Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 146
Thanks Tree55Thanks

Thread: The US constitution

  1. #21
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,271
    Thanks
    507

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by Slartibartfast View Post
    Take the 1215 Magna Carta that consisted of 63 rules. I would hazard a guess each one has been superseded by new laws as society evolved.

    Imagine if we stuck to 800 year old ideas.
    The Bill of Rights have nine rights directly from the Magna Carta, seven from the English Petition of Rights, and six from the English Bill of Rights. Of the twenty six rights in the Bill of Right, twenty two came directly from 400-800 year old documents.

  2. #22
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,271
    Thanks
    507

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles View Post
    That does not erase the prefatory clause. The operative clause is limited by the prefatory clause. This is clear to anyone who understands English.

    “As a child with no adult guardian is incapable of providing for themself, the government may become a child’s guardian”

    Does that sentence say that the government t can seize any child at any time at will? Because of the second clause?

    Obviously the second part is limited to the reasons laid out in the first part.

    This was US law for all of your history until 2008.

    In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[2] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[3][4]

    All this changed, in constitutional law, in 2008.

    It’s fucked up, irresponsible, dishonest, and murderously cruel to its random victims and their families.

    It’s a political party’s method of maintaining office, and a lobby groups method of making money. No different than a lab by group paying a party to mandate weekly blowjobs and then counting on men voters to consistently turn out in droves to vote you in.

    The attempts to justify ridiculous extremes with this amendment are transparently dishonest.
    The prefatory clause does not, and cannot, limit the operative clause. The prefatory clause started out as a dependent clause to the operative clause, then Congress moved the clause to the front of the amendment, and it became a dependent and prefatory clause. You are presenting the Bill of Rights as rights the federal government doled out, but the Bill of Rights is only restrictions on the federal government.

    You left out the rest of the court's opinion in Cruikshank:

    The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States.

    This was the Second Amendment from its ratification until an activist court in 1939 with an opinion that had no constitutional basis.

  3. #23
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,271
    Thanks
    507

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    I agree with your post #4, but not this one.

    The right to self defense....Home, life and property is inalienable. The Second Amendment is not.
    The Second Amendment is a restriction on the federal government's infringement on the right to bear arms.

  4. #24
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,305
    Thanks
    28054

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    The Constitution was not made to keep up with society. One of its purposes was to protect the country from human nature, which was based on several thousand of years of failures due to human nature. One of the purposes of the Second Amendment was a defense against tyranny, and taking guns is tyranny. Technology has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
    Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book reading; and this they would themselves say, were they to rise from the dead...Laws and institutions must go hand and hand with the progress of the human mind.
    Thomas Jefferson, Letter to S. Kercheval, 1816
    Thanks from Babba

  5. #25
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,271
    Thanks
    507

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Thomas Jefferson, Letter to S. Kercheval, 1816
    When Jefferson was speaking of laws, he was speaking of the laws of the states because there were very few federal laws, and no federal authority to make laws that affected the states or the people of the states. Jefferson and his contemporaries had a very specific and cohesive perspective regarding forcing a meaning from the Constitution that does not exist, and a profound disdain for the use of stare decisis regarding the Constitution when speaking of the federal judiciary.

    This was a theme between Jefferson to Kercheval.

    Also, Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written, debated, and ratified.
    Thanks from excalibur

  6. #26
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    29,778
    Thanks
    2927

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Slartibartfast View Post
    Why hasn't the constitution been updated to keep up with social evolution?

    America of today is quite different to the 1700's but people keep reverting back to the constitution. The initial thought process behind the amendments at that time may have been relevant and ideal, maybe some still are. But certainly with the 2nd amendment, it hasn't kept in pace with technology.

    If you do what you've always done, you will get what you've always got.
    There is a way to do this spelled out in the Constitution...If there really needs any updates, they would simply pass muster, now wouldn't they?

  7. #27
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    29,778
    Thanks
    2927

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by BigBob View Post
    The second amendment is the most volatile for gun lovers and the NRA. Those people do not wish to have their "rights" impeded in anyway. When the constitution was written guns were a shot a minute and a militia was required by every county for security in the sense of police. Also in time of war they would be ready to fight any invader.
    Todays gun nuts have no desire to be a militia or even get into a gun fight. They are only bold when shooting animals in the wild from their blinds. The second has needed to be amended for years but every congressperson is scared of the NRA and gun nuts.
    So pass the bill and get the votes. It is that simple if we are really in the place you think we are. The Constitution spells out a method to do what you desire.

  8. #28
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    29,778
    Thanks
    2927

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Slartibartfast View Post
    How does anyone know because there is a process in place for amendments to take place.

    In my opinion, it was based on their history and current technology. They may have had good intentions at the time drafting it but the flaw was not revising it as society evolved.

    For example, if one had been written in the stone age days, would it be relevant in 1700? Assuming you feel you have the right to stone Mammoths to death.
    There is a method to revise it...just get it going and quit complaining.

  9. #29
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    29,778
    Thanks
    2927

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Slartibartfast View Post
    Not the right ones by the looks of it. When are you going to get to grips with guns? 100 years or 1 million gun deaths, whichever is the soonest?
    So get it done. There is a way to do it...public opinion from one side of the argument is not one.

  10. #30
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    29,778
    Thanks
    2927

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles View Post
    You can’t read the second clause and ignore the first clause. As was well known and understood in all US constitutional law until 2008.

    No honest person could read the section and not understand that the right to bear arms is for the explicit purpose of maintaining the regulated melitia.

    “As I’m locked out of my car, you can smash my window” does not tell an honest person they can smash my window whenever they want, even when I’m not even trapped in it. By quoting the second part.

    “But you said I could”.

    No.
    It is for persons that MAY want to form a militia...to stop tyranny such as the type you support in your argument.

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Where in the Constitution??
    By Wrangler in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 23rd May 2016, 02:47 PM
  2. The US Needs A New Constitution
    By TrueMan in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 9th September 2014, 06:51 AM
  3. Replies: 400
    Last Post: 27th March 2013, 06:02 PM
  4. what does the Constitution say?
    By nonsqtr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10th November 2009, 07:25 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed