advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: samintx
Date: August 26, 2023 11:55AM
When the14th clearly states trump is not eligible for office?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: sekker
Date: August 26, 2023 12:26PM
This topic is discussed here:

[forums.macresource.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: sekker
Date: August 26, 2023 12:27PM
By the way, if you were to describe our situation as happening in a 'developing country', I am convinced 95% or more of US citizens would consider 'Mr Mugshot' to be ineligible.

Heck, even Brazil did this properly.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: Ombligo
Date: August 26, 2023 04:22PM
Trump has not yet been found guilty of anything in the Washington case, until that happens nothing applies. The Florida, Georgia, and New York cases do not have any application to the 14th



“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

The German word for contraceptive is “Schwangerschaftsverhütungsmittel”. By the time you finished saying that, it’s too late



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2023 04:24PM by Ombligo.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: Smote
Date: August 26, 2023 05:50PM
Quote
samintx
When the14th clearly states trump is not eligible for office?

and the 2nd clearly states "shall not be infringed" dunno smiley

and Ombligio is correct, innocent until proven guilty. Public opinion has declared him guilty, but our opinion isn't legally binding.



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2023 05:54PM by Smote.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: August 26, 2023 07:36PM
Quote
Smote
Quote
samintx
When the14th clearly states trump is not eligible for office?

and the 2nd clearly states "shall not be infringed"

…and “A well-regulated militia”.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: Smote
Date: August 26, 2023 09:38PM
and here we are .......

The militia were also 18-45, and were required to bring their own musket, powder, ball, cartridge box, pouch, etc. So, they had to own one, to bring one. And in order to own one, they must also had the Right and ability to make or purchase them. They were ubiquitous, as its how they fed themselves and their families. They weren't issued, and turned back in like they are today. This is so obvious and intuitive that it was not necessary to burden the Bill of Rights with minutiae, droning on and on to cover every possible scenario for those who couldn't see that in order to bring one, you had to have one, and in order to have one, you had to be able to make or buy one. Law has worked this way for centuries. "To Keep and Bear Arms" To keep means to posses, and to bear means to carry, and arms is anything you can cast or strike out with in offense, or to wear on you to provide defense.

All the other Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are individual Rights. All of the sudden, one random one is a collective only Right? confused smiley

seems, inconsistent.

So SCOTUS put it to bed in 2008, and again, in 2010, again in 2016, and yet again in 2022. They held off because of the Law of Constitutional Avoidance. But there was no other way to rule in Heller without defining once and for all. Now they have to do it a 5th time in Rahimi in 2023/2024 next session. Politicians have maneuvered the Rahimi case to the front of the line hoping that his repugnant behavior and nature will cause SCOTUS justices to shy away from the law and make a decision based on optics, and not the facts. I've already covered how repugnant the unconstitutional laws put forth as justification in the slew of Amici briefs are. And they were all declared Unconstitutional by the 14th Amendment. Racist, bigoted and anti Catholic. In another case, the judge asked the defendants twice if they really wanted to go on the record as using them as justification. Twice. They went there anyway.

Notice that way back in 1792, the age was 18 for them to have arms? Food for thought. Also the subject of numerous lawsuits that I am sure SCOTUS will have to rule on, either alone, or possibly within the Rahimi ruling.



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2023 10:05PM by Smote.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: Spock
Date: August 26, 2023 10:18PM
"The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia ... Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias," she said. "The states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment."

Ginsburg said the disappearance of that purpose eliminates the function of the Second Amednment.

"It's function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own," she said. "I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So ... the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete."

As for the Heller case, decided by the court in 2008, Ginsburg says the court erred in its decision.

"If the court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new," she said. "It gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only — and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation."


RBG nailed it.

(typo)



Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2023 10:21PM by Spock.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: Acer
Date: August 26, 2023 11:15PM
Fascinating fact: The state militia system never really worked. Some states took them seriously, others did not. The quality of preparedness and equipment was very uneven. When the War of 1812 came, the state militias arrived poorly trained, armed, and led. Had they been capable, we might have annexed Canada! The regular army ultimately won that war (or, at least held off Britain long enough to declare victory), not the militias. State militias continued to exist for local issues, but when real war came, the states mustered volunteers but the federal government ran the show. The national guard is basically the militia available for local state-level protection, but administered by the federal government.

