Ole THA was correct...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

The Socialist does want to take your guns and ban guns down to your semi-auto pistol. He admitted it. I said it a while back and the libs on here scoffed. Let's look at the bastion of safety Chicago, yeah, lots of murders and gun violence with the strongest gun laws in the country. Yeah, working real well... If The Socialist had his way, the only people with guns would be the perps. **** him and the toilette he ****s in!!! He is ****ing useless! He needs retirement come Nov. 6!

[hawaii 5-0]

Myabe take a look at Romney's record.

Not what he wants to do.......what he DID.

Romney got a bipartisan bill passed and signed while Gov. to permanently ban assault weapons.

Actions speak louder than words...........



Then.....when it's convenient (ie. running for President) he joined the NRA and flipped.

Just another Etch-A-Sketch Moment.


5-0

[LiveLaughLove]

Myabe take a look at Romney's record.

Not what he wants to do.......what he DID.

Romney got a bipartisan bill passed and signed while Gov. to permanently ban assault weapons.

Actions speak louder than words...........



Then.....when it's convenient (ie. running for President) he joined the NRA and flipped.

Just another Etch-A-Sketch Moment.


5-0

etch a sketch > dear leader


any day.

[hawaii 5-0]

You sure put me in my place on that one.

Someone get me a tissue !!!!

5-0

[OU_Sooners75]

The thing about Romney....

He signed legislation. He didn't introduce it. And as he said last night, it was something in his state (power to the states) that got both sides of the aisle to work together.

And I also agree with him. Enforce the gun laws that are already in place instead of introducing more.

Seriously, take the guns away from law abiding citizens, then all that's left is guns in the hands of cops and criminals.

[KantoSooner]

And I also agree with him. Enforce the gun laws that are already in place instead of introducing more.



We agree, but this should be a principle for ALL governmental action. Reforming Wall Street, for instance. We had 'regulators' who were apparently in yoga classes while the actions of Madoff and others were being reported to them by concerned citizens. Action? Zippo.
Let's try the laws we already have before stacking more regs on top of those our authorities don't enforce now.

BTW, I own rifles, shotguns, pistols, bows, a sword or two etc, etc. It really wouldn't cramp my style, though, if I wasn't permitted to own flame throwers, bazookas, thermo-nuclear warheads or automated naval 5" guns (though the latter would give my nemesis bunnies quite the surprise). There is surely some common ground here to be found.

[Soonerjeepman]

I think the fear is once we start chipping away then when will it stop..? #1....#2 the only people obeying the new laws are law abiding citizens now, which don't go shooting folks with semi-auto weapons...so the laws really do no good. #3 PEOPLE kill people not guns..they'd find another way.

Last but not least..good ol hillary said the American people won't stand big changes..we have to take little bites..this is a little bite.

[hawaii 5-0]

The thing about Romney....

He signed legislation. He didn't introduce it. And as he said last night, it was something in his state (power to the states) that got both sides of the aisle to work together.

And I also agree with him. Enforce the gun laws that are already in place instead of introducing more.

Seriously, take the guns away from law abiding citizens, then all that's left is guns in the hands of cops and criminals.


Here's the quote:

"“I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal,” he said on Fox News in 2004.


Which is it? What does he believe?

I think his quote goes a little beyord just signing a Bill forced upon his desk.

5-0

[KantoSooner]

Here's the thing to me: The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, it seems to me, was to protect the ability of the populace at large to present an effective deterrent to tyrants. In other words, to protect the ability of the people to fight against their own armed forces. (Never forget that the Constitution was made in an age of revolution and our founding fathers very much considered themselves to be revolutionaries.)
All that said, we live under very different circumstances now. And the Constitution is a living document. An absolutist interpretation would require that there be NO restriction on private arms purchases. We really want to go there? In 1789, the biggest thing you could get your hands on was a big old naval cannon. Impressive, no doubt, but it required at least a three man crew and could manage probably one poorly aimed round a minute.

Today, any crackhead worth his salt could, without legal restraint to the contrary, buy a 20mm chain gun and take out a shopping mall in the same time frame.

Military arms are way more lethal today than they were then.

Does this imply that we should ban private ownership of all arms that are 'military' in nature? Not automatically, but I think it opens the discussion. I am not likely to need a full 30 round magazine in my AK-47 when I am hunting deer. (Again, it would keep those pesky bastadges from laughing at my poor shooting, however.)

Just as the founding fathers did not consider telephone wire tapping when they tucked privacy rights into the Constitution, neither did they consider M60 grenade launchers or Abrams tanks.

