tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post5661688744261835716..comments2023-11-03T06:57:29.839-04:00Comments on Freeper Madness: Trump's Second Amendment RemediesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-36294498961284394922016-08-13T16:11:15.169-04:002016-08-13T16:11:15.169-04:00On another note; how many ANGELS can
dance on the ...On another note; how many ANGELS can<br />dance on the head of a pin?<br /><br />Think about it.<br /><br />TWINKIE KINGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-51020466463335857072016-08-12T10:17:59.532-04:002016-08-12T10:17:59.532-04:00I think the fundamental difference is that I don&#...I think the fundamental difference is that I don't think the courts have to wait for constant guidance from the legislature instead of performing their duties while the legislature performs its duties. Each of the three branches is independent -- none of them have to wait for prior permission from another branch before they perform their constitutionally-specified jobs.Ken S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-88016410058379360702016-08-12T09:57:36.819-04:002016-08-12T09:57:36.819-04:00They are under federal jurisdiction. The point is ...They are under federal jurisdiction. The point is that the original intent has been disregarded without a democratic mandate for a new intent. <br /><br />Apply the same logic to the 2A: Stategic ARMS Limitation Treaties are unconstitutional and every hayseed in the ozarks can have his own tactical nuke because the contemporary meaning of "arms" has evolved.<br /><br />I think where we fundamentally disagree is that you're prepared to give Congress a free pass on political cowardice so long as you can achieve the ends you approve of by other means. I am not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-80460778704283418932016-08-12T09:06:40.575-04:002016-08-12T09:06:40.575-04:00In what way is 5th and 14th amendment jurisprudenc...In what way is 5th and 14th amendment jurisprudence not under federal jurisdiction? The courts regularly decline to rule on questions they deem political instead of legal, so it's not like they aren't already declining jurisdiction where it's not appropriate.Ken S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-87623907822369290122016-08-12T07:26:18.164-04:002016-08-12T07:26:18.164-04:00No, I'm suggesting that the constitutional cou...No, I'm suggesting that the constitutional court should rule that many questions are not addressed by the constitution so it is ultra vires to express an opinion beyond possibly advising Congress that they should enact new law if they want the topic moved into federal jurisdiction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-89789508148358687292016-08-12T05:13:14.473-04:002016-08-12T05:13:14.473-04:00Yes, they interpret what's on the books to res...Yes, they interpret what's on the books to resolve disputes. Are you suggesting that the judiciary should stop resolving questions of law? This is sort of like saying that criminal courts should wait for the legislature to decide guilt or innocence. You're saying that the branch of government specifically empowered to answer these questions should wait for a separate branch to do it for them.Ken S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-7641604964941079142016-08-12T03:49:22.347-04:002016-08-12T03:49:22.347-04:00No, SCOTUS doesn't just "work with what&#...No, SCOTUS doesn't just "work with what's on the books" it *decides* what is on the books. The Constitution says whatever SCOTUS rules that it says so once you allow in unfettered analogy and extrapolation you have a Constitution that is both self amending and self authorizing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-2603855438724353832016-08-12T03:38:07.598-04:002016-08-12T03:38:07.598-04:00Your contention is that the Constitution has becom...Your contention is that the Constitution has become so opaque as to be incomprehensible to the people it governs, so such questions should be left to professionals such as yourself. More an oligarchy than a democracy wouldn't you say?<br /><br />Since you brought it up, I have degrees in both Law and (ironically) Molecular Biology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-80411260806985549762016-08-11T23:41:00.103-04:002016-08-11T23:41:00.103-04:00They have all the business in the world resolving ...They have all the business in the world resolving disputes of law. They work with what's on the books. If you want them to be guided by different rules, you have to change the rules. The legislature and the judiciary have separate jobs. The legislature is not in charge of resolving disputes of existing law.Ken S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-30058410988922883812016-08-11T22:56:09.626-04:002016-08-11T22:56:09.626-04:00Not always. Personally I am in favor of women'...Not always. Personally I am in favor of women's right to choose but I'm opposed to Roe v. Wade. The courts have no business "legislating" on this matter. Congress should enact appropriate legislation and propose a constitutional amendment clearly defining what a "person" is (i.e. not sperm, eggs, blastocysts, embryos etc).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-63472305845262875542016-08-11T18:57:57.375-04:002016-08-11T18:57:57.375-04:00Attention Lurking Freepers, Please cite an intervi...Attention Lurking Freepers, Please cite an interview or speech where Hillary Clinton called for repeal of the second amendment.AMJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03680278328781022682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-29424474346084027982016-08-11T18:38:16.086-04:002016-08-11T18:38:16.086-04:00As a constitutional attorney, I enjoy nothing bett...As a constitutional attorney, I enjoy nothing better than watching conservative idiots pontificate about the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers. It's like watching kindergartners argue about nuances of molecular biology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-65904142116019571532016-08-11T17:30:37.767-04:002016-08-11T17:30:37.767-04:00"Activist judges" only "legislate f..."Activist judges" only "legislate from the bench" by "judicial fiat" when they issue a ruling someone doesn't like, usually when that ruling gives equality to someone the speaker looks down upon. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-52359442793319230532016-08-11T17:29:11.606-04:002016-08-11T17:29:11.606-04:00Given that the 14th amendment to the Constitution ...Given that the 14th amendment to the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law, I fail to see how "judicial fiat" enforcing equal protection of the law - by mandating that rights be extended to one group of people previously excluded without in any way diminishing the rights of anyone else - is "unconstitutional." Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-24509090676926859772016-08-11T17:13:27.708-04:002016-08-11T17:13:27.708-04:00The SCOTUS didn't enact "Gay Marriage&quo...The SCOTUS didn't enact "Gay Marriage". They ruled that whatever right to civil marriage a state chooses to extend to its citizens equally, whatever their sexual orientation. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10405754515022354906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-75400448519150170552016-08-11T16:42:18.981-04:002016-08-11T16:42:18.981-04:00You do realize there's a third article in the ...You do realize there's a third article in the U.S. constitution, don't you?Ken S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-49880396706767529822016-08-11T15:33:09.541-04:002016-08-11T15:33:09.541-04:00Agreed, new situations arise and eventually new wo...Agreed, new situations arise and eventually new wording is needed or matters should be left to conventional legislation. <br /><br />The alternative is ever more tortuous reinterpretation and re-purposing of outdated language leading to encroachment on the prerogatives of the legislature and ultimately democracy itself.<br /><br />Gay marriage (for or against) is not within the expected scope or original intent of the Constitution as democratically enacted and expanding the scope of the Constitution by Judicial fiat instead of the agreed amendment process is fundamentally undemocratic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-28637651609576364412016-08-11T14:36:25.337-04:002016-08-11T14:36:25.337-04:00Howso?
Is the idea that the prefatory "mili...Howso? <br /><br />Is the idea that the prefatory "militia" clause has no effect on the meaning of the "right" clause because it's a subordinate clause<br /><br />Giving the "militia" clause no meaning defies basic rules of statutory construction, under which constructions which render words superfluous are disfavoredAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-23284131333648994512016-08-11T14:06:05.591-04:002016-08-11T14:06:05.591-04:00Yeah, you do have to put up with a bit of inconsis...Yeah, you do have to put up with a bit of inconsistency when your position hinges on ignoring English grammar.Ken S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-81442895748338519942016-08-11T14:04:24.717-04:002016-08-11T14:04:24.717-04:00The intent is not the same thing as expected scope...The intent is not the same thing as expected scope. They laid down rules to guide the courts in the future, not just in the instant. The actual scope of constitutional rules has to be adjusted as society and technology change. The 1st Amendment applies to telegraphs, not just the spoken word and letters or signs. The founders don't have to have anticipated every single situation for the constitution to come into play.Ken S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-90680290895920369702016-08-11T12:34:30.461-04:002016-08-11T12:34:30.461-04:00If you disregard expected scope and original inten...If you disregard expected scope and original intent then the 2nd amendment authorizes personal possession of suicide bomb belts, sarin gas and weaponized ebola virus. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-40154253825231815132016-08-11T12:24:52.827-04:002016-08-11T12:24:52.827-04:00Distinction between non-professional "militia...Distinction between non-professional "militia" and standing army largely rendered obsolete by advancing military and transportation technologies<br /><br />The overall focus of sec. 10, par 3 is on centralizing federal control of foreign policy; the "militia" can serve only for defensive purposes, consistent with the allowance for States to make war without federal authorization if "actually invaded"<br /><br />Not saying that there's no tension there, but it's the most plausible way to make sense of the Second Amendment at allAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-60883430353348665032016-08-11T12:05:59.779-04:002016-08-11T12:05:59.779-04:00It doesn't matter whether that specific issue ...It doesn't matter whether that specific issue falls within the expected scope of the amendments in the 18th and 19th centuries. There is not a word in the Obergefell decision that is inconsistent with the U.S. constitution.Ken S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-67776401550671288492016-08-11T12:02:31.328-04:002016-08-11T12:02:31.328-04:00How is the novel state militia reading consistent ...How is the novel state militia reading consistent with Article I, Section 10, paragraph 3?Ken S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7572739179315002435.post-33383813932237033092016-08-11T12:01:51.453-04:002016-08-11T12:01:51.453-04:00That's easy: Gay Marriage. There is no possibi...That's easy: Gay Marriage. There is no possibility that the people enacting the 5th (or 14th) intended to make that legal. They didn't even intend to decriminalize being (actively) Gay to begin with.<br /><br />That right was invented by Judicial fiat, thus usurping the powers of the legislature and therefore the 10th Amendment.<br /><br />(I'm not opposed to Gay marriage: I just think Congress should have enacted it, not SCOTUS) Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com