My point is that the 2nd amendment is about local militias, written by a young, idealist country who had a vision of a small central government, independent states who saw themselves initially as mini-nations, and no standing army, where the local militias of song and story would be all we need. And written when the country has barely crossed the Appalachians. Maybe Massachusetts could protect its interests with local militias. But how about Nebraska? How are you going to protect that much acreage with the few able-bodied men who live there? The militia ideal fell apart as a practical matter.

Maybe there is a right to bear arms for personal protection, or to overthrow the government. But the 2nd amendment does not mention either. It only mentions militias, a system that went bankrupt 200 years ago.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: August 27, 2023 12:08AM
“Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power...”

“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 prescribed by Congress;”

“Article 2, Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”


Inconvenient facts for 2A zealots.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: Smote
Date: August 27, 2023 01:44AM
so, if these militia members were ordered to bring their own muskets, wouldn't that presuppose they actually had said muskets? They weren't issued and owned by the government. Nor did they need to show the local blacksmith or gunsmith proof they were 18, and members of said militia, thus giving them permission to buy said firearms and supplies. If that were the case, surely there would be laws to that effect.

When they were a group and functioning as an organized militia the president is the CiC. Sure. Were they required to leave their privately owned firearms with him when they went home, or, as their owners they got to take them with them? Were they required to have them locked up in chests, only to be used in conjunction with militia service? If that were the case, surely there would be recorded laws to that effect.


If all of this were true, surely there would be documents and recorded laws that ownership was dependant on militia duty.



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2023 01:54AM by Smote.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: Smote
Date: August 27, 2023 02:16AM
Quote
Spock
"The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia ... Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias," she said. "The states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment."

Ginsburg said the disappearance of that purpose eliminates the function of the Second Amednment.

"It's function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own," she said. "I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So ... the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete."

As for the Heller case, decided by the court in 2008, Ginsburg says the court erred in its decision.

"If the court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new," she said. "It gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only — and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation."


RBG nailed it.

(typo)

Then the only legal and authorized by the Constitution solution to it being antiquated and moot is an amendment. She surely knew this. As do we. If enough people, in enough states feel the same way, it will happen.



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: pdq
Date: August 27, 2023 07:41AM
Quote
Smote

Then the only legal and authorized by the Constitution solution to it being antiquated and moot is an amendment. She surely knew this. As do we. If enough people, in enough states feel the same way, it will happen.

It should, as it is an 18th century anachronism, as ridiculous and harmful as the 3/5ths clause, and I believe someday it will. Short of that, a change in the makeup of the Supreme Court would inevitably reverse many of these recent decisions, which ignore long-established precedent, upend long-settled interpretations and make assertions that are ridiculous on their face.

BTW, I notice you haven’t spent much time talking about the issue in Rahimi, which is to deny government any ability to restrict guns from people with a history of violent spousal abuse…and if such people are found to have disregarded such legal prohibitions, to hold them harmless.

How is this different from trying to keep guns out of the hands of people with mental health problems expressing plans of violence? It’s not, and from your past writings, I would guess you also would prevent such efforts as unconstitutional.

Next is violent felons; why should they be denied - uh, infringed - upon in their desire to re-arm themselves? Since Heller expressly ignores the second amendment preface, where does your absolutist interpretation of this amendment say “except for”?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: Smote
Date: August 27, 2023 02:43PM
I've addressed Rahimi a number of times. Just do a search [forums.macresource.com]. Short answer, after a trial and guilty sentence, fry his ass. Until then, he is innocent as far as the law is concerned. Same with Trump.

He is a weird case as he admitted being guilty well after the restraining order, but there was never a trial, verdict and sentence before the order was signed. All his actual crimes were after the order. I would be interested in finding out who is paying his legal bills. As for the mentally ill, have them undergo an assesment and a 72 hour hold, something that is obviously established and supported from a legal standpoint, and if they are deemed a danger to themselves or others, move forward. We don't need a different system specifically for a "Red Flag" situations, as we already have a system in place. Use it.

