I got your 'it's not in the constitution' right here

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Patricio Da Silva, Jun 26, 2022.

  1. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    61,636
    Likes Received:
    40,334
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Amazing. You tend to be lost but this time you have outdone yourself. The Court did NOT throw out the State regulation like the pro-aborts asked them to. That is, they did NOT engage in the power that your entire OP is premised on. Your entire topic stands debunked.

    Sad!

    Abort the Mission! Abort!

    Roughly, 1/3rd of abortions occur in Red States and 2/3rds in Blue State, so we'll continue to out breed you, only now at a much faster rate.

    So, despite the "thousands of screeching harridans, whose only risk of pregnancy would be if a zoologist inseminated them in a lab, holding signs that say, "GET OUT OF MY UTERUS!" most women that want to abort, and they are mostly Blue folks, will continue to abort.

    54% of abortions are by medication, and if we can't keep fentanyl off the streets, obviously we will not keep abortifacients off the streets or out of the farm supplies.

    "Thursday: HOW DARE YOU TAKE AWAY STATES' RIGHTS ON GUNS!
    Friday: HOW DARE YOU GIVE US STATES' RIGHTS ON ABORTION!"

    The voters have been completely clear and totally unlistened to by Democrats, and the voter's message has been entirely consistent the entire time: #SHUTUPANDFIXINFLATION!

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2022
    popscott and CornPop like this.
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,265
    Likes Received:
    2,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why? Last I checked they didn't appoint me to the Supreme Court and I never spent one minute in law school. I did however litigate several cases as a sui juris party, including a Section 1983 lawsuit.

    In any case, to answer your question. the heart of the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, there are no limitations to what kind of weapon you can own within the 2nd Amendment. You can own a gun, a canon and even a hydrogen bomb. The ONLY limitation to the 2nd Amendment is if it violates the protected right of anyone else. So a hydrogen bomb might not be allowed if it irradiates someone else. Is that definitive without question enough for you?

    Your other question is how it's applicable to current issues. Unfortunately current issues are irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment, there is no wiggle room other than affecting the protected rights of others. IMO it definitely requires a sensible Amendment. "Keep and bear arms" does not include or say shooting people. That would violate their individual rights.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  3. omni

    omni Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2021
    Messages:
    1,899
    Likes Received:
    1,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh yea, show me in the constitution where cops have rights to qualified immunity protecting them from lawsuits. Surely, SCOTUS will overturn this right? Probably not, they will just say it stands on precedence.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  4. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    23,722
    Likes Received:
    7,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This proves my point.

    Are you not interpreting the 2nd amendment here?
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,265
    Likes Received:
    2,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It doesn't prove anything. I'm not a Supreme Court justice or a judge of any kind. They have the duty to interpret a question of law or an act for constitutional compliance. They have no Article III authority to interpret the Constution to pretend it says anything other than what it says.
     
  6. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    23,722
    Likes Received:
    7,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So... you have to interpret the meaning, but a supreme court justice should just "know".

    Thats why we have courts, arguments, challenges, rulings... it's all about interpretation. How you can't understand that the Supreme Court's job is to hear cases and then interpret the Constitution in their rulings is beyond me.

    It's like you know it's a silly argument without logic, but you dig your heels in and argue irrational non-sense just to argue.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,265
    Likes Received:
    2,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well it's not beyond me that you can't understand that the Supreme Court's authority under Article III is LIMITED (by the 10th Amendment) to interpret questions of LAW for constitutional compliance and not the Constitution itself. That's a common fallacious concept that most Americans have been indoctrinated to swallow. And so Americans are left to accept idiocy from SCOTUS "interpretations" that the Constitution really says that corporations (a paper created fiction) have the same protected rights as human beings and money is the same as speech among other lunatic "interpretations".
     
    Eleuthera and Hey Now like this.
  8. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    23,722
    Likes Received:
    7,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't determine if a law is compliant with the Constitution without interpreting the Constitution.

    Words have meaning. To determine what they mean, they have to be interpreted.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,265
    Likes Received:
    2,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only "interpretation" required is an understanding of the English language and reasonable reading comprehension skills. A Supreme Court justice should be able to have that skillset at the very least. But that is NOT what these black robed lawyers do. They use the term "interpretation" as pretext to corrupt the Constitution by creating case "law", which has the effect of law and amending the Constitution as the wind blows. They are currently in the process of reversing precedent. This makes no sense. How can one set of black robed lawyers decide the Constitution means one thing then a new set years later decide it really means the exact opposite? This is perverting the Constitution nothing more nothing less. And this is really committing crimes against the Constitution. Clearly they have no such power but operate under color of law. And you and the majority of Americans heve been scammed into believing this is the proper function of the judiciary. Then you wonder why public confidence in the Supreme Court is at 25%.
     
  10. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,090
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Aside from a few exceptions, the Constitution itself is illogical & lacks common sense, for it empowers capitalism/business over the needs of the people (eg, 4th Amendment, the Contracts Clause, etc.).