We are not doing ourselves favors by backing into overly inflexible corners. On either side of this issue.

[SoonerProphet]

(Never forget that the Constitution was made in an age of revolution and our founding fathers very much considered themselves to be revolutionaries.)


This is a good topic to discuss. In light of the French, Russian, and Iranian Revs, ours seems to pale in comparsion. Some might suggest this was independence over revolution, after all we had no desire overthrow the existing order but express our rights as Englishmen. Then again GW was quite the revolutionary leader, not many peeps just walk away from absolute power

[BigTip]

And the Constitution is a living document. .

No.

It is not.

The problem is that some people want it to be so.

[KantoSooner]

On the contrary, I would argue that our revolution was the most radical so far in human history. A very key proposition was made and upheld by our revolution: that the individual was separate from, prescedent to and superior to the state.
Previously, people were, theoretically, in practice and legally, chattel of the sovereign. As English citizens, you had some rights wrested from the King by Magna Carta (though most of those were rights that then vested in the Lords, not in the common man), but, basically, you were as subject to the King's whims as any farm animal.
Further, our revolution is the only one I can think of that did not almost immediately fall into utter moral corruption. Yes, we had the Whisky Rebellion, the Bank of the USA and other scandalous affairs before the founders left office, but we had no collapse of the revolution into tyranny or dictatorship.
I tell you what, the more I study about the gentlemen who founded our country, and what it was that they created, (and I've been at this for most of a lifetime now), the more awestruck I am at the genius of the founders, the uniqueness and transcedent importance of the American Revolution in world history and my own profound good fortune to have been born in this country.

<segue to a misty morning shot of the Blue Ridge Mountains and then helo shot sweeping towards Mt. Vernon, Star Bangled Banner swelling in the background (Emory University Choir), slow zoom towards an old man and his grandson on the lawn, looking up at the flag.>

[KantoSooner]

No.

It is not.

The problem is that some people want it to be so.

It encompasses a supreme court to interpret its meaning. Game, set, match.

[BigTip]

It encompasses a supreme court to interpret its meaning. Game, set, match.

A supreme court established to interpret the STATIC constitution, not to change it.

[SoonerProphet]

A supreme court established to interpret the STATIC constitution, not to change it.

So we can't ammend the static document...hmmm.

[KantoSooner]

A supreme court established to interpret the STATIC constitution, not to change it.
Which is why amendment procedures were included, mmm?

the drafters and founders came from a long common law tradition of judges interpreting the law. It is inconceivable that they would have broken this line of legal methodology without specific mention that, thenceforth, the interpretative rules were going to be something completely alien to established jurisprudence.

Additionally, an excellent argument can be made that nothing the scotus has done has changed anything. They've merely interpreted the principles of the document to address circumstances unanticipated by the drafters.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

No.

It is not.

The problem is that some people want it to be so.
There are a myriad of issues the founders never could have imagine in 1787, the Constitution must be a living document, simple as that.

[MountainOkie]

Which is why amendment procedures were included, mmm?

the drafters and founders came from a long common law tradition of judges interpreting the law. It is inconceivable that they would have broken this line of legal methodology without specific mention that, thenceforth, the interpretative rules were going to be something completely alien to established jurisprudence.

Additionally, an excellent argument can be made that nothing the scotus has done has changed anything. They've merely interpreted the principles of the document to address circumstances unanticipated by the drafters.

I suppose you're arguing this because there's nothing in the Constitution granting this power to the judicial branch? Because it's not there it's magically there...somehow.

Also, I note you say "an excellent argument can be made" on your second point: a nice way to both make the argument and allow yourself to disown it later.

[StoopTroup]

Given the argument that it isn't a living Document.....some people before us sure have screwed up taking liquor away and then giving it back and giving Women the right to Vote and then that stuff that Honest Abe got passed....

I think there were some other things....I know I'm missing some of them....

[soonercruiser]

Myabe take a look at Romney's record.

Not what he wants to do.......what he DID.

Romney got a bipartisan bill passed and signed while Gov. to permanently ban assault weapons.

Actions speak louder than words...........



Then.....when it's convenient (ie. running for President) he joined the NRA and flipped.

Just another Etch-A-Sketch Moment.


5-0

Instead of just shooting off you fingers 5-O...you ever thought of doing some research on your own...not just spouting out LW talking points???

The bill Romney signed into law in Mass was written by a joint group of the anti-gun lobby, and the NRA.
That's called bipartisan agreement.
I know that you aren't used to seeing gobment work that way....'specially the last 4 years.
But, that's how big things get done in a big way, by "big" hearted people!

