Does the Constitution Apply Today?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

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?

I generally agree with that. I think we can agree that we have little to no control over the interpretation of the US Const. I think we can also agree that gun ownership could be registered or even prohibited, but at most, in our lives, we may only see mass registration and the 100,000's of thousands of cases where people are caught not registering.... not me of course, I would gladly comply

[downwardspiral 0]

Ok then I'll site our fore fathers...

Samuel Adams 1769:

to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence." These he calls "auxiliary subordinate rights, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights of personal security, personal liberty and private property": And that of having arms for their defence he tells us is "a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."--How little do those persons attend to the rights of the constitution, if they know anything about them, who find fault with a late vote of this town, calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defence at any time; but more especially, when they had reason to fear, there would be a necessity of the means of self preservation against the violence of oppression.--Every one knows that the exercise of the military power is forever dangerous to civil rights; and we have had recent instances of violences that have been offer'd to private subjects, and the last week, even to a magistrate in the execution of his office!--Such violences are no more than might have been expected from military troops: A power, which is apt enough at all times to take a wanton lead, even when in the midst of civil society; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary, to awe a spirit of rebellion, and preserve peace and good order. But there are some persons, who would, if possibly they could, perswade the people never to make use of their constitutional rights or terrify them from doing it. No wonder that a resolution of this town to keep arms for its own defence, should be represented as having at bottom a secret intention to oppose the landing of the King's troops: when those very persons, who gave it this colouring, had before represented the peoples petitioning their Sovereign, as proceeding from a factious and rebellious spirit; and would now insinuate that there is an impropriety in their addressing even a plantation Governor upon public business--Such are the times we are fallen into

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s4.html


Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 1787:

I will now add what I do not like. First the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of Nations.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s30.html


Alexander Hamilton 1788:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s38.html


Virginia Ratifying Convention, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution 1788

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s43.html


Interesting stuff

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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?

Can anyone explain this non-sequitor? How did airports get involved in Lucky's inability to understand symbolic protest?

Quote

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.

I'll let you know if I ever feel thing sting. So far, you're batting 0 for 1000. You still have no idea what militia means, and you're now confusing the draft with it.

I'd like to see you tell Amazon in person she's not a member of the militia.

Quote

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:

Are you proposing a new form of jurisprudence? Whenever common usage of words change, so do elements of the Constitution that use them? You're under the incorrect belief that the Constitution gives us rights, rather than protect existing ones.

Quote

WELL:
1. in a good or satisfactory manner: Business is going well.
2. thoroughly, carefully, or soundly: to shake well
6. adequately or sufficiently: Think well before you act.

REGULATED:
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

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.

It's pretty easy to 'contort.' You read what they wrote, you understand what words meant. Linguistics, English, and history departments are universities are all able to assist on this. If you really need to, you look at the drafts of the amendment as well.

Quote

Do you really think it couldn't be changed?

Of course it can be changed - anyone who actually understands the Constitution knows that there is a process for amendment, as well as the possibility of a reinterpretation by the Court. But you're trying to claim that it meant something different when written, and that's just wishful fantasy for you.

[Amazon 7]

I sure love kettle popcorn... kettle corn rocks.

[kelpdiver 2]

MEMEMEMEMEMME

no one else can have it!

[downwardspiral 0]

screw that! I'M the ONE who pulled old quotes out of our country's history only to further confuse what our founding fathers meant by the 2nd Amendment!

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[downwardspiral 0]

what happened?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Lucky couldn't find another dictionary.

[downwardspiral 0]

Why do I have an image of him in the library feverishly flipping pages of some law book?

www.FourWheelerHB.com