Does the Constitution Apply Today?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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.

Roe v Wade was a 5-4 decision too. Do you have any doubts to its authority?

[AggieDave 6]

Aren't you a lawyer? Then you should know what I mean by it says what it says, no more, no less.

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

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

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.

Roe v Wade was a 5-4 decision too. Do you have any doubts to its authority?

Doubt its authority? No.

Ability to be changed with a change of a single Justice? Yes.

That's my point. NONE of this stuff is set in stone. If you have unanimity of opinion, then you'd need to switch out 5 Justices to have a chance to flip it the other way. A 5-4 decision only needs to have 1 Judge swapped out and the whole mess -could- start again.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

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.

And some are well armed

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

And some are well armed

And some even own guns too...

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

[Lucky... 0]

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

God damnit, that Jusice degree from a major university was all for nothing. I'm just GD lucky to have you here to tell me I'm wrong, but not explain why other than....A comma is a comma ....which totally clears it up.

How about that linguistics expert talking about purpose and command? His education was for not as well. Tell me, sir, where is your education from, what did you major in and please break it down and explain it as they did in that silly little SCOTUS opinion, concuring opinion and dissenting opinion. You are aware of how that works, right?

Seriously, I understand you're giving me the, "Aw shucks" version of it as, "we've always done it this way so why change," essentially stare decisis. But in appeallate decisions they really break these down into elements. In the DC decision they really get intricate as far as grammatically, and I've read more complicated versions of other cases where you have to really dissect every element and then bring it together, but commas are important in seperating elements within the same thought. Again, the 2nd language is from the same thought, or they would have used periods to possibly shift intent/direction/command.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're reading into a law document.


That's kind of undermining the US Const to call it a law document, it really is a fundamental piece of Americana. A law document is a complaint/summons, etc, the US Const is a sacred piece of liberty that is supposed to be supreme over all other laws.... which is why the living constitution, AKA case law.

The US Const essentially establishes outer parameters of freedom, liberty and protections. Legislated statute tries to limit that and where they conflict, appellate courts, up to and including the SCOTUS weigh one against the other and decide where the bar s/b set. Over 225 years this bar is rasied and lowered based upon the times and the composition of the courts.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A comma is a comma and you can't infer a phrase.


I'm not inferring anything, I'm using 1 sentence and correlating purpose and command, as people do who are waaaaay smarter than you or I / me or you / you or me (which ever is correct).


Relax, we won this one, may not always be that way, but probably will be in our lifetime. And don't worry about Obaam after he gets elected, at most they'll be able to sneak in an Assault Weapons type ban. Don't forget, your boy said he would have signed it if his congress passed it to him..... fortunately they let it die and it sunsetted.

[Lucky... 0]

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.

It applies people in militias. We can beat this to death if you wish, but it can easily be turned the other way by simple language of, "well regulated." You must admit that would or could mean to check em in at the armory. I'm sure you'll disagree just as a reflex, but if somnething is well regulated that raises the bar considerably, esp above just garden variety regulation. We can compare it to a min security jail where people can walk off to a supermax where everyone's whereabouts are tracked constantly.


When I read people respond as you did without any independant supporting data, I get the feeling they're saying, 'no one's taking my fucking guns.' That doesn't address teh intent of the FF, just your intentions to always own guns. I hear ya and I'm with ya, I just like to weigh what is really being articulated rather than my personal position.

[AggieDave 6]

You're talking about case law in reference to the initial law. Yes the constitution can be considered a law document. We're talking about two separate things. You know this if you've had the education you state you have (which I do not doubt).

The law as written says only what the law says. Most people, when reading something like that, color the written word with not only what their personal past experiences are, but they also try to break the words down into seperate phrases which may or may not be accurate.

In terms of case law that further defines the first stated written law, then that is another "can of worms" all together.

As for my education, I attended Texas A&M University where I studied college girls, skydiving and beer drinking. All in all, it was the best education anyone could ask for.

