0
Kennedy

Chicago to Continue Pissing on Residents' Rights

Recommended Posts

News:

Chicago approves new handgun restrictions
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38061266/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

This one is a really nice touch:
"Requires prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers."
Why no, that's not restricting the ability of citizens to exercise their constitutional rights...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
News:
67% Say Cities Have No Right To Ban Handguns

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Americans say city governments do not have the right to prevent citizens from owning handguns, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Support for stricter gun control laws also has fallen to its lowest level in several years.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun.
Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/67_say_cities_have_no_right_to_ban_handguns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As an indicator of the real world implications of McDonald, the key passage in Justice Alito’s opinion says this: “It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not ‘a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.’” Alito then reprises the remarkable language in Heller offering assurances of the continued validity of several broad categories of gun laws (including laws regulating the sale of guns, laws banning guns in sensitive places, laws banning concealed weapons, among others) and adds: “We repeat those assurances here.”



CLICKY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Abortion is an issue not covered by the constitution, and is an issue reserved to the states.



The majority votes of 2 separate Supreme Court panels, each coincidentally in 7 to 2 decisions, have disagreed with that analysis.

In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut recognized a right to marital privacy derived from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. In 1973, the Constitutional right-to-privacy analysis in Griswold was held to apply to abortion in Roe v. Wade.

Griswold synopsis

Roe v. Wade synopsis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Abortion is an issue not covered by the constitution, and is an issue reserved to the states.



The majority votes of 2 separate Supreme Court panels, each coincidentally in 7 to 2 decisions, have disagreed with that analysis.

In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut recognized a right to marital privacy derived from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. In 1973, the Constitutional right-to-privacy analysis in Griswold was held to apply to abortion in Roe v. Wade.

Griswold synopsis

Roe v. Wade synopsis



That's kinda what I've been saying, forgot the caselaw but I've heard of them before. More macrostructurally, what is the difference between the US const and SCOTUS decisions rendered as a result of issues being decided upon review of it? The living constitution, in many ways, is more relevant than the original drafting. The way the living const is weaker is that it can go away, but once it's reached stare decisis status it becomes even stronger in that it's contemporary and binding today; the original draft almost becomes a museum piece as far as relevance once issues/decisions become long-standing - stare decisis.

That was my point these guys can't grasp, they're so in love with the original draft, probably because it's easier, that they don't want to hear about the constitution that matters; the living constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Abortion is an issue not covered by the constitution, and is an issue reserved to the states.



The majority votes of 2 separate Supreme Court panels, each coincidentally in 7 to 2 decisions, have disagreed with that analysis.

In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut recognized a right to marital privacy derived from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. In 1973, the Constitutional right-to-privacy analysis in Griswold was held to apply to abortion in Roe v. Wade.

Griswold synopsis

Roe v. Wade synopsis



That's kinda what I've been saying, forgot the caselaw but I've heard of them before. More macrostructurally, what is the difference between the US const and SCOTUS decisions rendered as a result of issues being decided upon review of it? The living constitution, in many ways, is more relevant than the original drafting. The way the living const is weaker is that it can go away, but once it's reached stare decisis status it becomes even stronger in that it's contemporary and binding today; the original draft almost becomes a museum piece as far as relevance once issues/decisions become long-standing - stare decisis.

That was my point these guys can't grasp, they're so in love with the original draft, probably because it's easier, that they don't want to hear about the constitution that matters; the living constitution.



Where's that 'living constitution' you're so enamored with written down, then?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"In order to practice free speech in Chicago, one must attend a free speech safety course and pass a Chicago-approved free speech safety test. Due to the fact that Chicago does not believe in the right to free speech, the required free speech course is is not available in Chicago"

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"In order to practice free speech in Chicago, one must attend a free speech safety course and pass a Chicago-approved free speech safety test. Due to the fact that Chicago does not believe in the right to free speech, the required free speech course is is not available in Chicago"



That's a reasonable imposition on the right - just ask Lucky, Chango or kallend.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

"In order to practice free speech in Chicago, one must attend a free speech safety course and pass a Chicago-approved free speech safety test. Due to the fact that Chicago does not believe in the right to free speech, the required free speech course is is not available in Chicago"



That's a reasonable imposition on the right - just ask Lucky, Chango or kallend.