[hawaii 5-0]

Instead of just shooting off you fingers 5-O...you ever thought of doing some research on your own...not just spouting out LW talking points???

The bill Romney signed into law in Mass was written by a joint group of the anti-gun lobby, and the NRA.
That's called bipartisan agreement.
I know that you aren't used to seeing gobment work that way....'specially the last 4 years.
But, that's how big things get done in a big way, by "big" hearted people!

Again, here's Romney's quote:

Here's the quote:

"“I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal,” he said on Fox News in 2004.


If you want to try to spin it to look like Romney was supporting the ownership of assault rifles by private citizens I'd sure enjoy that.

BTW, unlike Romney, I've always supported the ownership of any weapons one chooses to have.

Any of my posts about this topic back me up.

5-0

[KantoSooner]

I suppose you're arguing this because there's nothing in the Constitution granting this power to the judicial branch? Because it's not there it's magically there...somehow.

Also, I note you say "an excellent argument can be made" on your second point: a nice way to both make the argument and allow yourself to disown it later.

To point one: no, I'm not arguing it in the sense of trying to prove anything. It's simply the way that common law has worked since, in all liklihood, England was run by Druids. Given that fact, a departure from that method would require some form of notice, sort of like saying, "Hey! We're going to do the interpretation dealio completely differently than we've done it heretofore!" The drafters didn't, therefore it's logical to assume that the established method of interpretation was to be followed.
Further, to assume that any document can only be interpreted in one way is insane. The issue then becomes, if there are two or more interpretations, who settles the argument. In our case, our court system performs this task.
To you second point: well, you can have it your way if you insist. I was relying on my first argument. When I made the 'excellent argument' comment, I was saying not that I relied upon that argument in support but that it is another, completely separate and utterly sufficient argument in favor of the same point. That argument would then force those contra to show how the scotus has violated and/or changed the Constitution. I think you'd find that a more difficult argument that you seem to assume.

[StoopTroup]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/487532_428698647186355_657950170_n.jpg

[Skysooner]

Instead of just shooting off you fingers 5-O...you ever thought of doing some research on your own...not just spouting out LW talking points???

The bill Romney signed into law in Mass was written by a joint group of the anti-gun lobby, and the NRA.
That's called bipartisan agreement.
I know that you aren't used to seeing gobment work that way....'specially the last 4 years.
But, that's how big things get done in a big way, by "big" hearted people!

And the OP hasn't posted anything supporting his argument.

[pphilfran]

Again, here's Romney's quote:

Here's the quote:

"“I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal,” he said on Fox News in 2004.


If you want to try to spin it to look like Romney was supporting the ownership of assault rifles by private citizens I'd sure enjoy that.

BTW, unlike Romney, I've always supported the ownership of any weapons one chooses to have.

Any of my posts about this topic back me up.

5-0

I don't think private citizens should be permitted to own assault weapons...a true assault weapon will have auto fire capabilities...

A semi auto weapon that looks like an assault weapon is fine since they are no more than a standard issue hunting gun with cosmetics...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I don't think private citizens should be permitted to own assault weapons...a true assault weapon will have auto fire capabilities...

A semi auto weapon that looks like an assault weapon is fine since they are no more than a standard issue hunting gun with cosmetics...


I agree with you on this. I can make the break that citizens do not need full-auto capability. But most people think the AR in the AR-15 stands for Assault Rifle and it does not. As you say, it is a glorified single shot hunting gun.

There are plenty of laws currently on the books to cover the issues presented, enforce the laws on the books. We don't need more and we certainly don't need to be more restrictive. I have yet to see any gun jump off the shelf and go killing people (odd dog, pet or clumsiness aside). It takes a person bent on evil to do these things. I might argue better education and better reporting to prevent people with on-going mental illness from getting hold of a gun.

Oh, BTW, what the eff is wrong with Cook County? If I were a gun dealer, I would be looking to set up shop on the county border on the other side of CC to avoid their stupid a$$ tax scheme. I doubt if the Obama peeps inthe 'hood will be paying that bullet tax they propose...

[hawaii 5-0]

I don't think private citizens should be permitted to own assault weapons...a true assault weapon will have auto fire capabilities...

A semi auto weapon that looks like an assault weapon is fine since they are no more than a standard issue hunting gun with cosmetics...


Here's one topic where I'm more conservative than others. If someone wants a RPG, let'm have it.