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

[Lucky... 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.

Bahahahahahaha....why didn't I just write that, it would have been so much easier, concise and TRUE.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

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.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!! That's the fucking point - when Obama gets in, probably 3 of the justices are looking at retiring immediately, maybe more his second term, so the SCOTUS could go lib for the first time since the early 70's and guess which way the DC case would have gone?

Learn to seperate your personal feelings from the realities of things, they become so much more clear. Trust me bro, if I were writing an amicus brief on this matter I would be writing from your/my perspective and find something flowery to justify it. I'm not, I'm weighing it as it is written in all its vague glory.

[downwardspiral 0]

oh really? What sort of data would potentially change your mind? I offered no other argument other than calling bullshit on your VERY wrong interpretation of the 2nd because I understand completely your inability to be swayed from your opinion.

But I do apprecaite your assumption my opinion is based on reflex rather than critical thinking because anybody whose opinion differs from yours must be a complete dope.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

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. )

You try to drop hints to seem mysteriously above me, make your argument; love to read it.

I know what a faithless elector is, I posted the citation. 158 times over American history, hardly an abberation. Never has flipped an election, but with close election it really could happen.

Love it when people make inferences about the naivete of other posters, yet fail to illustrate it, post citations or address citations posted by said alleged naive poster.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

Roe v Wade was a 5-4 decision too. Do you have any doubts to its authority?

Without a doubt, it is certainly up for grabs.

Miranda was 5-4 also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

It was tested around 2000 under Dickerson v US, and that's from memory - we studied it. Let me see what the outcome was as far as ratio....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickerson_v._United_States

It was 7-2 upholding Miranda.... the ole stare decisis probably made a far more conservative court solidify Miranda at a higher rate of support than the original court did, so don't try to attach logic to these matters.

This is what really draws me to law, you learn to drop this, "Never, no way, this is how it goes, no other way" mentality. There is really weird shit that happens in the law. Take a JUS class at your local community college, it's pretty eye-opening.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Aren't you a lawyer? Then you should know what I mean by it says what it says, no more, no less.

The law is so rubber and complex that you cannot even consider that logic....the people who run it don't.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

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. )

You try to drop hints to seem mysteriously above me, make your argument; love to read it.

I know what a faithless elector is, I posted the citation. 158 times over American history, hardly an abberation. Never has flipped an election, but with close election it really could happen.

Love it when people make inferences about the naivete of other posters, yet fail to illustrate it, post citations or address citations posted by said alleged naive poster.

I drop hints when people play dumber than they really are, because it's not worth the typing to explain what they already know. You've been in SC far too long to claim such ignorance.

In a close election, electors are faithful. They only deviate for symbolic reasons. It's pretty simple to understand.

Also easy to understand is your continued insistance on not knowing that you're a member of the militia, or what "well regulated" means. Your argument disppears once you give up your strawman definitions.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Aren't you a lawyer? Then you should know what I mean by it says what it says, no more, no less.

There've been scads of scholarly writings parsing and debating the meaning of the various parts, and whole, of the 2nd Amendment, including what meaning to give the infamous commas.

Quote

it says what it says, no more, no less.

It may say what it says, but what does it say? A huge part of the debate is over disagreement over what it says. "Well-regulated"; "militia"; "the people"; "keep and bear"; "arms"; the f*&^ing commas .... Forget about what the hell it all means; first let's deal w/the debate over just what the hell it does say.

Quote

Nuclear physics ain't so new, and it ain't so clear.

-Pogo

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>You're talking about case law in reference to the initial law. Yes the constitution can be considered a law document. We're talking about two separate things.


To get into semantics of a law document or not is meaningless. The constitution gives us rights/protections, statute limits that and the appellate courts decide who's right. I don't care what you call the US Const, I call it a vague pos written by people who thought the world of themselves, yet by today's standards are rapists and murderers for the most part. I'm glad it's there, we need some place to start when deciding what's "fair."