Since their taxes are way too low, I guess they can afford the travel expenses to attend the required the free speech course.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

"In order to practice free speech in Chicago, one must attend a free speech safety course and pass a Chicago-approved free speech safety test. Due to the fact that Chicago does not believe in the right to free speech, the required free speech course is is not available in Chicago"



That's a reasonable imposition on the right - just ask Lucky, Chango or kallend.



Since their taxes are way too low, I guess they can afford the travel expenses to attend the required the free speech course.



But of course!
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Abortion is an issue not covered by the constitution, and is an issue reserved to the states.



The majority votes of 2 separate Supreme Court panels, each coincidentally in 7 to 2 decisions, have disagreed with that analysis.

In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut recognized a right to marital privacy derived from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. In 1973, the Constitutional right-to-privacy analysis in Griswold was held to apply to abortion in Roe v. Wade.

Griswold synopsis

Roe v. Wade synopsis



That's kinda what I've been saying, forgot the caselaw but I've heard of them before. More macrostructurally, what is the difference between the US const and SCOTUS decisions rendered as a result of issues being decided upon review of it? The living constitution, in many ways, is more relevant than the original drafting. The way the living const is weaker is that it can go away, but once it's reached stare decisis status it becomes even stronger in that it's contemporary and binding today; the original draft almost becomes a museum piece as far as relevance once issues/decisions become long-standing - stare decisis.

That was my point these guys can't grasp, they're so in love with the original draft, probably because it's easier, that they don't want to hear about the constitution that matters; the living constitution.



Where's that 'living constitution' you're so enamored with written down, then?



It's right here, it doesn't read like a cliche, so it might be a hard read: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Abortion is an issue not covered by the constitution, and is an issue reserved to the states.



The majority votes of 2 separate Supreme Court panels, each coincidentally in 7 to 2 decisions, have disagreed with that analysis.

In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut recognized a right to marital privacy derived from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. In 1973, the Constitutional right-to-privacy analysis in Griswold was held to apply to abortion in Roe v. Wade.

Griswold synopsis

Roe v. Wade synopsis



That's kinda what I've been saying, forgot the caselaw but I've heard of them before. More macrostructurally, what is the difference between the US const and SCOTUS decisions rendered as a result of issues being decided upon review of it? The living constitution, in many ways, is more relevant than the original drafting. The way the living const is weaker is that it can go away, but once it's reached stare decisis status it becomes even stronger in that it's contemporary and binding today; the original draft almost becomes a museum piece as far as relevance once issues/decisions become long-standing - stare decisis.

That was my point these guys can't grasp, they're so in love with the original draft, probably because it's easier, that they don't want to hear about the constitution that matters; the living constitution.



Where's that 'living constitution' you're so enamored with written down, then?



It's right here, it doesn't read like a cliche, so it might be a hard read: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html



Well, then you obviously have no problem with the decision the Supremes made in McDonald.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Abortion is an issue not covered by the constitution, and is an issue reserved to the states.



The majority votes of 2 separate Supreme Court panels, each coincidentally in 7 to 2 decisions, have disagreed with that analysis.

In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut recognized a right to marital privacy derived from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. In 1973, the Constitutional right-to-privacy analysis in Griswold was held to apply to abortion in Roe v. Wade.

Griswold synopsis

Roe v. Wade synopsis



That's kinda what I've been saying, forgot the caselaw but I've heard of them before. More macrostructurally, what is the difference between the US const and SCOTUS decisions rendered as a result of issues being decided upon review of it? The living constitution, in many ways, is more relevant than the original drafting. The way the living const is weaker is that it can go away, but once it's reached stare decisis status it becomes even stronger in that it's contemporary and binding today; the original draft almost becomes a museum piece as far as relevance once issues/decisions become long-standing - stare decisis.

That was my point these guys can't grasp, they're so in love with the original draft, probably because it's easier, that they don't want to hear about the constitution that matters; the living constitution.



Where's that 'living constitution' you're so enamored with written down, then?



It's right here, it doesn't read like a cliche, so it might be a hard read: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html



Well, then you obviously have no problem with the decision the Supremes made in McDonald.



I haven't read it, but I doubt I would based upon what I know of it.

You conservatives are so funny, they think you have to be all one way or the other. I can disagree with the reasoning but like the decision. Either way, like it or not, the living constitution prevails ove rthe original writings. If it were written 5 years ago that might be aweful, but being written well > 200 years ago, it's pefect to make it contemporary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Or are you just gonna keep running, telling us about your meaningless vacation? Perhaps that's your excuse to not revisit this thread; you were on vacation.



had to check back in......Not sure if you're being obstinate or ignorant, but you're still wrong. Sorry, can't play, got a kayak to catch.
You are only as strong as the prey you devour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LUCKY: Or are you just gonna keep running, telling us about your meaningless vacation?

