Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Loser Lizzie dumb-fiant to the end

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    A Constitutionalist is someone who holds to a strict interpretation of the document rather than loosely interpreting it so that it can mean whatever you want at the moment. They are referring to all of it.
    And Liz Cheney does the latter not the former just like the Democrats do.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Constitutionalism isn't only for the judiciary. It also is for the politicians as well. To stay within the constitution and not pass blatantly unconstitutional legislation to begin with.
      So not like DeSantis then, with the judge yesterday ruling that his understanding of the 1st Amendment was "upside down", striking down the second piece of unconstitutional legislation DeSantis has recently passed.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        So not like DeSantis then, with the judge yesterday ruling that his understanding of the 1st Amendment was "upside down", striking down the second piece of unconstitutional legislation DeSantis has recently passed.
        Virtually every president and to a lesser extent governors face court challenges to legislation they have signed or executive actions they take. Lower courts often make rulings that a higher court overturns.

        Look at some of Trumps acts regarding the border. A number of them (maybe all) were delayed as lower courts found them unconstitutional only for nearly all of those decisions to get tossed out by higher courts that noted that the Constitution expressly grants a lot of control over immigration to a president.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          I think it's funny when the "living constitution" liberals all of a sudden turn woodenly literal when interpreting the 2nd amendment "They only meant muskets! they didn't anticipate AR15s!!"
          And I think it's funny when supposed originalists all of a sudden turn post-modernist in reinterpreting the 2nd amendment and in 2008 read an individual right into the 2nd amendment in a way that historical SCOTUS decisions had repeatedly denied existed.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            A Constitutionalist is someone who holds to a strict interpretation of the document rather than loosely interpreting it so that it can mean whatever you want at the moment. They are referring to all of it.
            You might be a little surprised to know that I generally agree with constitutionalism by this definition, combined with an anti-judicial-activism philosophy. i.e. courts should only be declaring something unconstitutional when it's abundantly clear that the constitution specifically weighs in on the issue and that the founders had exactly that sort of thing in mind when they wrote it, otherwise courts should stay out of it.

            Notably this means I oppose things like reinterpreting the 2nd amendment in 2008 to give everyone a right to a gun, in contradiction to the historical interpretations, when it can't be proved that's what the founders understood it to mean when they wrote it.

            The only exception I would make to that is basic human rights. There are a bunch of fairly basic human rights that we all take for granted ought to be protected but aren't specifically spelled out in the constitution. e.g. that the government can't "require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or... take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home" (Judge Posner). The US Constitution is pretty short on explicitly enumerated human rights, and so doesn't ban things like those listed above, but we would probably all reasonably expect courts to understand the constitution to provide generic basic human rights.
            Last edited by Starlight; 08-19-2022, 08:19 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              So not like DeSantis then, with the judge yesterday ruling that his understanding of the 1st Amendment was "upside down", striking down the second piece of unconstitutional legislation DeSantis has recently passed.
              So you'd be ok if some sherbet joint called "Ken and Larry's" instituted a policy of mandatory attendance at weekly Bible studies.
              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

              Beige Federalist.

              Nationalist Christian.

              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

              Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

              Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

              Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

              Justice for Matthew Perna!

              Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                So you'd be ok if some sherbet joint called "Ken and Larry's" instituted a policy of mandatory attendance at weekly Bible studies.
                ??
                ​​I'm not sure if sherbet and Bible studies is a good business model but I imagine people have tried sillier ones. I don't get the point of your question.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  And I think it's funny when supposed originalists all of a sudden turn post-modernist in reinterpreting the 2nd amendment and in 2008 read an individual right into the 2nd amendment in a way that historical SCOTUS decisions had repeatedly denied existed.
                  Doofus.

                  The 2A had always been read as individual right up until the early 20th century when for some still unknown reason it was creatively reinterpreted and the government started saying it was actually the right of the state. You know a right of the government in a document enumerating individual rights.


                  In his 400-page The Bill of Rights: Creation & Reconstruction,” Akhil Reed Amar (a leading Constitutional scholar and Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University) discusses the idea that the 2nd Amendment establishes state militias and doesn’t support the individual’s right to bear arms. Amar, a self-described liberal, states unequivocally that

                  “this reading does not work ... The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to ‘the people,’ not the states. As the language of the tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical: when the Constitution means ‘state’ it says so. Thus, as noted above, ‘the people’ at the core of the Second Amendment are the same people at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment.”


                  Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe, who was for years was on a short list of possible Supreme Court picks by a Democratic President, stated back in 1999 that individual Americans did indeed have a right to keep and bear arms noting that he studied the issue thoroughly and found that the Constitution did indeed ensure to each American the right to “possess and use firearms in defense of themselves and their homes.”

                  The fact is that the nation’s leading constitutional scholars such as Tribe and Amar as well as folks like William Van Alstyne (Duke), Sanford Levinson (University of Texas) and Glenn Harlan Reynolds (University of Tennessee), all ascribe to the concept of the individual Second Amendment right as the “Standard Model.” As the afore-mentioned Glenn Reynolds notes, scholars that adhere to the individual rights interpretation, “dominate the academic literature on the Second Amendment almost completely,” and that this view is “the mainstream scholarly interpretation.”

                  Harvard Law Professor and Über-liberal, Alan Dershowitz, agrees with his colleagues but for different reasons:

                  “Those who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right are courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.”


                  And when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 32 year long ban on handguns in Washington D.C., in June 2008 (District of Columbia v. Heller) in a 5-4 decision. It was “an inevitable ruling,” explained George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley. “Even though I'm an advocate of gun control, it's very hard to read the Second Amendment and not see an individual right.”

                  And the claim that "The Second Amendment was about the right to maintain militias right up through the antebellum era, when it began to move toward individualistic contexts" is pure historical revisionism.

                  The position, that the Second Amendment guarantees a right of individual Americans to own and carry (private ownership), was embraced by every known legal scholar in the 19th century who wrote about the Second Amendment (although several wrote about its limitations, all considered it an individual right), and is the consensus of most modern legal scholarship.

                  To start, St. George Tucker, a judge and law professor from Virginia, published an edition of Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” in 1803, to which he added explanations of how it related to American law, including the new Constitution. Soon after Tucker’s Blackstone became nearly universally regarded as being the leading American authority on both Blackstone and American law.

                  Tucker addressed the Second Amendment at several points, clearly stating that it protected the individual, natural right of self-defense. After quoting the amendment he wrote:

                  “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”


                  Moreover, in his notes concerning Blackstone’s description of the individual's right to have and use arms for self-defense, Tucker applauded the Second Amendment's “right of the people” for being “without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.” In everything that Tucker wrote he explained that the right belonged to the individuals and not to some collective state right.

                  William Rawle of Pennsylvania, who had turned down an offer by George Washington to be the nation’s first Attorney General, published his View of the Constitution of the United States of America in 1825 with a second edition printed in 1829. In it, especially in the second edition, he made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms belonged to the ordinary citizen, writing that, “No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people.”

                  This same view can again be seen in the highly influential 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States by Supreme Court Justice and law professor Joseph Story, as well as in his later Familiar Exposition of the Constitution. By paraphrasing the “right of the people” as the “right of the citizens” -- not of States or members of a militia -- Story left no doubt that he meant the right to belong to individuals. He unequivocally stated that "the right of the citizens to keep, and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic."

                  Story was even more direct in his Familiar Exposition when he wrote: “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is by disarming the people and making it an offense to keep arms.”

                  Though less prominent than his father Henry Tucker (son of St. George) shared the view of the Second Amendment as securing an individual right. In an 1831 commentary he exclaimed: “The right of bearing arms ... is practically enjoyed by every citizen, and is among his most valuable privileges.”

                  And this view was the one expressed after the Civil War as well (Woods 1886, Black 1895) as well as in how the Freeman Bureau Act of 1866, referred to the rights of the people included “the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such State or district without respect to race or color, or previous conditions of slavery.” They emphasized how such rights should be preserved from attempts at government encroachment, indicating that they didn’t see the Second Amendment as the state’s right to maintain their own armed military.

                  To contradict all of this the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV) is forced to claim that “Colonial legislatures from New Hampshire to South Carolina imposed communal storage of firearms and permitted them to be removed only in times of crisis or for muster day.” But in reality the only indication of community or compulsory storage in Colonial times was for arms and ammunition that was purchased by state or local legislatures, or supplied by the King. Throughout the colonial period it was the private ownership of guns that was compulsory or encouraged. When the British tried to take the local stock of powder, shot and arms at Concord the local “Minute Men” already had their own firearms and ammo in their homes.

                  So, as an examination of the writings of the Founding Fathers[1], any pre-1900 case or commentary shows that none of them thought of the Second Amendment was established to preserve a collective right or right of the states. IOW, while the Second Amendment was meant to preserve and guarantee an individual right for a collective purpose that does not in any way suddenly somehow transform that right into a collective right. There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-20th century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to members of well-regulated militias. The “collective right only” theory is exclusively an invention of the 20th century “gun control” debate.