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You know this if you've had the education you state you have (which I do not doubt).

I have, not like a JUS degree is a big deal. You learn that the const is considered a joke by legal scholars and even by teh courts. Look at the OJ case, ....a fair and speedy trial by an impartial jury.... at least 5 of the 12 jurors admitted in their jury questionaire to disagree with the 95 acquittal. If you were the defendant you would be screaming 6th deprivation while everyone else looks on and dismisses you as crazy. Point is, as leno says, Iraq can have our constitution, we're not using it.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The law as written says only what the law says. Most people, when reading something like that, color the written word with not only what their personal past experiences are, but they also try to break the words down into seperate phrases which may or may not be accurate.


What part of well regulated do you find that I have, or others have misinterpreted? There's unregulated, and regulated and then well regulated. So their (FF) intent was to have this militia well regulated; what does that mean? I see pro 2nd guys that like to act as tho the amendment gives us unabridge rights to generally avoid that one, but that's dishonest.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In terms of case law that further defines the first stated written law, then that is another "can of worms" all together.


Well, let's get er open. We can't honsetly dismiss that and just call it too messy; the SCOTUS won't. I'm sure you've read case law before and they constantly refer to other decisions and here;s teh catch, they even rely on dissenting opinions from justices who essentially lost their side but their dissent carries clout when and if the case gets reversed even decades later. That stuff is all-iimportant.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As for my education, I attended Texas A&M University where I studied college girls, skydiving and beer drinking. All in all, it was the best education anyone could ask for


I wanted that major but the roster was always full when I went to enrole


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

oh really? What sort of data would potentially change your mind? I offered no other argument other than calling bullshit on your VERY wrong interpretation of the 2nd because I understand completely your inability to be swayed from your opinion.

But I do apprecaite your assumption my opinion is based on reflex rather than critical thinking because anybody whose opinion differs from yours must be a complete dope.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>oh really? What sort of data would potentially change your mind?


Case law, judges / justices interpretations, hell, anything generally objecctive. Post what ya want, nothing too out there. Hell, post opinions from the NRA, they're probably very empirical.


>>>>>>>>>>>>I offered no other argument other than calling bullshit on your VERY wrong interpretation of the 2nd because I understand completely your inability to be swayed from your opinion.


Well now I'm convinced .

Shit, I posted the rendered decision on teh DC case that went your/my way, use that - go read it and borrow their interpretations. I gave you the smoking gun, go get it.

As for my opinion, my opinion is that I never want to lose my right to own a gun or 10, my easy interpretation of the 2nd, esp "well regulated" makes me think we are lucky it is still going our way. The language of, "well regulated" opens all kind sof doors that could summarily call for registration, as in California. We know what happens after that..... What would you do if the gov ordered registration? Anyone knowingly failing to register is an instant felon; what do ya do? Hell, even teh word, "regulated" would cover the gov for registration, let alone, "well regulated." Do you disagree with that? Cars are regulated, they have license plates and most/all states track insurance compliance, we have seat belt laws, laws regulating the use of alcohol, etc... I could go on forever and the idea is that simple registration of guns would be well within the scope of WELL REGULATED.


>>>>>>>>>>>>But I do apprecaite your assumption my opinion is based on reflex rather than critical thinking because anybody whose opinion differs from yours must be a complete dope.


Not at all, this is a very emotional issue and that's what surfaces with these issues. I have the uncanny ability to seperate my personal opinion from reality. Again, we are on the same side of this issue, I'm just willing to read it with an unbiased interpretation.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

(a hint, a significant number of people in speakers corner are part of the militia, including you, and many of them are well regulated. )

I'm a citizen, and I own a gun. So I could be loosely defined as being a potential militia member. But I'm not always regular, especially after a big meal with a heavy dessert. So I don't get your note at all.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In a close election, electors are faithful. They only deviate for symbolic reasons. It's pretty simple to understand.


