RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

freakofnature -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 10:28:01 AM)

quote:

five justices who also used their same partisan, party-line brand of judiciousness


Towing the party line again 1dblthink02 I see.



djv1255 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 10:57:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

Not that anyone here will care, but what a rotten decision. I might expect as much from the same five justices who also used their same partisan, party-line brand of judiciousness in this case.

Shame on The Five. They don't deserve their robes.

Of course it is a party-line brand of judiciousness.
Conservatives know the US Supreme Court has only one job - determine whether a law follows the US Constitution. DC gun ban did not follow the US Constitution.[:)][:D]



SteveSund -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 11:20:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: djv1255

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteveSund
Right to Carry is the law of the land in most of the country. I don't see how anyone that values reason, facts, and evidence can still claim that packing heat (does anyone except for gun banners ever use this word?) will lead to "mindless bloodshed". This just hasn't happened. My state (MI) has allowed carry for 7 years, IIRC. Former critics, including our current governor, have even gone on record saying that the dire predictions never came true and that they were wrong.

Mindless bloodshed is exactly what Mayor Daley of Chicago thinks will happen.

He said "Why don't we just get rid of the courts and go back to a wild west style of justice where the quickest gun wins?"


With all due respect to hizzoner, the crime rates in the wild west were far lower than what they are in Chicago now. That being said, his hysterical rant doesn't seem to grounded in reality.

quote:

Not that anyone here will care, but what a rotten decision.


Oh, boo hoo. As I recall from our previous discussion on this topic, you relied heavily on the poorly writtenMillerdecision (you know, the one where only one side (the gov't) made an argument). This case clears that up and gets rid of the ridiculous notion that only members of a militia may KABA.

I can find bad cases written by every justice, so why don't you start another thread on the Indian case. What does it have to do with the present one?



stephanos -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 11:33:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

People have the legal right to own guns but what if we put more of our efforts in sharing Christ especially with those who are in prison? "While I was in prison you visited me." (Matthew 25:36) Maybe Jesus said this because He knew this was the true path to reduce crime. Maybe if the church made a more concerted effort to reach out to the lost sheep in prison there could be a fundamental paradigm shift in our society's crime rate.


And you do not know anything about me, or what I do in my life in regards to bringing others to Christ. You dont know my heart about missions, you dont know my beliefs on prison ministry, you dont know jack! Does it shock you that I am in fact attending Seminary? Did you know that? Do you know my future plans that God has laid out for my life? Hardly. So keep these comments for your self. Because Gun ownership and the will of God are NOT mutually Exclusive! For I could say the same nonsensical thing about say driving cars. Nope...cant drive and own cars if you are going to reach out to others for God. I mean, if we spent more time and money on sharing Christ with others, than we do with and on our cars...Is that not what Jesus would have wanted? So mapachito why dont you go sell and get rid of your cars?



mapachito13 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 1:49:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephanos

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

People have the legal right to own guns but what if we put more of our efforts in sharing Christ especially with those who are in prison? "While I was in prison you visited me." (Matthew 25:36) Maybe Jesus said this because He knew this was the true path to reduce crime. Maybe if the church made a more concerted effort to reach out to the lost sheep in prison there could be a fundamental paradigm shift in our society's crime rate.


And you do not know anything about me, or what I do in my life in regards to bringing others to Christ. You dont know my heart about missions, you dont know my beliefs on prison ministry, you dont know jack! Does it shock you that I am in fact attending Seminary? Did you know that? Do you know my future plans that God has laid out for my life? Hardly. So keep these comments for your self. Because Gun ownership and the will of God are NOT mutually Exclusive! For I could say the same nonsensical thing about say driving cars. Nope...cant drive and own cars if you are going to reach out to others for God. I mean, if we spent more time and money on sharing Christ with others, than we do with and on our cars...Is that not what Jesus would have wanted? So mapachito why dont you go sell and get rid of your cars?


If I was a gear head to the point where I went to car shows instead of church then maybe I should get rid of them! We should "gouge out" what keeps us from Christ yes?

BTW, are you the entire church? You are being very defensive in thinking I was directing this to you personally. So take a deep breath and relax! I was trying to make a comment that the church AS A WHOLE (and I include myself in that if that will make you feel better) does not reach out to minister to prisoners as much as I feel we are called to. I feel as a church we don't reach out to our modern day tax collectors to call them to repentance in Christ. If a prisoner finds Christ in jail he may not return to a life of crime.

At present, all prisons are are criminal trade schools.

There are tons of volunteers for all sorts of social church functions, the choir, prayer groups, but in a church of thousands of parishioners you might get at most a dozen (if you're lucky) to do detention ministry.

BTW, I wish you a blessed theological journey in the seminary Stephanos.



kernsfamily -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 5:35:48 PM)

quote:

The constitution is very clear about the right to bear arms. Everyone deserves the right to defend themselves.


I have ALWAYS thought about that.....how "clear" was it?

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.

a well-regulated militia? what exactly is that?

what types of "regulations" would be considered to be "well-regulated"????

i guess it can be read any way you want it to.



SteveSund -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 10:15:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kernsfamily

a well-regulated militia? what exactly is that?




Well maintained or prepared. If you look at the other writings of that time, this is what they meant. I suppose you could read it any way you want, but that would be incorrect.



djv1255 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/27/2008 11:16:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteveSund

quote:

ORIGINAL: kernsfamily

a well-regulated militia? what exactly is that?




Well maintained or prepared. If you look at the other writings of that time, this is what they meant. I suppose you could read it any way you want, but that would be incorrect.

IF your school still teaches this stuff, think Paul Revere and the minutemen. Everybody grabbed their rifle from over their fireplace and meet to defend against an enemy.

They couldn't wait for the army and they wouldn't have time to go to a central armory.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/28/2008 11:43:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freakofnature
Towing the party line again 1dblthink02 I see.

Nah, I don't give people tows, jump-starts, or even let them hitch a ride.

It's just simply that The Five's ruling is 64 pages of drivel that falls apart without even getting wet. The two dissenting opinions made far more sense.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/28/2008 1:26:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: djv1255
Of course it is a party-line brand of judiciousness.
Conservatives know the US Supreme Court has only one job - determine whether a law follows the US Constitution. DC gun ban did not follow the US Constitution.

You are right and wrong in your post.
1. Conservatives only "know" their agendas, nothing more.
2. It is the job of the SCOTUS to interpret laws via the Constitution, but they did not do this in this case.
3. The D.C. gun ban did not follow the Constitution.

It's simply, really. The second amendment is a restriction on Congress. But according to Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has plenary powers over Washington D.C. and therefore cannot have their legislative authority abridged in D.C.
Therefore, the D.C. gun ban could only have been legal if they had petitioned Congress to pass the law.

No one has addressed this point, not the press, not The Five, and certainly not you, SteveSund.



SteveSund -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/28/2008 8:44:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
It's simply, really. The second amendment is a restriction on Congress. But according to Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has plenary powers over Washington D.C. and therefore cannot have their legislative authority abridged in D.C.
Therefore, the D.C. gun ban could only have been legal if they had petitioned Congress to pass the law.

No one has addressed this point, not the press, not The Five, and certainly not you, SteveSund.


I believe I did address this point before. The 5 didn't because it has no merit or substance. Congress may not violate the BOR in passing legislation. There are plenty of cases, such as U S v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433 (1922), which upheld the 5th Amendment. If your theory held merit, I am sure some one would have brought it up.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/29/2008 10:35:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteveSund
I believe I did address this point before.

Then why did you bring up Miller? My main bone of contention has little to do with that.

quote:

The 5 didn't because it has no merit or substance.

And pray, why?

quote:

Congress may not violate the BOR in passing legislation.

They can in D.C. according to Article 1, section 8-- at least when it comes to legislation about things like firearms.

quote:

There are plenty of cases, such as U S v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433 (1922), which upheld the 5th Amendment.

What does this have to do with anything?

quote:

If your theory held merit, I am sure some one would have brought it up.

So, do you need "someone's" endorsement in order to see logic?



SteveSund -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/29/2008 6:53:15 PM)

The case I referenced dealt with a 5th Amendment issue in the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights is applicable to the citizens living there. There are many other cases, but since you are content with asserting a theory that is asinine. Art 1, Sec. 8 states that Congress, not some state or local authority, has exclusive legislative authority over the District of Columbia. I am utterly baffled why you think a limit on the power of the federal gov't wouldn't apply to the federal gov't.

The fact that no one else thinks this suggests that your logic is flawed. Here is another account from a book from 1838 on the power of Congress over the District of Columbia.

From that work:

quote:

In common with the legislatures of the States, Congress cannot
constitutionally pass ex post facto laws in criminal cases, nor suspend
the writ of habeas corpus, nor pass a bill of attainder, nor abridge the
freedom of speech and of the press, nor invade the right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, nor enact
laws respecting an establishment of religion. These are general limitations.
Congress cannot do these things any where.


(emphasis added)



1dblthnk02 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/30/2008 11:04:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteveSund
The Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights is applicable to the citizens living there.

I never said that the citizens of Washington D.C. don't have any civil liberties; they most certainly do. What they do not have is the authority to abridge the right to bear arms without Congressional consent.
States do have that right.

quote:

Art 1, Sec. 8 states that Congress, not some state or local authority, has exclusive legislative authority over the District of Columbia.

Did I suggest otherwise?

quote:

I am utterly baffled why you think a limit on the power of the federal gov't wouldn't apply to the federal gov't.

How can you limit the power of Congress where they have plenary powers?

quote:

The fact that no one else thinks this suggests that your logic is flawed.

