Members banned from this thread: Humorme


Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 134
Thanks Tree54Thanks

Thread: Constitutional originalism

  1. #61
    RNG
    RNG is online now
    Member RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    2,187
    Thanks
    2113

    From
    Canada, West Coast
    Quote Originally Posted by cpicturetaker12 View Post
    Except there are 2 components of the 2nd--the 2 components are axiomatic. Gun nuts and wingers ALWAYS LEAVE OFF THE OTHER PART!! Hell, maybe they don't even know there is another part. And I always point out, that's not not a period between the 2, its a COMMA.

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    I've often wondered why the "well regulated" part seems to be ignored.

    Also, if fear of a tyrannical government is part of the reason, individuals would would need cruise missiles, Abrams tanks, F-35s and some of the other goodies the military has to carry out the government's tyrannical goals but for some reason, they won't sell those to the Idaho militants. Isn't that then a direct violation of the 2nd if interpreted that way?

  2. #62
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    765
    Thanks
    169

    From
    U.S.
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    It's an opinion and has no relevance in law. If you think a person has an inalienable right to live, that is your opinion. In law, a person has an unalienable Right to live.
    This is rather long and detailed, but after your remark calling me illiterate, and your incessant referencing your links, it is called for.

    I posted this opinion regarding the Declaration of Independence and inalienable rights, and I thought you would elaborate on the opinion and its origin. I specifically chose this opinion for your response:

    The Declaration is regarded by the American people as expressing their views of the fundamental purpose of Government. We believe that every human being is endowed by God with the inalienable right to live.

    This was your reply:

    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    Opinions are like a**holes. Everybody has one. If you want to screw yourself out of your Rights via ignorance, by all means do not let the rest of America stop you. I've presented enough of the law so that what you've put on this board is irrelevant.
    I asked you if this opinion regarding the Declaration of Independence and inalienable rights is not that relevant. This is your response:

    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    It's an opinion and has no relevance in law. If you think a person has an inalienable right to live, that is your opinion. In law, a person has an unalienable Right to live.
    You have repeatedly commanded everyone to read your links regarding the difference between “unalienable” and “inalienable.” You have also proclaimed that all that matters is the “in law” determination between the two words. Let us examine your links and the wholesale us of contextomy by your links.

    The first proclamation by your link is a reference to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 Edition and the word “unalienable,” which was used incorrectly without the possessive for Bouvier:

    UNALIENABLE Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government

    What your link misrepresented by omission is Bouvier’s definition for “inalienable”:

    INALIENABLE. This word is applied to those things, the property of which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are of this kind; there are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty, or of speech.

    The Bouvier’s definition for “inalienable” explicitly lists rights of liberty and speech. These are found in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Both documents reference unalienable rights according to your argument. Immediately, when Bouvier’s is not manipulated by an agenda driven ideologue, your source contradicts your entire argument.

    Now let us go to the second proclamation by your link regarding Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition and the word “unalienable” and “inalienable.”
    Your source regarding Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition and “unalienable”:

    "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523

    Your source edited Black’s definition of the word “unalienable” by removing the word “inalienable” to fit their worldview.

    Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

    Unalienable: Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.

    Your source regarding Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition and “inalienable”:

    Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

    Your source edited Black’s definition of the word “inalienable” by removing the examples provided by Black’s that references the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Black’s defines “inalienable” as the same as “unalienable” and lists the same rights attached to both words.

    Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

    Inalienable rights. Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights; e.g., freedom of speech or religion, due process, and equal protection of the laws. Morrison v. State, Mo.App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101. See Bill of rights.

    The mention of Morrison v. State is quite interesting. Let us examine the quote I presented to you and your erudite reply of “Opinions are like a**holes. Everybody has one.”

    The Declaration is regarded by the American people as expressing their views of the fundamental purpose of Government. We believe that every human being is endowed by God with the inalienable right to live.

    You seem to have a fixation regarding the phrase “in law.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    Don't blame me if you're illiterate. That is the only other possibility. Dude, IN LAW, the words have been interpreted differently. Get the Hell over it. Don't let this destroy your life. Access the links, do a little reading and move on.
    Now let us take a gander at this Morrison v. State your source graciously supplied us with.