I've got friends that rag on me for being more conservative than them, then I come on here and am accused of being a Lib.

Strange in a sense, but it's just a Message Bored.

5-0

[MountainOkie]

To point one: no, I'm not arguing it in the sense of trying to prove anything. It's simply the way that common law has worked since, in all liklihood, England was run by Druids. Given that fact, a departure from that method would require some form of notice, sort of like saying, "Hey! We're going to do the interpretation dealio completely differently than we've done it heretofore!" The drafters didn't, therefore it's logical to assume that the established method of interpretation was to be followed.
Further, to assume that any document can only be interpreted in one way is insane. The issue then becomes, if there are two or more interpretations, who settles the argument. In our case, our court system performs this task.
To you second point: well, you can have it your way if you insist. I was relying on my first argument. When I made the 'excellent argument' comment, I was saying not that I relied upon that argument in support but that it is another, completely separate and utterly sufficient argument in favor of the same point. That argument would then force those contra to show how the scotus has violated and/or changed the Constitution. I think you'd find that a more difficult argument that you seem to assume.

Well, first off the full historical development of common law jurisprudence (which is what you seem to want to argue for some reason) and the ability of the courts to declare acts of the legislature null and void are two different creatures. So to begin with you're arguing apples to my oranges. Of course common law's been a pillar of English culture for quite some time I'm not disputing that.

First, I'm saying that the constitution does not provide the judiciary with the power to render statutes passed by the legislature unconstitutional nor does it provide them with the power of judicial review over the constitution itself. Why don't you tell me the Supreme Court decision where they gave that power to themselves?

Second, I'm saying that--absent an ambiguity in the document--the courts had no right to claim this power on their own. Silence does not constitute an ambiguity. (I'm willing to argue some of the legislative history on this point just for funsies though if you like.)

Third, Even were I to accept that the court's seizure of this power were the result of some common law precedent, according to the Law of England at that time such judicial review was not used by the English Courts. That is, it was not part of the recognized powers of the English courts and not part of English law.

Fourth, I think this:
Previously, people were, theoretically, in practice and legally, chattel of the sovereign. As English citizens, you had some rights wrested from the King by Magna Carta (though most of those were rights that then vested in the Lords, not in the common man), but, basically, you were as subject to the King's whims as any farm animal. Is a wildly improper characterization and simplification of a complex English history, especially when given (as you did) in the context of speaking of 18th century England.

Fifth, you still haven't stated whether you're advocating the second point
that nothing the scotus has done has changed anything. The initial remark you made was pure sophistry. I hoped you'd remedy that this time but you just layered more sophistry over the top of it. Step up and take a position so we can argue something substantial.

[KantoSooner]

Why? You're taking a position that is at odds with the entire history of US jurisprudence.

Go ahead and take your Constitution, the one that's perfect, simple, straightforward, anticipates each and every eventuality now, in the past and forward into the infinite future with singular prescriptions and be happy.

I'll be over in that corner with John Marshall, all current and past supreme court justices, the faculty of every accredited law school in the nation and non-tinfoil hatted lawyers for the past 230 years.

Cheers.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I like to eat dirt.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I like to eat dirt.

I'll trade you a mud pie for a medium sized booger.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

And the OP hasn't posted anything supporting his argument.
You are joking right? The Socialists own words in the last debate. I guess you didn't see it or read any stories after it.

[yermom]

you have any quotes or links?

what are the actual words you are referring to?

[Skysooner]

you have any quotes or links?

what are the actual words you are referring to?

That's all I am asking for. I have already voted. I watched the first 15 minutes or so and nothing else. Boring otherwise.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

A supreme court established to interpret the STATIC constitution, not to change it.Kanto would not admit to that.

[yermom]

the world changes. the law has to adapt.

i'm not sure what the point of contention is here.

[SoonerorLater]

Why? You're taking a position that is at odds with the entire history of US jurisprudence.

Go ahead and take your Constitution, the one that's perfect, simple, straightforward, anticipates each and every eventuality now, in the past and forward into the infinite future with singular prescriptions and be happy.

I'll be over in that corner with John Marshall, all current and past supreme court justices, the faculty of every accredited law school in the nation and non-tinfoil hatted lawyers for the past 230 years.

Cheers.



That's a specious argument. The constitution as passed was a very narrow concise, document that was never designed to address all possible needs. It was a document to restrict the power of an oppressive central government. If something isn't clearly defined, then the constitution plainly says that is in the province of the individual states. It's not a misprint. The founding fathers pictured this as a union of individual states. Through the years a tyrannical central government has gradually usurped states rights though a series of Supreme Court Decisions using tortured constitutional logic. Marshall was one of the first in a long line of activists who have helped this country into a state of decline because he thought he knew better than the words that were written.