Futuredivot: Sorry, can't play, got a kayak to catch.


I have the answer to that.


Quote

had to check back in......Not sure if you're being obstinate or ignorant, but you're still wrong.



I see you're either continuing your ignorance or just having fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Either way, like it or not, the living constitution prevails ove rthe original writings.



Your fantasy world, dream it like you want it.




So you're saying SCOTUS decisoins aren't binding then? Yea, and you say I live in a fantasy world. Next you'll tell me SCOTUS decisions aren't arbitrary (we know they often are).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So you're saying SCOTUS decisoins aren't binding then?



Nope, didn't say that - I seem to recall Obama telling Congress to "forcefully respond" to a SC decision recently, though (Citizens United) - guess he's not quite the Constitutional scholar y'all thought he was.

Quote

Next you'll tell me SCOTUS decisions aren't arbitrary (we know they often are).



Make up your mind - weren't YOU the one that was just saying that the SC decisions are the 'living Constitution'?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

.

Quote

Next you'll tell me SCOTUS decisions aren't arbitrary (we know they often are).



Make up your mind - weren't YOU the one that was just saying that the SC decisions are the 'living Constitution'?



There is no contradiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

So you're saying SCOTUS decisoins aren't binding then?



Quote

Nope, didn't say that



Good, then I'll count you as, "I agree" that SCOTUS decisions are far more relevant than the original writings.

Quote

- I seem to recall Obama telling Congress to "forcefully respond" to a SC decision recently, though (Citizens United) - guess he's not quite the Constitutional scholar y'all thought he was.



I don't care whethewr your recollection is accurate or not. Thsi conversation is about SCOTUS decisions vs the original draft; do try to stay up and on track.

Quote

Next you'll tell me SCOTUS decisions aren't arbitrary (we know they often are).



Quote

Make up your mind - weren't YOU the one that was just saying that the SC decisions are the 'living Constitution'?



Yes, they are teh binding version of theoriginal draft, but to say they aren't decided from the to-down is ridiculous. The justices decide how they want a case to go and use whatever they can to suppot that; the Heller decision is a good example of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

.

Quote

Next you'll tell me SCOTUS decisions aren't arbitrary (we know they often are).



Make up your mind - weren't YOU the one that was just saying that the SC decisions are the 'living Constitution'?



There is no contradiction.



Exactly, conservatives are really locked onto thsi, "balck or white" mentality. I feel bad for anyone who can't think dynamically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

So you're saying SCOTUS decisoins aren't binding then?



Quote

Nope, didn't say that



Good, then I'll count you as, "I agree" that SCOTUS decisions are far more relevant than the original writings.



Than the original writings? Don't you think you need to find some examples of where the original writings were overturned by a SC decision, first?

Go ahead, we'll wait while you get back to us.

Quote

Quote

- I seem to recall Obama telling Congress to "forcefully respond" to a SC decision recently, though (Citizens United) - guess he's not quite the Constitutional scholar y'all thought he was.



I don't care whethewr your recollection is accurate or not. Thsi conversation is about SCOTUS decisions vs the original draft; do try to stay up and on track.



Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

Quote

Quote

Next you'll tell me SCOTUS decisions aren't arbitrary (we know they often are).



Quote

Make up your mind - weren't YOU the one that was just saying that the SC decisions are the 'living Constitution'?



Yes, they are teh binding version of theoriginal draft, but to say they aren't decided from the to-down is ridiculous. The justices decide how they want a case to go and use whatever they can to suppot that; the Heller decision is a good example of that.



Uh-huh. Whatever you say, Lucky. Have you gotten any response to your email telling the Supremes that they were wrong, BTW?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

.

Quote

Next you'll tell me SCOTUS decisions aren't arbitrary (we know they often are).



Make up your mind - weren't YOU the one that was just saying that the SC decisions are the 'living Constitution'?



There is no contradiction.



Exactly, conservatives are really locked onto thsi, "balck or white" mentality. I feel bad for anyone who can't think dynamically.



So, if the Supremes overturn Roe at some point in the future, you'll stand and applaud the decision - after all, it's the 'living Constitution' that counts!!
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0