    Your source paraphrased the court’s quote regarding “inalienable”:

    Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.

    This is directly from the ruling:

    Inalienable is defined as incapable of being surrendered or transferred; at least without one's consent. Webster's New Int. Dictionary, Second Ed. Vol. 2, page 1254.

    Not much there to make a fuss over regarding this quote from the ruling, but your source, again, lied because they mysteriously left out the other mentions in the ruling regarding “inalienable.” The other mention of “inalienable” in the Morrison ruling:

    The Declaration is regarded by the American people as expressing their views of the fundamental purpose of Government. We believe that every human being is endowed by God with the inalienable right to live.

    Does it look familiar? It should; it is the quote I presented to you. Again, here was your reply to the quote: “Opinions are like a**holes. Everybody has one. It's an opinion and has no relevance in law.” The court’s opinion in Morrison states that the word “inalienable” is the same God given right as an unalienable right, which is in the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment. This is what is called "relevance in law."

    And then there is this quote from the ruling that your source left out regarding the “unalienable”:

    There is a passage in America's most revered document, with which every American school child should be familiar, towit: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, * * *." Declaration of Independence.

    The court's ruling used the two words interchangeably and referenced and used the words “inalienable” and ‘unalienable” both in the context of the Declaration of Independence and God given rights.
    Thanks from AttusBlack

  3. #63
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    765
    Thanks
    169

    From
    U.S.
    Quote Originally Posted by cpicturetaker12 View Post
    Except there are 2 components of the 2nd--the 2 components are axiomatic. Gun nuts and wingers ALWAYS LEAVE OFF THE OTHER PART!! Hell, maybe they don't even know there is another part. And I always point out, that's not not a period between the 2, its a COMMA.

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    There are two components of the Second Amendment, the prefatory clause and the operative clause. The prefatory clause is an introduction and eliminating the prefatory clause does not change the meaning of operative clause that starts after the word “state.” In the prefatory clause, “well-regulated” is a modifier for “militia,” the people. Notice also that the indefinite article “A” was used rather than the definite article “the” preceding “well-regulated.”

    The placement of the comma has no meaning in the context of contemporary comma usage grammar and punctuation. That is how commas were used in that era. Example from Pride and Prejudice:

    It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

    The usage of the indefinite article “a” used in Article I, Section 8’s militia clauses vis-ŕ-vis the use of the definite article “the” in the Second Amendment needs to be addressed and understood.

    “A” is when first introduced:

    Section 8

    To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

    To provide and maintain a navy;

    To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribe.

    Note the progression from the indefinite “a” to the definite article “the” in the militia clauses after introduction. This is not the militia of the Second Amendment.

    The Second Amendment starts with the indefinite article “a.”

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Article 1, Section 8 is what the federal government can do regarding the militia, and the Second Amendment is what the federal government cannot do regarding the militia.

  4. #64
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,214
    Thanks
    218

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    All I saw was that you cited the Preamble and the 14th Amendment. That does not answer the inquiry, which requires a federal statute or a Supreme Court case. If there is a difference between what is in the Preamble and what is in the 14th Amendment, the latter controls.
    Okay, since you obviously have a hard time reading, I'll do the links for a final time. On the last two lines of this post, move your cursor over the center of the writing of either line. Right click the mouse. Read. With me so far. If you still have a problem,, PM me.

    Unalienable Rights vs Inalienable Rights

    https://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/...s-inalienable/

  5. #65
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,214
    Thanks
    218

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    This is rather long and detailed, but after your remark calling me illiterate, and your incessant referencing your links, it is called for.

    I posted this opinion regarding the Declaration of Independence and inalienable rights, and I thought you would elaborate on the opinion and its origin. I specifically chose this opinion for your response:

    The Declaration is regarded by the American people as expressing their views of the fundamental purpose of Government. We believe that every human being is endowed by God with the inalienable right to live.

    This was your reply:



    I asked you if this opinion regarding the Declaration of Independence and inalienable rights is not that relevant. This is your response:



    You have repeatedly commanded everyone to read your links regarding the difference between “unalienable” and “inalienable.” You have also proclaimed that all that matters is the “in law” determination between the two words. Let us examine your links and the wholesale us of contextomy by your links.

