of course with this comes the ability of a majority to impose laws that remove my rights.
Isn't that somewhat the way it is now? Only difference being that people like Hillary Clinton or Tom Delay cannot be voted in or out of office by those of us living in Minnesota. We have no recourse when they do something that affects us. That is why the federal government's powers were very limited and more emphasis was placed on state and local governments.
We have no recourse when they do something that affects us. That is why the federal government's powers were very limited and more emphasis was placed on state and local governments.
that's why you need our Constitution protecting your inalienable rights.
As an originalist, Grandpa, the clear intent of the Founbders was to protect your right to own a flintlock rifle; anything beyond that is an expansion of original intent, which is "jiudicial activism." Back to black powder for you.
I'm jerking your chain a bit, Dan. There's this legal philosophy called "originalism" that has many interpretations, but some of the more strict ones hold that, for instance, the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press refers only to printed materials -- that movies, radio, television and the internet, for example, were unknown to the Founding Fathers, and therefore including them in "freedom of the press" is "judicial activism."
Since the Founding Fathers knew nothing of automatic weapons, one could argue that "original intent" confines the Second Amendment to only the types of arms that existed at the time the document was written. I'm told that a really good black-powder rifleman can reload in less than half a minute; if it was good enough for Washington's army, by gar it's good enough for you.
I don't think we've ever been in disagreement on this point.
I say that the attitude that says anyone can have or do anything they like as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's rights is a liberal attitude.
Some would say that we are being controlled by the "Activist" likes of Ginsberg, Kennedy, Souter and perhaps even O'Connor, but these are the same people who insist that we need a "Strict-Constructionist" SC that is populated ONLY with the likes of Scalia and Thomas, but that is different, somehow.
I would like to see THE definition of just what a "Strict Constitutionalist" actually is. It's like looking up the word "Acrossed". You will not find it, and although it is used every single day, it's still nonsense.
"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," Alito reportedly wrote.
I think jethro was playing hookey the day theey covered the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments in ConLaw class. It is apparent that you have no grasp of what they mean or, which is more likely, deliberately lying about what you know they mean.
As an originalist, Grandpa, the clear intent of the Founbders was to protect your right to own a flintlock rifle; anything beyond that is an expansion of original intent, which is "jiudicial activism." Back to black powder for you.
No the clear intent was not to allow the federal governmentto infringe on the right of the people to have arms.
There's this legal philosophy called "originalism" that has many interpretations, but some of the more strict ones hold that, for instance, the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press refers only to printed materials -- that movies, radio, television and the internet, for example, were unknown to the Founding Fathers, and therefore including them in "freedom of the press" is "judicial activism."Â Who believes this? I think that again you may be deliberately misconstruing what was said.
Some would say that we are being controlled by the "Activist" likes of Ginsberg, Kennedy, Souter and perhaps even O'Connor, but these are the same people who insist that we need a "Strict-Constructionist" SC that is populated ONLY with the likes of Scalia and Thomas, but that is different, somehow.Oh it is toally different.
I would like to see THE definition of just what a "Strict Constitutionalist" actually is. No it makes complete sense.
Main Entry: strict construction
Function: noun
:interpretation (as of a writing or legislation) based on a literal or technical understanding of the words used
Hence, the moral of Tuesday's election: The party that best praises limited government and traditional virtues will win -- and if Republicans won't do the touting, Democrats will.Â
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.
According to The Federalist Papers, the original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia and perhaps even membership in a militia (let alone a well-regulated one), was not intended to be a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
The Second Amendment was meant to preserve and guarantee an individual right - for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose in-part, to ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.
BUT, there is also no contrary-evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers or early American legal commentators, neither are there any Supreme Court decisions indicating that the Second Amendment was intended only to apply solely to members of an active militia.
So in other words, it is much like The Bible, in that anybody can make it say anything they WANT it to say. Considering the plight of 45 million Americans without adequate Health Care, and the fact that we are leveraged to the hilt with a national-debt the size of MARS, the impending investigations into the VP's part in the Plamegate scandal and the rebuilding efforts of a hurricane ravaged S.E. Coastline, and since the 2nd Amendment is in NO danger of being thrown-out of the constitution, it is then just a useless and wasteful argument with no solution, yet continually being used by the right for political mileage.
In short, this is no ordinary document. And without a time machine, how do we divine the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers? Try The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Believe me, it’s the next best thing to having a face-to-face discussion with James Madison himself.
This is a book that examines the entire Constitution -- every phrase, every line. It’s authored not by one eminent legal scholar, but by more than 100. Experts in each clause are on hand to explain why a particular point was added by the Founders, how it’s been interpreted over the years, and what it means today. Plus, under each clause, you get suggestions for further research and a listing of significant court cases in that clause’s history.
"Senators voted 79-19 to add language to a $491 billion Pentagon spending bill that declares 2006 to be "a period of significant transition" for Iraq and calls on the Bush administration "to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq."'