The problem isn't that the constitution is dated or irrelevant but that we have turned into a country that the individual liberties spelled out in our constitution have been trampled to the point that we no longer are the same country the constitution was designed to protect

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

That's a specious argument. The constitution as passed was a very narrow concise, document that was never designed to address all possible needs. It was a document to restrict the power of an oppressive central government. If something isn't clearly defined, then the constitution plainly says that is in the province of the individual states. It's not a misprint. The founding fathers pictured this as a union of individual states. Through the years a tyrannical central government has gradually usurped states rights though a series of Supreme Court Decisions using tortured constitutional logic. Marshall was one of the first in a long line of activists who have helped this country into a state of decline because he thought he knew better than the words that were written.

The problem isn't that the constitution is dated or irrelevant but that we have turned into a country that the individual liberties spelled out in our constitution have been trampled to the point that we no longer are the same country the constitution was designed to protectVery well said. Thes things are not hard to see nor understand. Some here with serviceable brains have somehow done a lot of misconstruin' of things, and come up with judicial activism and socialism as something good.

[MountainOkie]

I'll be over in that corner with John Marshall, all current and past supreme court justices, the faculty of every accredited law school in the nation and non-tinfoil hatted lawyers for the past 230 years.

The best view you get by following the herd is of someone else's ***. ;)

[MountainOkie]

Why? You're taking a position that is at odds with the entire history of US jurisprudence.

Go ahead and take your Constitution, the one that's perfect, simple, straightforward, anticipates each and every eventuality now, in the past and forward into the infinite future with singular prescriptions and be happy.

I'll be over in that corner with John Marshall, all current and past supreme court justices, the faculty of every accredited law school in the nation and non-tinfoil hatted lawyers for the past 230 years.

Cheers.

But seriously, my Con Law Professor, at an accredited law school made a very similar argument. There are lots of legitimate viewpoints out there Kanto not just the viewpoints of the left. The mark of a true intellectual (of which my Professor was one) is the ability to debate facts and theories unemotionally, not to discount the viewpoint of others out of hand. It works to the benefit of both parties, stimulates learning and refines arguments to a razor's edge.

It's not just that you're ignoring my arguments Kanto, but now you're ignoring your own. The trouble I'm having with your argument so far is you will use something while making a point (say the history of Common Law) and then later say that the history of common law doesn't matter, now it's American jurisprudence. Or, make some vitriolic blanket statement about English history and then not back it up. You give up ground and then claim the ground didn't matter in the first place. I wonder where will you go if I bother to cite some strict constructionists and the history of the Supreme Court into the early 20th century?

Will you resort to sophistry again and endeavor to make points without really making points (a la "The argument could be made...")?

Perhaps we will be treated to some more veiled ad homs?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the true difference we have with the Constitution is the same problem we're having with this debate. I believe in rules, of language, of law and of debate. I thought from previous posts of yours that I've read that you did as well...but I'm beginning to think that I was mistaken.

[MountainOkie]

the world changes. the law has to adapt.

i'm not sure what the point of contention is here.


The Constitution provides an avenue of adaptation in the form of the Amendment, and allows the legislature the power to pass laws. We (Kanto and I) are not arguing that, we're arguing the principle of judicial review (review of the Constitutionality of statutes.)

Or at least we should be. Unless he's made a strawman argument in an effort to expand the field.

[Skysooner]

You are joking right? The Socialists own words in the last debate. I guess you didn't see it or read any stories after it.


Read the quotes and totally disagree. You do realize that gun control advocates are completely mad at the President and expect him to do nothing even in a 2nd term.

[KantoSooner]

Dear Mountain Okie,
I truly have no idea what got up your nose so far. I used the term 'living document' to describe the constitution. This is not terribly controversial. It means that, when there's a dispute over the meaning of the a part of the constitution in a given set of circumstances, the scotus can decide what the document means under those facts. That's all.
I can't conceive of anyone having trouble with that, but, if it's that important to you, fine, declare yourself the 'winner' and go have a celebratory cookie.

BTW, lest we shamble back into the tedious BS of label tossing, I'm a registered Republican of the Goldwater variety. I have no desire to label you, so you are free to go on being whatever you are.

Have a nice day.

[KantoSooner]

The Constitution provides an avenue of adaptation in the form of the Amendment, and allows the legislature the power to pass laws. We (Kanto and I) are not arguing that, we're arguing the principle of judicial review (review of the Constitutionality of statutes.)

Or at least we should be. Unless he's made a strawman argument in an effort to expand the field.

Ah, now I'm starting to get what has you so upset. I was, as yermom said, arguing for the scotus power to interpret the const. (and, of course the power of the people to amend the document.) Farily benign stuff.

If you want to argue who has the power to determine the constitutionality of statutes, I think that's fairly well settled. Federal courts as regard federal laws; state courts as regard state laws vs state constitutions. I think this was most recently made clear in the 9th (?) Circuit's refusal to say anything regarding the California constitutionality of the gay marriage amendment, no?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

the world changes. the law has to adapt.

i'm not sure what the point of contention is here.

What law has to adapt? Certainly not the Right to Bear Arms... We have an unalienable right to bear arms at all times in order to protect from tyranny.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Read the quotes and totally disagree. You do realize that gun control advocates are completely mad at the President and expect him to do nothing even in a 2nd term.

Nope, I expect The Socialist to try to get something akin to the Chicago gun ban.. Now that is some great law... n How is that working out for the cesspool that is Chicago...

[yermom]

What law has to adapt? Certainly not the Right to Bear Arms... We have an unalienable right to bear arms at all times in order to protect from tyranny.

not "a" law, but laws in general. i'm responding to someone denying that the Constitution is a living document.

of course, the framers didn't know about atomic bombs and chemical weapons, etc... either. where does the 2nd amendment stop?

i don't have too much of a problem with the ban on fully automatic weapons, much below that and i think you are overreaching

[TheHumanAlphabet]

i don't have too much of a problem with the ban on fully automatic weapons, much below that and i think you are overreaching

We agree on a lot here. However, I don't put anything past The Socialist and I darn sure know if he can, he will ban guns like Chicago. Alarmist? you decide, but who thought ObominationCare would pass and become a single server medical system or a socialist medical system. It will... Who thought all the taxes coming due next year would not hit the middle income earners, it will...

So I expect The Socialist to try just about anything in a second term.

[Skysooner]

We agree on a lot here. However, I don't put anything past The Socialist and I darn sure know if he can, he will ban guns like Chicago. Alarmist? you decide, but who thought ObominationCare would pass and become a single server medical system or a socialist medical system. It will... Who thought all the taxes coming due next year would not hit the middle income earners, it will...

So I expect The Socialist to try just about anything in a second term.

Again, unless the Pubs lose the House it won't happen. Even with a Democratic congress in 2008-2010, there wasn't anything attempted. I agree on an overreach.

[MountainOkie]

Ah, now I'm starting to get what has you so upset. I was, as yermom said, arguing for the scotus power to interpret the const. (and, of course the power of the people to amend the document.) Farily benign stuff.

If you want to argue who has the power to determine the constitutionality of statutes, I think that's fairly well settled. Federal courts as regard federal laws; state courts as regard state laws vs state constitutions. I think this was most recently made clear in the 9th (?) Circuit's refusal to say anything regarding the California constitutionality of the gay marriage amendment, no?

I'm not upset. I wanted to have a nice debate to clarify your earlier argument against Bigtip. I now see it is impossible to actually debate the issue with you without you projecting one thing or another on me (here its anger). I thought you were a liberal, so without actually parsing through your earlier posts I'll just say we're even for the sake of civility and so I can move on from what is just likely to be repetitious.

I agree that it's profitless to continue this. I'm disappointed as I'd hoped your style of argument would be more interesting and less personal and that we might both gain something from our debate. I believe that now to be impossible. But I'll keep you off ignore. If you want to debate the issues I raised in the future without all the message board posturing I'd be happy to let the water pass under the bridge and give it another go.

Good luck to you.

[MountainOkie]

Ah, now I'm starting to get what has you so upset. I was, as yermom said, arguing for the scotus power to interpret the const. (and, of course the power of the people to amend the document.) Farily benign stuff.

If you want to argue who has the power to determine the constitutionality of statutes, I think that's fairly well settled. Federal courts as regard federal laws; state courts as regard state laws vs state constitutions. I think this was most recently made clear in the 9th (?) Circuit's refusal to say anything regarding the California constitutionality of the gay marriage amendment, no?

Sorry, I know I agreed for this to be over but I can't resist. :) Thomas Jefferson would disagree. His criticism of Marshall's reasoning in Marbury v. Madison:


You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

Thomas Jefferson

[KantoSooner]

M Okie,
Good Lord, I wasn't intending to be 'personal'. Or angry. I can do way better on those fronts as I've previously demonstrated.
In point of fact, I started participation in this thread in a very mellow mood, mostly celebrating the overall wonderfulness of our system of government.