    This would be expected considering that the so-called "founding fathers" wished to protect their wealth & businesses (and slaves) --- as well as their authority --- from any single King or dictator. So they instituted a governmental system that would oversee an expansive capitalist/market system through which they could continue to protect & enrich themselves, and exercise authority. Naturally, and by design, such a system would be easily manipulated by money'ed interests. Essentially, the concentration of power was shifted from a single elite individual (King/Queen) to a small elite group --- hence the founding of "secret societies" by "initiated" elites to secure wealth/authority. It was only later that, as access to housing, resources, and land dwindled and cost of living increased under the burden of runaway capitalism, that essential social & rescue programs began to be implemented, thanks to the noble efforts of socially minded (not capitalist) people. It is these social programs that have saved the nation from total collapse, although it is in a losing battle as more and more power/wealth is becoming concentrated.

    The three branches of government system is also illogical, as two of the branches are unnecessary. It is anything but a "checks & balances" system, as far too much power is afforded to both the President & the Supreme Court. Of the three, only a parliamentary/congressional system would be most productive, which comprises hundreds of people making decisions --- decisions based on what should be the best for all, and removed from attachments to money/business interests.

    In the UK, despite the PM & the courts, laws passed by the parliament are the final source of law.
     
  11. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    16,489
    Likes Received:
    9,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Let me ask you a question. When I read the Federalist papers, to me, it reeks of rich white guy wants to protect his own, afraid of 'factions'. Wants electors and Senators to be men of discernment, learned fellows in a kind of noble class, and his description hits me in the head like a hammer, he wants electors and senators to be people like Hamilton, he fears the general public, and he fears democracy because it would give the lessers of the world power to act against the interests of people in his class. he saw the house and the senate to be something like the House of Commons and Lords in Britain, where the Lords, noble, sensible, learned men would temper the wild and more extreme fellows in the house. Now, the papers don't come right out and say it, but it sure reeks of it. Thing is, that kind of world no longer exists, and the 'factions' he feared, that's all we have now. Two mobs, republicans and democrats. This is why we need to get rid of the electoral college (It simply does not function as Mssrs Hamilton and Madison intended for it).

    What do you think?
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2022
  12. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    16,489
    Likes Received:
    9,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That point has been under debate for over 2 centuries, and wasn't settled until Heller. In Heller, it was a 5/4 party line vote, and it was only just over a decade ago, so I'm not seeing 'precedent' status because of this fact. However, Heller admitted that the right wasn't absolute.
    There are no limitations, unless the states limit it.
    No, you cannot own a nuclear weapon owing to a 50 country treaty the US was party to. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is now part of international law. On 7 July 2017, an overwhelming majority of States (122) adopted the TPNW. By 24 October 2020, 50 countries signed and ratified it which ensured the Treaty enters into force 90 days later. So 22 January 2021, nuclear weapons became illegal.

    States can regulate firearm's, weaponry, just as long as they don't deny the right to own at least one gun (or two, since the amendment refers to arms in the plural) sufficient to protect one's home loved ones and property.. Kind, caliber, how many, where used, permits, etc., is up for regulation. At the minimum, the right to use them to defend one's home, one's family and property, is not under debate. Past that, it's subject to regulation. If dems ever shape the court in their favor, Heller will be repealed.

    If this 6/3 court oversteps their authority on that point, it will give dems much more incentive to increase the number of justices on the court because, I assure you, no liberal court believes in the unfettered second amendment. The wording only goes to the right, nothing beyond it but the right. What kind, where, permits, etc., are not mentioned and are fair game.. Because, totally unregulated ownership of firearms is not in the best interest of the country because it would make the nation less safe, not to mention it's ****ing insane.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2022
  13. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    18,656
    Likes Received:
    8,911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When parties make an effort to redefine words, we have a problem Houston.

    Good posts on all sides in this thread!

    As Orwell noted, paraphrasing, First corrupt the language (the meanings of words). What follows naturally is a corruption of thought processes.

    If interpretation of the Constitution depends upon the meanings of words, which it must, care must be taken in that regard.

    I still think the 9th Amendment is elegant in its simplicity. An exhaustive listing of the Rights Of Man is impossible. Some believe that the only rights we have are procedural rights, but that is not an accurate view.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,265
    Likes Received:
    2,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wasn't talking about SCOTUS, debates or any international treaty, I was strictly talking about the text of the 2nd Amendment as it was written. The question I was asked is what does the 2nd Amendment mean, period.
     
  15. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    18,656
    Likes Received:
    8,911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Second Amendment means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government.
     
    popscott likes this.
  16. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    16,489
    Likes Received:
    9,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's not a question that can adequately be answered on this forum. There are books devoted just to answering that question. Since the syntax of the amendment is confusing, and frustrating to any grammarian, that is the source of the conflict. Heller decoupled the two clauses from each other, and that is a historical first. Heller makes a lot of wrong assumptions about history and is therefore a terrible ruling. This fact was made very clear by a number of scholars criticizing heller.