Sticky wicket for the White House. A strong bipartisan message that things have to change.
It is even more surprising that such a strong and comprehensive case can be made that this libertarian perspective not only was that of those who wrote and (more importantly) ratified the Constitution, but also that it is the lawful and proper way to interpret the Constitution today.
It is surprising since most of those that wrote and ratified the Constitution weren't concerned with libertarianism. They were concerned with the rights of the state in relation to the powers of the federal government.
Roe is clearly a wrongly decided case. The Roe decision itself is not based in the Constitution, and it does not pretend to be; even Justice Blackmun, the author of the Roe opinion, could not come up with a constitutional mandate for a right to abortion. The legal argumentation in Roe amounts to this sentence: "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the 14th Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." That's it. No justification. No explanation. The Supreme Court "feels" that the Constitution mandates abortion, and poof! It is so.Â
I've been all around our nation.  Only out of it for a few hours in Canada during a vacation, but that doesn't really count. I have spent time with many people from various nations. I am glad I was born here after listening to what some of them went through.
of course with this comes the ability of a majority to impose laws that remove my rights.
Isn't that somewhat the way it is now? Only difference being that people like Hillary Clinton or Tom Delay cannot be voted in or out of office by those of us living in Minnesota. We have no recourse when they do something that affects us. That is why the federal government's powers were very limited and more emphasis was placed on state and local governments.
of course with this comes the ability of a majority to impose laws that remove my rights.
Isn't that somewhat the way it is now?
yep. any five members of the supreme court can take away society's rights at any time.
"It is simply a platitude that has no bearing on the specifics of the document."
Maybe you could elaborate how the inalienable rights of man, debated centuries before the Constitution, was, in the 18th Century, a talking point.
Why do I need to? Read the damn document.
I'm just trying to understand what you mean.
that's why you need our Constitution protecting your inalienable rights.
I think jethro was playing hookey the day theey covered the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments in ConLaw class.
that's why you need our Constitution protecting your inalienable rights.
Such as my right to own an automatic rifle?
As an originalist, Grandpa, the clear intent of the Founbders was to protect your right to own a flintlock rifle; anything beyond that is an expansion of original intent, which is "jiudicial activism." Back to black powder for you.
absolutely.
as long as it's not infringing on someone else's inalienable rights.
As an originalist, Grandpa, the clear intent of the Founbders was to protect your right to own a flintlock rifle;
Only a flintlock rifle is to be considered an "arm"? What is an automatic rifle then?
as long as it's not infringing on someone else's inalienable rights.
I would agree with you there.
I'm jerking your chain a bit, Dan. There's this legal philosophy called "originalism" that has many interpretations, but some of the more strict ones hold that, for instance, the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press refers only to printed materials -- that movies, radio, television and the internet, for example, were unknown to the Founding Fathers, and therefore including them in "freedom of the press" is "judicial activism."
Since the Founding Fathers knew nothing of automatic weapons, one could argue that "original intent" confines the Second Amendment to only the types of arms that existed at the time the document was written. I'm told that a really good black-powder rifleman can reload in less than half a minute; if it was good enough for Washington's army, by gar it's good enough for you.
My point was to knock originalism, not you.
I don't think we've ever been in disagreement on this point.
I say that the attitude that says anyone can have or do anything they like as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's rights is a liberal attitude.
Some would say that we are being controlled by the "Activist" likes of Ginsberg, Kennedy, Souter and perhaps even O'Connor, but these are the same people who insist that we need a "Strict-Constructionist" SC that is populated ONLY with the likes of Scalia and Thomas, but that is different, somehow.
I would like to see THE definition of just what a "Strict Constitutionalist" actually is. It's like looking up the word "Acrossed". You will not find it, and although it is used every single day, it's still nonsense.
"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," Alito reportedly wrote.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175478,00.html
I think jethro was playing hookey the day theey covered the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments in ConLaw class. It is apparent that you have no grasp of what they mean or, which is more likely, deliberately lying about what you know they mean.
As an originalist, Grandpa, the clear intent of the Founbders was to protect your right to own a flintlock rifle; anything beyond that is an expansion of original intent, which is "jiudicial activism." Back to black powder for you.
No the clear intent was not to allow the federal governmentto infringe on the right of the people to have arms.
There's this legal philosophy called "originalism" that has many interpretations, but some of the more strict ones hold that, for instance, the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press refers only to printed materials -- that movies, radio, television and the internet, for example, were unknown to the Founding Fathers, and therefore including them in "freedom of the press" is "judicial activism."Â Who believes this? I think that again you may be deliberately misconstruing what was said.
Some would say that we are being controlled by the "Activist" likes of Ginsberg, Kennedy, Souter and perhaps even O'Connor, but these are the same people who insist that we need a "Strict-Constructionist" SC that is populated ONLY with the likes of Scalia and Thomas, but that is different, somehow.Oh it is toally different.