    The first proclamation by your link is a reference to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 Edition and the word “unalienable,” which was used incorrectly without the possessive for Bouvier:

    UNALIENABLE Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government

    What your link misrepresented by omission is Bouvier’s definition for “inalienable”:

    INALIENABLE. This word is applied to those things, the property of which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are of this kind; there are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty, or of speech.

    The Bouvier’s definition for “inalienable” explicitly lists rights of liberty and speech. These are found in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Both documents reference unalienable rights according to your argument. Immediately, when Bouvier’s is not manipulated by an agenda driven ideologue, your source contradicts your entire argument.

    Now let us go to the second proclamation by your link regarding Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition and the word “unalienable” and “inalienable.”
    Your source regarding Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition and “unalienable”:

    "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523

    Your source edited Black’s definition of the word “unalienable” by removing the word “inalienable” to fit their worldview.

    Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

    Unalienable: Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.

    Your source regarding Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition and “inalienable”:

    Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

    Your source edited Black’s definition of the word “inalienable” by removing the examples provided by Black’s that references the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Black’s defines “inalienable” as the same as “unalienable” and lists the same rights attached to both words.

    Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

    Inalienable rights. Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights; e.g., freedom of speech or religion, due process, and equal protection of the laws. Morrison v. State, Mo.App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101. See Bill of rights.

    The mention of Morrison v. State is quite interesting. Let us examine the quote I presented to you and your erudite reply of “Opinions are like a**holes. Everybody has one.”

    The Declaration is regarded by the American people as expressing their views of the fundamental purpose of Government. We believe that every human being is endowed by God with the inalienable right to live.

    You seem to have a fixation regarding the phrase “in law.”



    Now let us take a gander at this Morrison v. State your source graciously supplied us with.

    Your source paraphrased the court’s quote regarding “inalienable”:

    Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.

    This is directly from the ruling:

    Inalienable is defined as incapable of being surrendered or transferred; at least without one's consent. Webster's New Int. Dictionary, Second Ed. Vol. 2, page 1254.

    Not much there to make a fuss over regarding this quote from the ruling, but your source, again, lied because they mysteriously left out the other mentions in the ruling regarding “inalienable.” The other mention of “inalienable” in the Morrison ruling:

    The Declaration is regarded by the American people as expressing their views of the fundamental purpose of Government. We believe that every human being is endowed by God with the inalienable right to live.

    Does it look familiar? It should; it is the quote I presented to you. Again, here was your reply to the quote: “Opinions are like a**holes. Everybody has one. It's an opinion and has no relevance in law.” The court’s opinion in Morrison states that the word “inalienable” is the same God given right as an unalienable right, which is in the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment. This is what is called "relevance in law."

    And then there is this quote from the ruling that your source left out regarding the “unalienable”:

    There is a passage in America's most revered document, with which every American school child should be familiar, towit: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, * * *." Declaration of Independence.

    The court's ruling used the two words interchangeably and referenced and used the words “inalienable” and ‘unalienable” both in the context of the Declaration of Independence and God given rights.
    I've spent this much effort and you still take the material out of context and still seem to not understand:

    IN LAW, inalienable rights can be forfeited and unalienable Rights cannot. The rest of your verbose posts are so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any real meaning.

  6. #66
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    39,916
    Thanks
    18703

    From
    Depends on what year....
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    Okay, since you obviously have a hard time reading, I'll do the links for a final time. On the last two lines of this post, move your cursor over the center of the writing of either line. Right click the mouse. Read. With me so far. If you still have a problem,, PM me.
    Grow the fuck up and get the fuck over yourself. You apparently have nothing but insults to offer.

    I did not address this ridiculous "unalienable versus inalienable" debate. I asked you to provide a federal statute and/or case law demonstrating two different kinds of citizenship - one under the Preamble and one under the 14th Amendment. I am not interested in reading somebody's blog/propaganda.
    Thanks from AttusBlack

  7. #67
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,214
    Thanks
    218

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    I've often wondered why the "well regulated" part seems to be ignored.

    Also, if fear of a tyrannical government is part of the reason, individuals would would need cruise missiles, Abrams tanks, F-35s and some of the other goodies the military has to carry out the government's tyrannical goals but for some reason, they won't sell those to the Idaho militants. Isn't that then a direct violation of the 2nd if interpreted that way?
    Okay, you made an allegation. It's a B.S. allegation as I have addressed this many times - even on this board.