Should we say, SO FAR IN CLOSE ELECTIONS ELECTORS HAVE BEEN FAITHFUL?

If it happens in your lifetime where an overzealous elector flips, then what? Should we be preemptive? Should we be like pre-9/11 and say it will never happen, so don't worry? It is a political 9/11 waiting to happen, don;t care if you don't see it that way, plenty of people do.


>>>>>>>>>>>>Also easy to understand is your continued insistance on not knowing that you're a member of the militia, or what "well regulated" means. Your argument disppears once you give up your strawman definitions.


And you still refuse to address what I wrote or introduce any of your own.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Shit, I posted the rendered decision on teh DC case that went your/my way, use that - go read it and borrow their interpretations. I gave you the smoking gun, go get it.

Thanks you for proving my point.

Quote

Again, we are on the same side of this issue, I'm just willing to read it with an unbiased interpretation.

And you think I'm not willing as well? Thankfully I have 4 conservative Supreme Court Justices and 1 moderate who are just as unwilling and emotional as I am.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If it happens in your lifetime where an overzealous elector flips, then what? Should we be preemptive? Should we be like pre-9/11 and say it will never happen, so don't worry? It is a political 9/11 waiting to happen, don;t care if you don't see it that way, plenty of people do.

Plenty of people oppose equal marriage, and are idiots in other regards too.

Let me put it plainly, since you are having trouble with nuances - if Obama wins 271 EVs and is found the next week kidnapping, gagging, and doing Cindy McCain in the ass, he'll still get 271 votes.

Figure out how these electors are picked and you should understand.

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>Also easy to understand is your continued insistance on not knowing that you're a member of the militia, or what "well regulated" means. Your argument disppears once you give up your strawman definitions.


And you still refuse to address what I wrote or introduce any of your own.

ok, so you want to play still. Fine. Let's pretend we're in junior high again.

Militia is every able bodied male. In 1787, would have been white male. In our time, it's all men and women. Well regulated means well equiped and trained. It does not mean tightly controlled.

You can try to sing and dance and say it should be changed in our modern day, but stop blowing smoke up our asses and claim that the Founders meant something other than they did. Madison was very clear.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks you for proving my point.


And your point is that you refuse to research anything.....case in point. The decision covers both ends, but it certainly doesn't state that there is no obligation to register or otherwise comply with well regulation. I'm sure there is case law out there covering that, Cali requires it and I'm sure someone sued over it. Just because they don't address it doesn't mean they won't one day.

As with most laws as they get picked apart, they tend to raise more questions than they answer, such is the case when looking at that one sentence with the 2nd. You seem to think it is your way - case closed. Yea, that's how OJ got where he is.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.And you think I'm not willing as well? Thankfully I have 4 conservative Supreme Court Justices and 1 moderate who are just as unwilling and emotional as I am.


You mean WE have that. I want the DC case to go teh way it did, but I can easily see that it could flip at any time with just the replacement of 1 justice...... and you seem to forget that the well regulated issue has not even beeen addressed. They could say yea, go ahead and keep your guns, just register them as a part of the constitutionally required well regulation. What do ya say? You register or ya don't, you're a criminal or you're not if you comply. Then you have to file suit, or someone will, and you have to climb that huge hill where you argue that the FF were joking when they wrote, "well regulated.

Just skip that last one you always have and will continue to do.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Well, let's get er open. We can't honsetly dismiss that and just call it too messy; the SCOTUS won't. I'm sure you've read case law before and they constantly refer to other decisions and here;s teh catch, they even rely on dissenting opinions from justices who essentially lost their side but their dissent carries clout when and if the case gets reversed even decades later. That stuff is all-iimportant.

My point is that I didn't want to get into all the case law here on DZ.com. It is messy, it is a big deal and there are a LOT of decisions that effect each and every amendment. There are volumes and volumes of books to simply reference the other volumes and volumes of books written discussing all the case law per amendment.

