Lucky...

Right Clinton and Scooty Libbey were charged with the same thing, Clinton was not convicted in a political court, Libby was convicted in a criminal court with a much higher standard of proof/tighter admissions standards and the result was that Bush commuted him. I'm surre the Republican faithful find that justified and equal........(enter crickets).....

Welll then she's presidential material .....why not, the Repubs elected Nixon after the Watergate scandla was known, just not known how deep Nixon was in it. Then Agnew resigned as VP for tax evasion and other goodies. So WTF, Palin has a good jump on them in neo-con terms. I think it's repulsive to think a governor of a small state, local community like that is firing police chiefs for not doing their dirty work, but hey, that's just me. At the same time, she'll make good marriage for the Bush third term with actions like that. This dismissal of her actions under, they all do it is just nuts.

How do they get the moon to stay still long enough to do that?

Quadrillion? Really? lol... well, not lol, but lol nonetheless... That should get us thru McCain's first term.

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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>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.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>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.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I don't think it is bulletproof, either - that is why I watch related cases closely. Good, then we are on the same page.

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: 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: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.