                  1. In the “Federalist No. 29” Alexander Hamilton clearly and unambiguously states that membership in a well-regulated militia is not required for the right to keep arms.
                  Last edited by rogue06; 08-20-2022, 06:43 AM.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    You might be a little surprised to know that I generally agree with constitutionalism by this definition, combined with an anti-judicial-activism philosophy. i.e. courts should only be declaring something unconstitutional when it's abundantly clear that the constitution specifically weighs in on the issue and that the founders had exactly that sort of thing in mind when they wrote it, otherwise courts should stay out of it.

                    Notably this means I oppose things like reinterpreting the 2nd amendment in 2008 to give everyone a right to a gun, in contradiction to the historical interpretations, when it can't be proved that's what the founders understood it to mean when they wrote it.

                    The only exception I would make to that is basic human rights. There are a bunch of fairly basic human rights that we all take for granted ought to be protected but aren't specifically spelled out in the constitution. e.g. that the government can't "require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or... take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home" (Judge Posner). The US Constitution is pretty short on explicitly enumerated human rights, and so doesn't ban things like those listed above, but we would probably all reasonably expect courts to understand the constitution to provide generic basic human rights.
                    Something can also be unconstitutional when the government tries to do something that they simply are not authorized to do under the constitution.

                    As for human rights... Given how some think that not being called by whatever pronoun they self-identify as this week is a gross violation of their human rights -- and some governments are moving to codify that -- I'd be hesitant to allow broad exclusions to the constitution.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      And I think it's funny when supposed originalists all of a sudden turn post-modernist in reinterpreting the 2nd amendment and in 2008 read an individual right into the 2nd amendment in a way that historical SCOTUS decisions had repeatedly denied existed.
                      You didn't read the majority opinion in Heller, did you. It goes right back to the words and beliefs of the Founders and English common law. You can't get any more original than that...

                      https://www.nationalreview.com/bench...ion-ed-whelan/
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Doofus.

                        The 2A had always been read as individual right up until the early 20th century when for some still unknown reason it was creatively reinterpreted and the government started saying it was actually the right of the state. You know a right of the government in a document enumerating individual rights.
                        Star once again proves that he is ignorant of US law and history...

                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                          So you'd be ok if some sherbet joint called "Ken and Larry's" instituted a policy of mandatory attendance at weekly Bible studies.
                          It derives from this portion of the article you cited:

                          Nonprofit Protect Democracy filed the lawsuit challenging the law in June on behalf of honeymoon registry technology company Honeyfund and Ben & Jerry’s franchisee Primo Tampa, both of whom wished to require employee training prohibited by the law.


                          "Ben and Jerry's" is an ice cream company, hence my fictional "Ken and Larry's" sherbet company. My interpretation is that B&J are among the woke companies that want to require their employees to endure certain types of "viewpoint" instruction, and the DeSantis law forbids such. You apparently agree with the judge who blocked the law. So I assume you would be fine with a company requiring weekly Bible instruction as a condition of employment.
                          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                          Beige Federalist.

                          Nationalist Christian.

                          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                          Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

                          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                          Justice for Matthew Perna!

                          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Star once again proves that he is ignorant of US law and history...
                            I would tend to say I know more than you and hence, yet again, have pointed out that you are wrong about something reasonably basic.

                            In this post last month I gave a breakdown of the history of the second amendment and SCOTUS interpretation of it. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it and learn something. You don't seem to have been in that thread, so you probably missed it.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              Something can also be unconstitutional when the government tries to do something that they simply are not authorized to do under the constitution.
                              Like creating federal law enforcement agencies to counter state and local law enforcement agencies. More specifically, the FBI.
                              "You should just assume going forward that if I am ever wrong it is a typo" - Backup
                              "
                              Reality simply does not change based upon consensus or desire." - rogue

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                                Like creating federal law enforcement agencies to counter state and local law enforcement agencies. More specifically, the FBI.
                                We have too many "conservatives" falling all over themselves saying, "NONONONONONOOOOO! We can't 'defund' the FBI! We have to do some reforms, but WE CAN'T POSSIBLY GET RID OF IT!!!"
                                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                                Beige Federalist.

                                Nationalist Christian.

                                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                                Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

                                Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                                Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                                Justice for Matthew Perna!

                                Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Bill the Cat, Today, 04:39 PM
                                13 responses
                                55 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by One Bad Pig, Today, 12:33 PM
                                5 responses
                                56 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 11:04 AM
                                10 responses
                                57 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:09 PM
                                11 responses
                                73 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 10:24 AM
                                27 responses
                                151 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X