    Regulate does not mean ban
    Regulate does not mean register personal property

    I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.” – George Mason, co-author of the 2nd Amendment.

    A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves.” – Richard Henry Lee.

    "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams.

    The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton.

    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson.

    How did the founders intend the militia to be regulated?

    "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson

    "The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry

  8. #68
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,214
    Thanks
    218

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Grow the fuck up and get the fuck over yourself. You apparently have nothing but insults to offer.


    I did not address this ridiculous "unalienable versus inalienable" debate. I asked you to provide a federal statute and/or case law demonstrating two different kinds of citizenship - one under the Preamble and one under the 14th Amendment. I am not interested in reading somebody's blog/propaganda.
    You need to grow up. You are the one being insulting. I'm not responding to the 14th Amendment question as you started the insults back on that issue. So, here's the real deal:

    I responded to the OP. YOU and another poster were trying to badger and insult me. I didn't owe either of you jack sh!+. so I ignored you as is my right. I thought you understood. Then we began this argument over inalienable and unalienable. IF the OP wants to pursue the first posts, he or she is welcome to ask. As for those trying to draw me into a protracted whizzing contest, you're pissing in the wind.

    Remember we played that game on another topic. I won't do it again and I don't owe you anything.

  9. #69
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    39,916
    Thanks
    18703

    From
    Depends on what year....
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    You need to grow up. You are the one being insulting.
    I have not insulted you once.

    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    I'm not responding to the 14th Amendment question as you started the insults back on that issue.
    No, I did not. All I did was request a federal statute or case law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    I responded to the OP. YOU and another poster were trying to badger and insult me.
    I did neither. I asked for a source to a claim you made about the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    As for those trying to draw me into a protracted whizzing contest, you're pissing in the wind.
    I have done no such thing.

    I think you are just avoiding the issue because there is no federal statute or case law providing for two different kinds of constitutional citizenship.
    Thanks from AttusBlack

  10. #70
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,214
    Thanks
    218

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    I have not insulted you once.


    No, I did not. All I did was request a federal statute or case law.


    I did neither. I asked for a source to a claim you made about the law.


    I have done no such thing.

    I think you are just avoiding the issue because there is no federal statute or case law providing for two different kinds of constitutional citizenship.
    LMAO LOL ROTF LMAO

    Okay, I'm not getting into this childish B.S. So, let's get this story straight:

    1) I responded to the OP

    2) You and ANOTHER poster began a very negative tone toward me; you basically called me a liar - though you sugarcoated it

    3) I challenged the nastiness and negativity, asking what justifies it.

    I don't owe you anything; I don't have to prove anything to you. Now, you and I know you can call me a liar and there isn't sh!+ I can do about it on this board. It's not like we're really two kids on the playground and I have a chance against the school bully. So, knock yourself right out.

    Every thread I've put on this board has been either merged into other threads, deleted or I've been banned from participating. IIRC, when you got spanked on another thread we participated in, I got thread banned after being insulted how may times? How many times do you think this board can do this before I catch on? And now you want to try this childish B.S. of pushing my buttons by telling me to "grow the fuck up"??? And you're trying to play jailhouse psychology?

    When I push someone's buttons the way you try to push mine, I'm trying to call them out. The difference between you and I is that I'm a man. You're doing this stuff in order to bully me, knowing I have no recourse except to be the bigger man and walk away. I have no intention of conversing with people that intend to insult me. Bear that in mind the next thread you see me on. If you disagree, do so politely. Instead of calling me a liar (no matter how well sugarcoated) try asking a question first. You want people to grow up? Act like you deserve the position you have rather than abusing it by trying to bully others.

Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. It's A Constitutional Obligation
    By Howey in forum Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 17th February 2016, 02:29 PM
  2. Constitutional right...
    By The Man in forum Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 18th August 2012, 09:29 AM
  3. War in Iraq Constitutional?
    By Conservative15 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 12th October 2008, 04:07 PM
  4. Constitutional?
    By Conservative15 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 27th September 2008, 06:58 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed