Does the Constitution Apply Today?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Some would like to change the presidential election method. Not me, but I understand the appeal.

I'm with quade on this one, what benefit does the electoral college have. It just plain sucks no matter what your political views are. Tell me any good reason that a president with the popular vote should not get into office because of a technicality. I'm not attacking you, I'm just curious as to why anybody would defend the current system.

So lets say you move to Texas, and you plan on voting for Obama. Why waste your time going to the polls? I can't understand why somebody wouldn't want their vote to count nationally if they lived in a state where the majority of people didn't agree with them.

I'm sorry, I'm very passionate about protecting the second ammendment as are some that would like to destroy it, but are there really that many people out there that think the electoral college should be preserved?

I *really* wish people would get off this whine - do you somehow think your vote doesn't count, just because your guy doesn't win the election?

Your vote won't count if your guy won the populous vote and lost the EC vote.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Some would like to change the presidential election method. Not me, but I understand the appeal.

I'm with quade on this one, what benefit does the electoral college have. It just plain sucks no matter what your political views are. Tell me any good reason that a president with the popular vote should not get into office because of a technicality. I'm not attacking you, I'm just curious as to why anybody would defend the current system.

So lets say you move to Texas, and you plan on voting for Obama. Why waste your time going to the polls? I can't understand why somebody wouldn't want their vote to count nationally if they lived in a state where the majority of people didn't agree with them.

I'm sorry, I'm very passionate about protecting the second ammendment as are some that would like to destroy it, but are there really that many people out there that think the electoral college should be preserved?

I *really* wish people would get off this whine - do you somehow think your vote doesn't count, just because your guy doesn't win the election?

Your vote won't count if your guy won the populous vote and lost the EC vote.

Re-read Art II, section I.

The "popular vote" has NOTHING to do with electing the President.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Incorrect - the Amendment does not say "the right of the militia to bear arms".

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

Let's break it down:

- A well regulated Militia,

- being necessary to the security of a free State,

- the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

- shall not be infringed

The second line is meaningless for the purpose of this argument, so we can ignore that.

1) So we have to address the, "well regulated" part. What does that mean? Well regulated could go from mandatory registration to having an armory where the weapons are stored and retrieved when the militia is assembled.

2) Militia. If the premise of the right to keep and bear arms is based upon a militia, then it is void, as there are no state-sponsored militias in the context as originally written. I guess you would then have to record yourself as a militia member, then you could keep and bear arms in a well regulated sense.

3) Shall not be infringed. Again, the premise is for a free state via a well regulated militia, since we have a standing army, no militia is needed.

If the 2nd read something about the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed, while in the same sentence with no mention of militias or regulation, then it would have been airtight that the people have the unabridged right to bear arms. Since the militia issue and teh regulation issue are there, it opens the door. So when I say the US Const is a shaky dicument, you understand. I wish the founding murderers/rapists would have written it that way, but they didn't, they left the door open.

Adhering to English grammar, these elements are all in the same sentence, so we must consider their transference and relevance to each other.

You'll disagree and that's ok, and I'll disagree with you, so the truth lies within the renderings of the SCOTUS and right now they fortunately side with us. One day they may not and there will be people that scream things about prying them from their cold, dead fingers as they are whisked away in straightjackets. Enjoy what you ahve, they may or may not be temporary.

[quade 4]

Quote

You'll disagree and that's ok, and I'll disagree with you, so the truth lies within the renderings of the SCOTUS and right now they fortunately side with us.

Actually, that's not true. The Supreme Court still hasn't made a definitive statement as to what the actual phrasing means. They never have and I can't see them doing it in the foreseeable future.

If Social Security is the "3rd Rail" of politics, then the 2nd Amendment is . . . well . . . I don't know . . . but it must be somewhere between Global Thermo-Nuclear War and Armageddon. In either case although lots of people might talk about it, ain't nobody actually gonna touch it. The Supremes have had several opportunities over the years and even though they're all just about to die anyway, they don't want it to be any sooner than it has to be.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

it's an absolute in this case. Elector has never flipped an election by jumping ship.

meteors may also destroy the earth someday, but that doesn't make it high on the list of things to be concerned about.