And, yes, I'd disagree with Jefferson on this point. I am looking, with the benefit of 230 years, for the despotism he feared and I'm not seeing it. I don't believe that Marshall said this, but there is something to be said for there being an end to things. Marbury provides that ending for specific constitutional disputes.

Peace

[SoonerorLater]

not "a" law, but laws in general. i'm responding to someone denying that the Constitution is a living document.

of course, the framers didn't know about atomic bombs and chemical weapons, etc... either. where does the 2nd amendment stop?



i don't have too much of a problem with the ban on fully automatic weapons, much below that and i think you are overreaching


That's not how it was designed to work. The constitution as written would as I read it, not in any way prevent a person from owning a nuclear device which I think most people would think is a very bad idea. The court shouldn't be arbitrating what types of weapons we can and can not have. That should be our cowardly Congress. If the Constitution needs to be changed to reflect modern reality then do it but don't try to interpret things into the
Constitution that don't exist. If it's important enough then pass an ammendment but don't do these end runs around the Congressional process for political expediency.

[MountainOkie]

M Okie,
Good Lord, I wasn't intending to be 'personal'. Or angry. I can do way better on those fronts as I've previously demonstrated.
In point of fact, I started participation in this thread in a very mellow mood, mostly celebrating the overall wonderfulness of our system of government.

And, yes, I'd disagree with Jefferson on this point. I am looking, with the benefit of 230 years, for the despotism he feared and I'm not seeing it. I don't believe that Marshall said this, but there is something to be said for there being an end to things. Marbury provides that ending for specific constitutional disputes.

Peace

Dear Kanto,

Okay, I'm willing to accept the fact that you aren't angry and aren't trying to be personal.

On the other issue I would first point out that the theft of powers not given to your branch by the founding document is, by its very nature, a despotic act. Further, the judicial branch especially since FDRs court packing, has extended the powers of the Federal government and infringed upon both the explicit and implicit rights of individuals and states.

The restriction of other's liberties through force, especially when that force rests on an illegitimate foundation and doubly so when there is no oversight for the decision maker, is despotic.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I agree. Judicial activism is not appropriate. There job to apply laws or the Constitution. I know quite a few would disagree. I just happen to be a fairly strict Constitutionist personally. It is to the House and Senate to write laws, as in all cases, we have a right to unelect them. Not the case in all judges or locales. I know that is not a progressive view, there are a lot of bad things the progressives have started. God I hate Wilson!

[SoonerorLater]

Yes, the Constitution as a "Living Document" is really no constitution at all. It's convenient for Progressive Causes but soon destroys the Republic and turns it into a populist democracy or even worse.

[KantoSooner]

Woooooeeeeee!
Who'd've thunk it?
Now, I'd be the first to tar the legislative branch with the brush of cowardice and to agree that the court(s) have been pressed into a far broader role than originally intended due to legislative paralysis.
And I'd agree that the executive has been worth about tits on a hog for much of the last century.
To claim that scotus does not have the authority to decide constitutional interpretation disputes seems a bit much, however. In addition to being against the history of the court from Marbury forward (and however you feel about that decision, it has survived two centuries in which it easily could have been overturned if it was so awful), it strikes me as common sensical to vest in the court the power to settle constitutional disputes. You know they are going to arise, who else will settle them? Not everything can or should be legislated.

[MountainOkie]

Woooooeeeeee!
Who'd've thunk it?
Now, I'd be the first to tar the legislative branch with the brush of cowardice and to agree that the court(s) have been pressed into a far broader role than originally intended due to legislative paralysis.
And I'd agree that the executive has been worth about tits on a hog for much of the last century.
To claim that scotus does not have the authority to decide constitutional interpretation disputes seems a bit much, however. In addition to being against the history of the court from Marbury forward (and however you feel about that decision, it has survived two centuries in which it easily could have been overturned if it was so awful), it strikes me as common sensical to vest in the court the power to settle constitutional disputes. You know they are going to arise, who else will settle them? Not everything can or should be legislated.

Common sense is a slippery cuss. I would think it was common sense that the sovereignity of this nation lies, ultimately, in its people and that everyone else is just holding their power in trust. I'm sure it may be more practical to have, say an oligarchy of 9, and we wouldn't have to deal with all those nasty loose ends that popular government creates. Course it would be even more practical to have a nice king or dictator instead. Problem is that neither option is legitimate because both go against the clear language of our founding document, further neither option protects the freedoms of the true sovereign (The People) in the long run.

Common sense also says that if a power isn't granted to you in the section where all your other powers are granted--you simply don't have it. Common sense doesn't create rights from a mysterious "penumbra" as the Supreme Court has with its power of judicial review (something I actually enjoy, but as the tyrant gives so too can the tyrant take away). Common sense wouldn't lay its foundation for all future decisions on a deceit either.

Finally, time "honored" theft is still theft. It doesn't magically go away after a set period of time.

[KantoSooner]

Okay, giving in to the usually ill-guided urge to ask a question to which I don't already know the answer,
1. Considering that differences of opinion are possible on matters constitutional, even between right minded, good hearted people,
and
2. Considering that not all fact patterns can possibly have been anticipated, even by as gifted a gang as those who drafted the constitution,

Who properly decides which opinion, if either, prevails? Is that not, in our society, pretty much the definition of a court's job? (I've already agreed with you that state constitutions get decided upon by the state's, whatever methodlogy they have chosen; so this is strictly a federal question.) Who decides?

[MountainOkie]

Jefferson and Madison supported the use of the Constitutional Convention much more often than we've used it in the past.

Their idea seems to be that the three branches of government would be in a perpetual state of detente and sometimes outright animosity. The thought was that on minor matters this power would not come up and that whenever the disagreements grew "hot" or the gridlock complete, then the people would call a constitutional convention to resolve the dispute between the various branches.

[KantoSooner]

Okay.
So, in essence, we were to ignore or muddle through 'minor' constitutional questions and then have a kind of national plebicite if issues truly locked up the gears? And that these national exercises of direct democracy would be called by 'the people'?

I can see that this technique would certainly avoid empowering any of the three branches at the expense of the others. So that's good. And since this is in the direction of the method used to amend the constitution, we've got the fact that we use this technique for important questions going in its favor. And that, too, is good.

On an analytical level, however, I'd suggest that such a system could only work to decide a very tiny number of questions. In fact, something on the order of the number of constitutional amendments we've considered during our 230 odd years as a republic. Like most exercises of direct democracy, it would seem to bog down if faced with any sort of volume. And we ignore, for a moment, how 'the people' are to express their desire or consent for one of these expressions of will to take place. We couldn't have one of the three branches call for such an event at the risk of empowering them vs the other two. Or perhaps we'd have all three branches so empowered? That, too, would be fun to watch.

You say Jefferson and Madison supported this approach, but, and I ask the question sincerely, is there textual material to back a claim that this was, in fact, any sort of exclusive intent on the part of the drafters? Or was it simply what Jefferson and Madison thought should happen? If the latter, then, with all due respect to them, they are merely two voices among many and apparently their views didn't carry the day. As Franklin commented, Jefferson had a huge supply of ideas; some of them were even good.

[TAFBSooner]

Jefferson and Madison supported the use of the Constitutional Convention much more often than we've used it in the past.

Their idea seems to be that the three branches of government would be in a perpetual state of detente and sometimes outright animosity. The thought was that on minor matters this power would not come up and that whenever the disagreements grew "hot" or the gridlock complete, then the people would call a constitutional convention to resolve the dispute between the various branches.


What issues, current or in the past 30 years, would you nominate as potential subjects for a Constitutional Convention?

How would We the People go about kicking off such a thing?

I'm sure the very idea scares a good many people, since it has the potential to go off the rails. In fact it did go off the rails the last time we held such a thing.

[OU_Sooners75]

Here's the quote:

"“I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal,” he said on Fox News in 2004.


Which is it? What does he believe?

I think his quote goes a little beyord just signing a Bill forced upon his desk.

5-0

Where is that saying he is for more gun laws and taking away your right to own guns and weapons?

I don't think the general populace needs assualt rifles. Why should they? And as far as I know, you can't get them as the way you and most people think of them anyway. Can't buy a fully automatic assualt rifle anyway!

There are laws, like background checks, 7 day waiting periods, etc etc.

What does these laws do? It keeps the honest people honest. If your a criminal, you aren't going to your local pawn shop or gun store to buy a gun. You are going to the black market.

Its a lot like a car alarm. You buy it. It makes you feel safe from auto thieves. But in reality a criminal wants it bad enough, they will take it.

Just like guns. If they want a gun bad enough, they will get one somehow. Steal it, buy it on the black market.

Laws are for the honest. Criminals, they break the laws.