    Like i said, it wasn't settled until Heller. I doubt Heller will evolve into a strong precedent because it was decided rather recently and with a party line vote and it's based on false assumptions or factual knowledge of history.

    As to what it meant, it has been under debate for over 2 centuries.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,265
    Likes Received:
    2,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm afraid it already was, quite adequately.

    Yeah thanks to SCOTUS "interpretations". They have "interpreted" the Constitution to death, literally.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  18. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    18,656
    Likes Received:
    8,911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As an old English major, I must ask you what is so confusing about a sentence having a dependent clause and an independent clause?
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  19. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    16,489
    Likes Received:
    9,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hmmmmm. Was your major "Old English" (you didn't capitalize the 'o' in "old" ) and you did not obtain your degree in it, or did your declared major occur some 50 (or whatever ) years ago and you didn't achieve your degree in it but switched majors, (either way, your lack of a degree is implied given your phraseology), and thus you are an elderly person who once had an English major, or are you an old person who is British, and a major in Her Majesty's Army?

    Well, no matter, actually, so allow me to point out to you the glaringly obvious: If you are an 'old English major', (taking your pick from the aforementioned) you cannot, therefore, possibly be old enough where your implication, owing to your declaration of authority, by whatever path, carries any weight given your failure to mention that necessary layers of scholarship are required to adequately, justly and fairly, dive into the rabbit hole surrounding the historical context, meaning, etc., of the second amendment which was written in the latter part of the 18th century.

    The short version: You can't assume the truth of the Second Amendment by applying modern grammar and syntax to the type of grammar and syntax predominant at the time, which was closer to that of Shakespeare than our own.

    Alas, we have a savior, the lady (Dr. Kari Sullivan, linguistics prof. ) who wrote the following treatise, and it's very good, delicious, I would say, and, as an old English major, myself (well, my degree is Liberal Arts, but we got a good scolding from the English department with the caveat "I do not declare being a paragon of grammar, and I believe it is better to occupy a more humble perch than to rely on personal authority"), might I suggest you read it?

    .https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2022
  20. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    18,656
    Likes Received:
    8,911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's a beautiful dodge Patricio, coming from an individual who is challenged by dependent and independent clauses.

    Perhaps Portuguese is your primary language and not English?
     
  21. CornPop

    CornPop Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Absurdly false to the point of being laughable. You've just dismissed your position on this subject by showing how uninformed the foundation of your premise is.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2022
    Eleuthera likes this.
  22. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    16,489
    Likes Received:
    9,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't know if you noticed, but you didn't actually state what, precisely, it was in my post that was 'uninformed'.

    But, I will assume it's the point of the language of the Bill of Rights being closer to that of Shakespeare than that of modern English. On that point....

    Sorry, I think not.

    https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/

    The language of the Bill of Rights is chronologically closer to Shakespeare’s English than to present-day English...

    Kari Sullivan, the author of the article, is a linguistics scholar

    https://languages-cultures.uq.edu.au/profile/1106/kari-sullivan

    I'll take her word over yours, sorry. Therefore....

    Your laughter is hollow.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2022
  23. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    16,489
    Likes Received:
    9,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not a dodge, actually, and after reviewing my rebuttal, I conclude wholeheartedly that I hit the ball out of the proverbial park.

    Since the point of dependent and independent clause was addressed, not to mention the strange syntax of the Second Amendment, in great detail by the article sourced, your assumption regarding my being 'challenged' is off the mark. Perhaps I should have quoted the article more, for I know it's a habit of members of this forum not to read sourced articles, my bad on that, but take a moment to read the article.

    https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/

    As for my cultural heritage, take a moment and read my profile.
     
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    18,656
    Likes Received:
    8,911
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pat yourself on the back Patricio, and put a gold star on your forehead while you're at it.
    :lol:

    Do you think Lula will make a political comeback?
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2022
  25. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,090
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Well put!

    Many many people, including public officials, are in your camp.

    The way I see it is that an "indirect democracy" (voting for public "representatives") is a safeguard for the wealthy, but an insult to the direct will & needs of the people. Instituting the EC is adding injury to insult.

    Madison's reasoning for the EC is outdated anyway because it was partly based on slavery --- ie, it would benefit wealthy slave-holders. Wasn't one of its goals to increase the political influence of slave states by making non-voting slaves 3/5th's of a person, thereby affording a greater number of electorates in those states?

    Nevertheless, the EC, as it did then, still gives the wealthy a big edge over the commoners.

    I've heard they have in place the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. But I don't know how that's going at the moment.

    But I agree that the EC should be abolished. I prefer a direct democracy. But if we are to have "indirect democracy", then at least let it be a national popular vote! There is no viable argument against it.
     

Share This Page