I would like to see THE definition of just what a "Strict Constitutionalist" actually is. No it makes complete sense.
Main Entry: strict construction
Function: noun
:interpretation (as of a writing or legislation) based on a literal or technical understanding of the words used
Hence, the moral of Tuesday's election: The party that best praises limited government and traditional virtues will win -- and if Republicans won't do the touting, Democrats will.Â
Â
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2005/11/11/175174.html
What do the Federalist Papers have to say about the 2nd Amendment, the militia and the right to bear arms?
The Second Amendment:
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.
According to The Federalist Papers, the original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia and perhaps even membership in a militia (let alone a well-regulated one), was not intended to be a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
The Second Amendment was meant to preserve and guarantee an individual right - for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose in-part, to ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.
BUT, there is also no contrary-evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers or early American legal commentators, neither are there any Supreme Court decisions indicating that the Second Amendment was intended only to apply solely to members of an active militia.
So in other words, it is much like The Bible, in that anybody can make it say anything they WANT it to say. Considering the plight of 45 million Americans without adequate Health Care, and the fact that we are leveraged to the hilt with a national-debt the size of MARS, the impending investigations into the VP's part in the Plamegate scandal and the rebuilding efforts of a hurricane ravaged S.E. Coastline, and since the 2nd Amendment is in NO danger of being thrown-out of the constitution, it is then just a useless and wasteful argument with no solution, yet continually being used by the right for political mileage.
So in other words, it is much like The Bible, in that anybody can make it say anything they WANT it to say. That is only true for liars and idiots.
the impending investigations into the VP's part in the Plamegate scandal
you lefties just can't deal with reality, can you?
THAT
is some
interesting
STUFF
In short, this is no ordinary document. And without a time machine, how do we divine the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers? Try The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Believe me, it’s the next best thing to having a face-to-face discussion with James Madison himself.
This is a book that examines the entire Constitution -- every phrase, every line. It’s authored not by one eminent legal scholar, but by more than 100. Experts in each clause are on hand to explain why a particular point was added by the Founders, how it’s been interpreted over the years, and what it means today. Plus, under each clause, you get suggestions for further research and a listing of significant court cases in that clause’s history.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/rebeccahagelin/2005/11/15/175549.html
a book that crabs, pieter and the rat could use.
Personally, I always thought Lake Michigan was a bit phallic. And Chicago was the smegma capital of the world. :worried: :goofy:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~gumley/modis_gallery/images/Lake_Michigan_20020521_1715.jpg
http://www.wunderground.com/data/640x480/lsm_marine.gif
Here's one of Christmas Island kinda looking like a poodle. (I'm stretching now but it's kinda fun like watching clouds)
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/islands_oceans_poles/christmas_island_76.jpg
Turn this baby sideways and you've got Lake Superior. Nice
"to clarify and recommend changes" to U.S. policy in Iraq,
"Senators voted 79-19 to add language to a $491 billion Pentagon spending bill that declares 2006 to be "a period of significant transition" for Iraq and calls on the Bush administration "to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq."'
Sticky wicket for the White House. A strong bipartisan message that things have to change.
Here's a book for you on original intent, jethro
Willian H. Peterson , Washington Times
Sticky wicket for the White House. A strong bipartisan message that things have to change.
It is even more surprising that such a strong and comprehensive case can be made that this libertarian perspective not only was that of those who wrote and (more importantly) ratified the Constitution, but also that it is the lawful and proper way to interpret the Constitution today.
It is surprising since most of those that wrote and ratified the Constitution weren't concerned with libertarianism. They were concerned with the rights of the state in relation to the powers of the federal government.
Â
Roe is clearly a wrongly decided case. The Roe decision itself is not based in the Constitution, and it does not pretend to be; even Justice Blackmun, the author of the Roe opinion, could not come up with a constitutional mandate for a right to abortion. The legal argumentation in Roe amounts to this sentence: "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the 14th Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." That's it. No justification. No explanation. The Supreme Court "feels" that the Constitution mandates abortion, and poof! It is so.Â
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/benshapiro/2005/11/16/175736.html
"It appears many Americans really have no concept of what this world is really like."
Man, is that true.
you are one of them, rat.
Been out in it much, Big Guy?
I live in the real world every day.
I'll take that as a no.
Rick has been out in the land of sunshine and happy thoughts every day.
I'll take that as a no from you, too.
I've been all around our nation.  Only out of it for a few hours in Canada during a vacation, but that doesn't really count. I have spent time with many people from various nations. I am glad I was born here after listening to what some of them went through.
I'll take that as a no. Of course you will, that is the answer you want. You are a typical liberal-you have no regard for the truth.
In the absence of a straight answer, what else am I to do?
In the absence of a straight answer, what else am I to do?
This is how a simple seeker of insight is treated.
how you are treated? I was suggesting that you treat yourself.