The specific, narrow question SCOTUS is looking in to in the Rahimi case is

"QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the
possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-
violence restraining orders
, violates the Second Amend-
ment on its face"

The question isn't if he is guilty, isn't if he is a dirtbag, isn't if the intended purpose of a Red Flag law is laudable, etc.

If, after a person is charged, undergoes a trial, and is declared guilty, sure, they loose Rights. Absolutely no question of that. Its the process of not being convicted BEFORE you loose a Right, even temporarily, that is the issue. A civil protection order in no way means they were adjudicated criminally guilty.



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2023 04:21PM by Smote.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: pdq
Date: August 28, 2023 10:00AM
…and the shooter in Jacksonville was a racist who had previously been deemed a danger to himself and others. But not “adjudicated guilty”. And so he bought guns and went out to kill people as planned.

The problem is that people like you completely disregard the issue of balancing rights where it comes to guns. (And please, spare me from citing Bruen that no interest balancing is needed or warranted or constitutional. How can there be laws against libel, or false advertising, or inciting riot, etc, if we have freedom of speech? Bruen is ridiculous on its face, and you should realize that.)

If you can’t restrict someone making violent threats against a spouse from having guns, who can you restrict? No one.

Which is what I think you hope for.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: Smote
Date: August 28, 2023 03:49PM
racist or not, because he had been involuntarily commited, that is surely grounds for extensive ongoing scrutiny, which I support, and is legal and justifiable. WHY that didn't happen, is on Florida, law enforcement, public health, and his family.

Multiple states, as part of their background checks, look into medical records, and his commitment would have caused a delay, and possibly denial. WHY that didn't happen in Florida, is on Florida, law enforcement, public health, and his family.

[www.cnn.com]

" When is someone considered committed?

In many states, including Florida, law enforcement can take an individual to a mental hospital against his or her will for an initial evaluation. If after 72 hours the doctors observing the individual want to continue that treatment, then they can petition a court for permission, even against the patient’s wishes.

That – a court order allowing a person’s continued involuntary institutionalization – is one thing that should stop an individual from purchasing a firearm.

If the person was taken in for mental treatment involuntarily but was not requested to be held past 72 hours, he is not blocked from buying a gun.

In Florida, if the court chose to commit even an underage individual, he would fail a background check on that basis. "

he wasn't held beyond the 72 hours, thus wasn't committed.

There is an established procedure, they followed it, and it didn't work. Change the procedure.

I absolutely agree when there is a clear proven threat, they can restrict or eliminate his or anyone elses ownership.

Florida has a flaw that they can remedy. Will they?

This article is from 2018, after Cruz and Stoneman. Florida needs to step it up.

My issue is when there isn't a proven threat, and there isn't due process.



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2023 04:21PM by Smote.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: hal
Date: August 28, 2023 04:16PM
Quote
Smote
If the person was taken in for mental treatment involuntarily but was not requested to be held past 72 hours, he is not blocked from buying a gun.

In Florida, if the court chose to commit even an underage individual, he would fail a background check on that basis. "

he wasn't held beyond the 72 hours, thus wasn't committed.

There is an established procedure, they followed it, and it didn't work. Change the procedure.

I absolutely agree when there is a clear proven threat, they can restrict or eliminate his or anyone elses ownership.

Florida has a flaw that they can remedy. Will they?

This is why 2A is such a problem. The guy had a constitutional right to own guns. You can not infringe on an individual's rights just on a suspicion that he may be unqualified to own a gun. Make gun ownership a privilege instead of a right and everything changes, but that is just not possible without rewriting the constitution.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: pdq
Date: August 28, 2023 04:24PM
…because the current status quo is broken.

Badly, badly broken.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: Smote
Date: August 28, 2023 04:34PM
Quote
pdq
…because the current status quo is broken.

Badly, badly broken.

And why Florida didn't fix the loophole back in 2018 is on them.

Thank you hal. At that moment in time, he had that Right. He painfully and obviously abused it for illegal repugnant reasons. 80+ million didn't.



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2023 04:39PM by Smote.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why do we interpret Amendments
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: September 06, 2023 07:45PM
Quote
hal
Make gun ownership a privilege instead of a right and everything changes, but that is just not possible without rewriting the constitution.

Many disagree. If the 2nd Amendment was enacted AS WRITTEN, its first four words would be enforced.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 224
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020