So you can see into the future? It could happen, probably wouldn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

These flipping electors are called faithless electors and have flipped on 158 occassions throughout American history. Although it has never flipped an election, it certainly could. 158 times, wow, not a small number and it easily could have changed the outcome given the close elections we've had. Hell, it happened last general election. Never happens, eh?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The 2nd, as it is written, applies to militias and allows for, "well regulated" actions.

might help you to look up the applicable definitions of militia and regulated.

Have an argument, make one, I'm eagerly waiting.

A well trained chef, being necessary to the creation of a tasty meal, the right of the people to eat baked alaska shall not be infringed.

Who gets the dessert - the chef or the customers?

I like how you transpose trained with regulated; loses the context of the analogy. But to entertain the rest of it, the people get the desert, but the quality/quantity of it depends upon the training (regulation) of the chef. If there is no need for the desert, or perhaps no training available, then there will be no desert.

We can play with this all day, the moral is that we are little puppets at the whims of those who control the country under the guise of the constitution thingy.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Some would like to change the presidential election method. Not me, but I understand the appeal.

I'm with quade on this one, what benefit does the electoral college have. It just plain sucks no matter what your political views are. Tell me any good reason that a president with the popular vote should not get into office because of a technicality. I'm not attacking you, I'm just curious as to why anybody would defend the current system.

So lets say you move to Texas, and you plan on voting for Obama. Why waste your time going to the polls? I can't understand why somebody wouldn't want their vote to count nationally if they lived in a state where the majority of people didn't agree with them.

I'm sorry, I'm very passionate about protecting the second ammendment as are some that would like to destroy it, but are there really that many people out there that think the electoral college should be preserved?

I *really* wish people would get off this whine - do you somehow think your vote doesn't count, just because your guy doesn't win the election?

Your vote won't count if your guy won the populous vote and lost the EC vote.

Re-read Art II, section I.

The "popular vote" has NOTHING to do with electing the President.

Obviously, as I stated.

You wrote: do you somehow think your vote doesn't count, just because your guy doesn't win the election?


I responded by saying my vote doesn't count if my guy won the populous vote but lost the EC. I guess the caviate to that would be if my state awarded the electoral votes for my candidate. We're getting lost in semantics.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

You'll disagree and that's ok, and I'll disagree with you, so the truth lies within the renderings of the SCOTUS and right now they fortunately side with us.

Actually, that's not true. The Supreme Court still hasn't made a definitive statement as to what the actual phrasing means. They never have and I can't see them doing it in the foreseeable future.

If Social Security is the "3rd Rail" of politics, then the 2nd Amendment is . . . well . . . I don't know . . . but it must be somewhere between Global Thermo-Nuclear War and Armageddon. In either case although lots of people might talk about it, ain't nobody actually gonna touch it. The Supremes have had several opportunities over the years and even though they're all just about to die anyway, they don't want it to be any sooner than it has to be.

Didn't they make one on that DC case? Didn't follow it, thought they did.

http://dcguncase.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.

It's a huge decision, I didn't read it all, but it appears as tho it does protect a person's right to owna gun in the home. It certainly isn't stare decisis yet, that would take some time. It could easily be overturned.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The 2nd, as it is written, applies to militias and allows for, "well regulated" actions.

might help you to look up the applicable definitions of militia and regulated.

Have an argument, make one, I'm eagerly waiting.

A well trained chef, being necessary to the creation of a tasty meal, the right of the people to eat baked alaska shall not be infringed.

Who gets the dessert - the chef or the customers?

I like how you transpose trained with regulated; loses the context of the analogy. But to entertain the rest of it, the people get the desert, but the quality/quantity of it depends upon the training (regulation) of the chef. If there is no need for the desert, or perhaps no training available, then there will be no desert.

We can play with this all day, the moral is that we are little puppets at the whims of those who control the country under the guise of the constitution thingy.

Professor Copperud disagrees.

From this site:

Quote

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus," has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

I'd say this guy is pretty qualified to discuss the semantics of the structure of the amendment, wouldn't you?

Here's the questions posed, and Prof. Copperud's answers:

Quote

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

Further reading, here. Please note the inclusion of Senators Kennedy, Metzenbaum and Biden on the committee.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I have one in my lab.

Bring it out.. I know of a few old mines with autunite crystals

some of the old mine dumps will really get a counter signing nicely.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The 2nd, as it is written, applies to militias and allows for, "well regulated" actions.

might help you to look up the applicable definitions of militia and regulated.

Have an argument, make one, I'm eagerly waiting.

A well trained chef, being necessary to the creation of a tasty meal, the right of the people to eat baked alaska shall not be infringed.

Who gets the dessert - the chef or the customers?

I like how you transpose trained with regulated; loses the context of the analogy. But to entertain the rest of it, the people get the desert, but the quality/quantity of it depends upon the training (regulation) of the chef. If there is no need for the desert, or perhaps no training available, then there will be no desert.

We can play with this all day, the moral is that we are little puppets at the whims of those who control the country under the guise of the constitution thingy.

Professor Copperud disagrees.

From this site:

Quote

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus," has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

I'd say this guy is pretty qualified to discuss the semantics of the structure of the amendment, wouldn't you?

Here's the questions posed, and Prof. Copperud's answers:

Quote

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

Further reading, here. Please note the inclusion of Senators Kennedy, Metzenbaum and Biden on the committee.

Here's another author qualified in constitutional linguistics: See J. Tiffany, A
Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585,
p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English
as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).

http://dcguncase.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf


The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

THIS REALLY BRINGS IT HOME TO ME:

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.

Many peopel want to seperate the purpose and the command, which is dishonest. If punctuation allowed via a period, then it could easily be discerned that there is a severance between the purpose and the command.

The Second Amendment
would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.”

Which illustrates your example, there is no connection between the purpose (chefs training) and the command (who gets to eat it).

And so it went on and they fortunately decided in our favor, but they could easily have decided that the purpose and command were so closely related that there must be a militia in order to have the purpose to keep and bear arms.

We're not on opposite sides here, just that you think the 2nd is bulletproof; I know it is not.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

We're not on opposite sides here, just that you think the 2nd is bulletproof; I know it is not.

I don't think it is bulletproof, either - that is why I watch related cases closely.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

We're not on opposite sides here, just that you think the 2nd is bulletproof; I know it is not.

I don't think it is bulletproof, either - that is why I watch related cases closely.

Good, then we are on the same page.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We're not on opposite sides here, just that you think the 2nd is bulletproof; I know it is not.

I don't think it is bulletproof, either - that is why I watch related cases closely.

Good, then we are on the same page.

Mostly - you really should have specified a bit more with your Weatherby reference and given a caliber.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

We're not on opposite sides here, just that you think the 2nd is bulletproof; I know it is not.

I don't think it is bulletproof, either - that is why I watch related cases closely.

Good, then we are on the same page.

Mostly - you really should have specified a bit more with your Weatherby reference and given a caliber.

Yea, I think we both know they're monsters..... but friendly since not assault I'd rather get hit by 4 or 5 of those vs that assault round 9MM FMJ.... OOOOOOWWWWWW

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Can the logic of that then be applied to other indiscriminate weapons beyond; nuclear, chemical, biological, & radiological as they pertain to personal use?

Yes.

As your example suggests, the problem becomes what is defined as “discriminate” vs “indiscriminate.” Most law is not prescriptive because that is seen as unnecessary inhibition. So has to respond to a case or incident.

NB: one can devise scenarios, e.g., Georgi Markov in which biochemical agents are discriminate .... still doubtful that most folks are going to support distribution of ricin tipped umbrellas. Like suicide or illegal drugs, a state may decide that there are other reasons why something should or should not be legal.

Also depends what epistemological system one wants to use us basis for logic: legal or ethical (normative or applied). The two overlap but are not the same.

The world already has dazzling weapons, acoustical weapons, infrared weapons, etc. Some have national and international restrictions. For example dazzling weapons were first prohibited under a US-USSR bilateral {that’s how old} and subsequently addressed through international law, via additional protocol to Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

There are also much older weapons that are indiscriminate that have varying levels of restriction or non-restriction beyond fragment bombs, e.g., landmines and incendiary weapons. The latter goes back, at least, to the Greeks. And, as most know, fire-bombing of Tokyo killed more non-combatants immdeiately than did either atomic weapon used in WWII.

As to “personal use” – does that mean civilian in a non-combat situation? E.g., this scenario:

Quote

For instance, it would be nearly impossible to say that a fragmentation grenade isn't an indiscriminate weapon. If your intended target is standing next to an innocent person, it's logical to assume that the innocent person will also be harmed.

In most civilian circumstances (unless extraordinary mitigating circumstances, e.g., self-defense) that would be murder (homicide &/or manslaughter) of both people. One doesn’t need to create a new law if existing ones already cover it.

In a military situation, it depends: where is that “innocent person”? Is that “innocent person” a civilian or a uniformed medic? (Not supposed to target either … but different contexts.) Conflict zone or urban setting? Is it the only available weapon? If yes, it may be reasonable; if a more discriminate weapon was available but was not chosen, it may not be reasonable.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[diverborg 0]

Quote

I *really* wish people would get off this whine - do you somehow think your vote doesn't count, just because your guy doesn't win the election?

It has nothing to do with whether my guy wins the election. Even if it worked in the favor of my candidate every time, I wouldn't like the system. Of course your vote does affect which side your state goes to, but when that state is not a swing state, your individual vote is pretty much irrelevant to the outcome of the election, unless by chance, enough people have changed their stance in the state to make it a swing state. I understand the principal of it, I just don't think its necessary anymore.

[AggieDave 6]

You're reading into a law document. It says what it says and no more, no less. A comma is a comma and you can't infer a phrase.

That is a very common mistake by someone who has no formal training.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[diverborg 0]

Quote

It allows states to elect a president. We are supposed to be a union of states, not a big federal empire. In a union of states, the people vote for their state leadership, and the state chooses federal leaders. In one homogenous federal government it would make more sense to have a popular vote.

I completely agree with a union of states, and I'm all for more power to the states and less to the federal govt. States do elect their own govt which is the way it should be, but we are electing a president to run the country on a federal level and not a state level, so I see no problem with a popular vote.

If anything, the electoral college has the potential to hurt state powers more than help. It has shifted more power to just a few states at the suffering of others.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

The 2nd, as it is written, applies to militias and allows for, "well regulated" actions.

That's complete bullshit. It applies to 'the people.' IT is very clear in that respect.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

The 2nd, as it is written, applies to militias and allows for, "well regulated" actions.

That's complete bullshit. It applies to 'the people.' IT is very clear in that respect.

Yep. Five out of nine Supreme Court Justices said so in one recent case in the last 200 years. That's nearly a unanimous opinion. So very crystal clear.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

You're reading into a law document. It says what it says and no more, no less. A comma is a comma and you can't infer a phrase.

That's not as absolute as you might think.
There's a book that has fun exploring the vagaries of punctuation in the English language. It's entitled
"Eats, Shoots and Leaves."

The difference between "eats shoots and leaves" and "eats, shoots and leaves" is but a single comma. The former refers to an herbivoric animal. The latter refers to a glutton who engages in firearm violence and has a penchant for the hasty retreat.

As best as I can recall, the cover has a cartoon on it depicting a panda walking upright, departing a restaurant while holding a smoking pistol.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The 2nd, as it is written, applies to militias and allows for, "well regulated" actions.

That's complete bullshit. It applies to 'the people.' IT is very clear in that respect.

Yep. Five out of nine Supreme Court Justices said so in one recent case in the last 200 years. That's nearly a unanimous opinion. So very crystal clear.

Yeah nevermind the fact the four dissenting SCOTUS justices happen to be liveral.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[quade 4]

Quote

Yeah nevermind the fact the four dissenting SCOTUS justices happen to be liveral.

Read this; http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20060525.html

The entire point is that decisions like these are not definitive and 5-4 splits along ideological lines pretty much bring the process and decision under question.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

it's an absolute in this case. Elector has never flipped an election by jumping ship.

meteors may also destroy the earth someday, but that doesn't make it high on the list of things to be concerned about.

So you can see into the future? It could happen, probably wouldn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

These flipping electors are called faithless electors and have flipped on 158 occassions throughout American history. Although it has never flipped an election, it certainly could. 158 times, wow, not a small number and it easily could have changed the outcome given the close elections we've had. Hell, it happened last general election. Never happens, eh?

You're as confused about the faithless electors as you are about what a well regulated militia is. (a hint, a significant number of people in speakers corner are part of the militia, including you, and many of them are well regulated. )