RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types.

RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 6:43:26 PM)
Arms also could be used to describe tanks,fighter jets ,armed helicopters etc etc......where is the red herring?I come for the great state of New York,specifically the city of New York and they have successfully abridged the right for years.Recent court decisions notwithstanding ...the "trick" if you will is in not writing a law so broad has to be successfully attacked by gun rights lobbying groups...the District of Washington failed in that. By the way there is a federal ban on the private ownership of fully automatic weapons....I take that to indicate that I am not alone in not wanting private citizens the right to bear those "arms" in addition I assume that the fed has convinced the court of the legality of actually abridging those same rights that you see as cut and dried. As an aside I wish we could get prior notification of these constitutional interpretation threads.....I would avoid drinking while taking medication were I so notified [:)]

lovmuffin -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 6:44:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u No issues Heather as to your intent....none at all. Let's move beyond the "well regulated militia"..... And start discussing how ambiguous the word "arms" has become.At the time of the Founders these were flintlocks.....but some wil, postulate that since the amendment clearly states that gov't can not abridge the right to bear arms...that this includes all arms presently available....this is ludicrous of course,and any sane person would understand that...yet the argument is made that a citizen should beagle to posses fully automatic weapons. Again a question for the court to decide....again ambiguous. Heather got it right on post # 38. As for your contention that it's ludicrous a citizen should posses fully automatic weapons, know that since 1936 automatic weapons have been registered. Extensive background checks by the FBI, fingerprints and all the rest of it are required to legally own one. There are around 200,000 of these legal weapons in the system. There is only one known instance of the illegal use of one of these weapons which just happened to be a cop wackin somebody for the mob.

slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 6:47:44 PM)
Some days it just doesn't pay to post....my apologies if most of what I have posted here made no sense...believe me it seemed to do so in my head.

lovmuffin -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 6:53:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Some days it just doesn't pay to post....my apologies if most of what I have posted here made no sense...believe me it seemed to do so in my head. Drinkin and drugs.......keep away from automatic weapons.[8D]

slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 6:58:08 PM)
Guns...I don't like them...couldn't you tell that By the way I said medication,not drugs......drugs sounds so tawdry,wouldn't you agree?

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 6:59:07 PM)
quote: Arms also could be used to describe tanks,fighter jets ,armed helicopters etc etc......where is the red herring?I come for the great state of New York,specifically the city of New York and they have successfully abridged the right for years.Recent court decisions notwithstanding ...the "trick" if you will is in not writing a law so broad has to be successfully attacked by gun rights lobbying groups...the District of Washington failed in that. Yes it could. I would say that this calls for an amendment, not just trying to find some interpretation that stretches the wording so as to do an end run around the Constitution in the courts. Effectively you are allowing the Supreme Court rewrite the Constitution at it's convenience rather than following the prescribed formula for altering the document.

lovmuffin -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 7:01:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Guns...I don't like them...couldn't you tell that By the way I said medication,not drugs......drugs sounds so tawdry,wouldn't you agree? Maybe, but I take medication sometimes for back pain. I just refer to them as drugs.

slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 7:11:14 PM)
Why I am continuing this is beyond me but here goes.....the Supreme Court isn't rewriting the Constitution at all,it's interpreting it...as is it's job. The process of amending the Document is, by design difficult to say the least....the Court is called on from time to time to hand down decisions based on intent...which by definition is to interpret the meaning as applied to today's issues. there is no way around this,no one wants to see the Document so ladened with amendments so as to dilute it...which is what would happen if,rather than turn to the court,we simply tried to fashion new amendments to suit every situation that might arise.

slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 7:12:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Guns...I don't like them...couldn't you tell that By the way I said medication,not drugs......drugs sounds so tawdry,wouldn't you agree? Maybe, but I take medication sometimes for back pain. I just refer to them as drugs. Well I refer to them as meds...different strokes and all that.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 7:24:13 PM)
I realize that, but as I said before, I just don't see any justification for such an interpretation. I just don't see anything in the wording that could be so interpreted. But, 2nd amendment isn't the topic really, that isn't what my essay will be about, after all if I were a citizen I would be working for it's repeal. [;)] It is the first amendment I would like to examine, and what justifications there are for limiting those rights. I understand that there may well be some safety justifications, but it seems to me that those should not be allowed to be used to prevent a demonstration or protest, just its form, and I would think that such a safety issue would have to be proven in a court. In other words, rather than requiring a permit to have the protest, the authorities should have to seek an injunction to prevent it. That is how I see it. Any comments or issues with that idea?

gungadin09 -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 7:27:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u .....the Supreme Court isn't rewriting the Constitution at all,it's interpreting it...as is it's job. Doesn't the Canadian Supreme Court do the same thing? Don't they have to determine where the right to life (guaranteed by the Charter) ends and where the right to liberty (guaranteed by the Charter) begins? When the two rights are in conflict (as they might be in the issues of abortion or assisted suicide) don't they have to interpret the intent of the law? i would be very surprised if they don't. pam

slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 7:37:37 PM)
Not sure if I have the wherewithal to continue this...so I'm bowing out...good luck with the thesis Heather [:)]

kat321 -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 8:16:14 PM)
Concerning freedom of speech..... The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. -Oliver Wendell Holmes Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

gungadin09 -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 8:22:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather I realize that, but as I said before, I just don't see any justification for such an interpretation. I just don't see anything in the wording that could be so interpreted. [;)] Goddamn it, Heather, why do you have to be right? pam

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 8:22:59 PM)
Good luck with your head in the morning Mike.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 8:25:02 PM)
[sm=dunno.gif]Clean living?

TreasureKY -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 8:35:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather Do you know if all of those had to be approved or not. I'm assuming that any of the ones that came after 1789 did, but what about those that were adopted before, any idea? That's a good question, Heather. I don't purport to be an expert on US History, but I'm assuming that because the original colonies didn't have to petition to become a State, that their constitutions weren't subject to Congressional approval. The Articles of Confederation did not exist until 1777, and it did not contain any specific method for admitting new States into the Union other than to require the agreement of nine of the States. When the US Constitution was ratified in 1788, Article IV specified only, "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." I believe the procedures used historically were derived from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, then the Enabling Act of 1802. However, Congress is not bound to using these procedures as Article IV of the Constitution leaves the issue of admitting States up to Congress. As there isn't any Constitutional requirement for approval of State Constitutions, I'm also guessing that after Statehood is granted, no further Congressional review of any State's Constitution ever happens. There is also the consideration that, because the first Continental Congress was convened in 1774, it is likely that there was some kind of consensus on what each States Constitution should contain and those guidelines or discussions were used for the majority of the State Constitutions that came into being around the 1776 to 1777 time frame. An interesting tidbit... in the Articles of Confederation, Canada was pre-approved for Statehood should they have applied. Pity they never did so. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather Oh and thanks for the link, you are a veritable "treasure" trove of helpful information. You're most welcome! [:)]

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 8:44:19 PM)
quote: An interesting tidbit... in the Articles of Confederation, Canada was pre-approved for Statehood should they have applied. Yes I saw that in the Wiki. Kind of interesting. quote: Pity they never did so. Nah, if we had of, then I'd just be a mouthy little dyke instead of an exotic foreigner of the Sapphic persuasion. [:D]

slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 8:50:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather Good luck with your head in the morning Mike. My head will be fine...not up to a constitutional debate...but certainly ot hammered....lol. besides I'm Irish...drinking is sort of second nature [:D]

Iamsemisweet -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 9:22:28 PM)
The wiggle room in terms of s rally, which is what you were originally talking about, is the word "peaceably.". This certainly opens the door for limitations under the police powers of the state and local government. In terms of freedom of speech, commercial speech is less protected than political speech. Hence, congress was able to ban interstate road signs, or at least limit them, because they primarily concern commercial speech. There is also a line of cases that deals with prior restraints on speech.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875