I was taking this thread from an overly cut and dry (black and white) type of position. Like I said before, it says what it says, no more and no less. Its overly simplistic in explanation, but with the past "debates" in SC as reference, that is typically how the threads go.

I guess this would be a good point to throw in some left bashing so we can have some right bashing and everyone will get mad, but not before Godwin's Law comes into effect.

Besides, we (the general public) really have no ability to directly effect the process of the definition of the Constitution. Sure we can try to elect people who we hope will follow through on what they say, but we all know that it is a joke.

So the next question is, do you think that the common man or women can directly effect the Constitution?

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

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Let me put it plainly, since you are having trouble with nuances - if Obama wins 271 EVs and is found the next week kidnapping, gagging, and doing Cindy McCain in the ass, he'll still get 271 votes.

Figure out how these electors are picked and you should understand.



Figure out how a whopping 158 electors have flipped and you will understand how it could one day cause an election to get flipped. Or, keep advocating for less airport security, after all, what's the worst that could happen?


>>>>>>>>>>>Militia is every able bodied male. In 1787, would have been white male.


With that logic, if we still use militia standards of 1787, then today only white males could own guns. As miltias are replaced with standing armies, slavery is prohibited via the 13th, we must also honestly interpret that militias are no longer compulsary and relegated to a volunteer service not recognized by the gov in the same way as 1787.


>>>>>>>>>>>In our time, it's all men and women.


No it's not, the Selective Service Draft requires only males between the ages of 18 to 26 register, it's law. And if you fail to do so you are in violation of that law you can lose education and other funding guarantees. Are you tired of losing yet? Women are not compelled to register.


>>>>>>>>>>>>Well regulated means well equiped and trained.


We would have to have a dictionary from that time to fully discern what it meant then, but since the living constitution prevails, today it means:

WELL:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/well

1. in a good or satisfactory manner: Business is going well.
2. thoroughly, carefully, or soundly: to shake well before using; listen well.
3. in a moral or proper manner: to behave well.
4. commendably, meritoriously, or excellently: a difficult task well done.
5. with propriety, justice, or reason: I could not well refuse.
6. adequately or sufficiently: Think well before you act.
7. to a considerable extent or degree: a sum well over the amount agreed upon.
8. with great or intimate knowledge: to know a person well.
9. certainly; without doubt: I anger easily, as you well know.
10. with good nature; without rancor: He took the joke well.
–adjective 11. in good health; sound in body and mind: Are you well? He is not a well man.
12. satisfactory, pleasing, or good: All is well with us.
13. proper, fitting, or gratifying: It is well that you didn't go.
14. in a satisfactory position; well-off: I am very well as I am.
–interjection 15. (used to express surprise, reproof, etc.): Well! There's no need to shout.
16. (used to introduce a sentence, resume a conversation, etc.): Well, who would have thought he could do it?
–noun 17. well-being; good fortune; success: to wish well to someone.


REGULATED:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regulated

1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.


Thesaurus for regulate:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=regulate

adjust, administer, allocate, arrange, balance, clock, conduct, control, correct, direct, discipline, establish, gauge, govern, guide, manage, modulate, monitor, order, organize, pace, rectify, rule, settle, standardize, temper, time

_________________________________________________


Even in the most abstract of meanings, I don't see how you can contort that into well trained. More importantly, I don;'t see that justices would have to adhere to that abstract definition unless they wanted to. Which is my point, they build these cases from the top down, they make ruling and support it, just like cops do when they go after suspects.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can try to sing and dance and say it should be changed in our modern day, but stop blowing smoke up our asses and claim that the Founders meant something other than they did. Madison was very clear.


Do you really think it couldn't be changed? Oh buddy, you will be wearing me for an ass-gasket if ever were . You would never live that one down. I say that at most they will require registration, perhaps removal of some nasty guns, class 3 etc at most. I think registrtaion is near, maybe 10-20 years.