and my ma, stayed near family in Belfast where I was raised and schooled until I was in college at Queens until I came to the US. What makes you suspect I don’t live up to my multiple instances of giving my oath of Allegiance? I refer you to my comments above. But, you are correct, I don’t have evidence he did. Did it prompt thinking that eventually resulted in discussion resulting in Article 5? I’d have to go through the detailed minutes he recorded (Also, those of Franklin) of the Convention’s debates to see if it was mentioned in the discussion. Was his letter shared with others? Discussed at the pub after meetings of the day? Who knows? while I can't substantiate it, I find it entirely possible the letter was share considering it came from Paris from the person of stature it was from. Regardless, it is obvious, Jefferson, Madison, and others were concerned about the topic of whether the Constitution would be set in stone for future generations or have provision for change. Thus, Article V. Your post had a lot to respond to. I suppose my response could have been shorter had I done what many have done and replied with some snotty comment, but I felt it worth the time. There is a lot there, take your shot. To the other posters, I apologize for the length and my rambling on my previous w posts and wouldn't fault anyone with bypassing the read, though some might find the videos of interest.
Great responses, An Taibhse. Thank you. A few who don't know at all what they're talking about on here have made statements that I don't know what I'm talking about on the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment, or otherwise. I'm actually very knowledgeable in American and US history and in the Constitution but they complain because I give them views of it they've either never considered and possibly never heard. I didn't go to university, other than a few general ed classes here and there and enough CLEP and other tests to ensure I was able to get into military programs that required at least an Associate Degree. But, perhaps like you, I have put in thousands of hours in studying American history and the Constitution. In some of your earlier posts you talked about things that were the law because no one challenged them. That is the reality of things, you are right. I think my concern was that I felt you were saying that those were legitimate law. There are a couple of key constitutional opinions regarding unconstitutional law and force by the government; I assume you're familiar with them. This first one is from American Jurisprudence. This is not law but is educated opinion used as guidance for lawyers and judges. I actually have not seen this in original print, only online, because the printed volume is $18,000 and I'm not spending that much to prove a point. I've never seen the accuracy of the quote challenged by even attorneys on the forums I visit so I accept it as accurate. The second is an opinion issued by the Supreme Court regarding submission to the abuse of power by the government - in this case an illegal arrest. John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900) Both of these represent sound logic and constitutional interpretation but, even so, I wouldn't want to be the one to take either of these arguments before a court today and hope to win. The American Jurisprudence opinion, and especially the Bad Elk opinion, date back to times when the Court was far less political and activist. I have zero trust in the Courts to take their oaths so solemnly today. In the end, it sounds like we agree far more than we disagree.
I would agree we are not that far apart. Regarding the case you cited, while I understand the logic applied in the ruling. It is an instance where I have a conflicted personal opinion on the morality of the shooting. I have defended my life using a firearm on more than one occasion, I have immutable personal criteria based in honor that allow me to apply deadly force only to prevent my or another’s death or great bodily harm and given my ability to defend myself, my confidence in my abilities and the range of defense responses my bar is personally set very high. In the instance of LE attempting to arrest me for something I haven’t done, I would comply and sort things in court. However, I do understand that arm chair hypotheticals are vastly different than reality. If I didn’t know if I was facing police officers (as opposed to those where Identity was unknown) or believed my life was in danger if I complied, my reasoning my take a different path. I have lived places where police commit violence but are protected by their status as police officers such as when I was in Guatemala with Maya who were systematically being murders by government forces, and back in Belfast where the RUC and Brit Security forces enabled and even collaborated to perpetrate violence on the Catholics in my section of the City (also where I, still a teen, was arrested in an early morning kick in home invasion without warrant by security forces, tortured to reveal information, the and then incarcerated after never being charged with a crime or ever having seen a court or been allow legal representation). But then, I had an instance where a fellow attempted to ambush me with a PPK... he tried to pull the trigger to kill me, but hadn’t chambered a round. I was able to get the gun away from him and in some amazing feat of unexplainable quick intuition realized a round hadn’t been chambered I racked the slide and chambered a round, but despite his attempt on my life, I didn’t kill him (doesn’t mean I left him unscathed), because my honor kicked in.... he was no longer a deadly threat. Every instance is different. I have been in fights where I was armed with a firearm, but because I didn’t believe a deadly response was warranted, I did not escalate the situation by drawing my weapon. Regarding taking the Oath to follow and Protect the Constitution, when I took my oath the first time I knew exactly what I was signing up for having, even then, a pretty advanced understanding of the Constitution. I sometimes wonder how many people, politicians, etc. have the knowledge as to what the take an oath to follow, protect, and defend or whether their honor to the oath they give is insincere and more a matter of convenience. Some oaths are not convenient, but once given are bound by honor. I have my thoughts on the matter. What would happen if police would appear at my door wanting to confiscate my guns? I can’t say; it would depend on a range of factors that would make any hypothetical nothing more than a brain fart.
I don't know what was in John Bad Elk's mind. I assume that he feared for his life if arrested. Generally, in the United States, we don't fear for our lives if arrested but there have been plenty of cases where people have lost their liberty for decades. But the difference is whether it is a legal arrest or not. If there is a warrant or probable cause, even if you're innocent, then yes, you let the courts sort it out and hope for justice. I have never pulled a gun in anger or defense. I'm a veteran but never saw combat. I don't know the emotional pain of taking a life but I know of it. Veterans I know who had to kill others often carry that pain their entire life. My brother carried it and, in the end, couldn't live with it and couldn't get help to deal with it and ended up taking his own life when crying out for help. Others I know laugh and tell what they pretend are funny stories about killing. It's pretty clear that the laughter and light-hearted attitude is cover for the pain. It's my goal to never, ever, have to kill another human being but it won't always be in my control. I won't sacrifice my life by allowing someone to take it but, honestly, I think that the whole "cold, dead, fingers" argument is a bit much. On the one hand, I'd like to defend my rights to the death but, on the other hand, if the time is not right then, later, when the time is right, it will never be hard to get a gun in this country. My point in asking you about taking an oath to defend the Constitution was in response to your suggestion that it might not be moral to extend the Constitution from generation to generation without reaffirmation. The point is, you took the oath, you voluntarily committed yourself. Maybe not everyone got that chance but all naturalized immigrants, all servicemen, all those others who took an oath voluntarily have affirmed their support. But, just like covenants on a home in a housing development, and contrary to Jefferson's question to Madison, the union of states stands from generation to generation. The States agreed and joined. It wasn't really the people - it was never a popular vote. It was the States who ratified and, if anyone could change it (IF), it would be the states and not the people.