Or perhaps I am just a little bit more perceptive than everybody else . . . ?

quote:

In common with the legislatures of the States, Congress cannot
constitutionally pass ex post facto laws in criminal cases, nor suspend
the writ of habeas corpus, nor pass a bill of attainder, nor abridge the
freedom of speech and of the press, nor invade the right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, nor enact
laws respecting an establishment of religion. These are general limitations.
Congress cannot do these things any where

Notice that limitations on firearms is conspicuously absent from this list . . . how did you miss that?



SteveSund -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/30/2008 2:42:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Notice that limitations on firearms is conspicuously absent from this list . . . how did you miss that?


I don't think the list was meant to be exhaustive. It also doesn't say anything about cruel and unusual punishment or other elements of the BOR.

quote:

How can you limit the power of Congress where they have plenary powers?


The plenary powers have always been limited by the Constitution or other rights. Did you read the article on DC? I understand what you are suggesting and that has never existed, nor will it likely.

quote:

What they do not have is the authority to abridge the right to bear arms without Congressional consent.
States do have that right.


Who does not have the authority? The people of the District? I would agree, but Congress has long delegated authority to a municipal gov't.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (6/30/2008 8:03:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteveSund
I don't think the list was meant to be exhaustive. It also doesn't say anything about cruel and unusual punishment or other elements of the BOR.

. . . But it does hit on the key ones from nearly every amendment. The second amendment is conspicuous by its glaring omission.

quote:

The plenary powers have always been limited by the Constitution or other rights. Did you read the article on DC?

Yes, I did-- actually I am still reading it. It is a very nice find, btw. I do appreciate it.
However, so far there wasn't a thing in there that I disagreed with, nor that disagreed with me. According to the article, Congress's restrictions are moral restrictions; iow they cannot make something legal in D.C. that they would not make legal somewhere else.

Basically, they tackle the issue of Constitutionally legislated slavery. Insofar as I have read it, the issue of gun rights has not been addressed even in the slightest.

quote:

I understand what you are suggesting and that has never existed, nor will it likely.

What? That legislation abridging the right to bear arms is not within D.C.'s jurisdiction?
Prove me wrong.

quote:

Who does not have the authority? The people of the District? I would agree, but Congress has long delegated authority to a municipal gov't.

But the Constitution never, ever granted D.C.'s right to a state's militia like it did to all the actual states. Thus, the individual right to bear arms, contingent on the premise of states' rights to well regulated militias, does not apply to the non-state District of Columbia.



SteveSund -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (7/1/2008 10:07:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

Yes, I did-- actually I am still reading it. It is a very nice find, btw. I do appreciate it.
However, so far there wasn't a thing in there that I disagreed with, nor that disagreed with me. According to the article, Congress's restrictions are moral restrictions; iow they cannot make something legal in D.C. that they would not make legal somewhere else.



Or abridge Constitutional rights. See the quote I mentioned, which was meant to be an example, not an exhaustive list of every right and duty from the Constitution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

Basically, they tackle the issue of Constitutionally legislated slavery. Insofar as I have read it, the issue of gun rights has not been addressed even in the slightest.



Possibly because that wasn't really an issue at that time. Gun control wasn't exactly a big thing back then.


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

What? That legislation abridging the right to bear arms is not within D.C.'s jurisdiction?
Prove me wrong.



See Heller. Of course, they left room open for some regulation, but that will be the subject of future litigation. Prove me wrong, since reality and history seem to support the position that Congress may not violate the BOR in DC.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

Thus, the individual right to bear arms, contingent on the premise of states' rights to well regulated militias, does not apply to the non-state District of Columbia.



Interesting theory. The majority addressed this in Heller and in holding that it is an individual right, no membership in a state militia is required, nor is the second amendment contingent the first clause. IMO, the right to bear arms, like the right to free speech is not granted by the Constitution. It is inherent to all people.



SteveSund -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (7/1/2008 10:09:07 AM)

I just noticed that we have been the only ones discussing this for the past few days. People are probably wishing we would just let it go. [;)]



1dblthnk02 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (7/1/2008 10:34:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteveSund
Or abridge Constitutional rights.

Actually, not true: that is the point of that book. They are demonstrating how slavery, a Constitutionally-legislated institution, could be de-institutionalized by Constitutional means.
Recently we have seen example after example of how Congress has abridged Constitutional rights for the sake of the current administration's WoT.

quote:

Possibly because that wasn't really an issue at that time. Gun control wasn't exactly a big thing back then.

It wasn't the kind of issue that it has become today because back then America was still largely rural, not urban.

quote:

Prove me wrong, since reality and history seem to support the position that Congress may not violate the BOR in DC

I have already shown how the BOR could and have been abridged by Congress for the WoT.

quote:

Interesting theory. The majority addressed this in Heller and in holding that it is an individual right, no membership in a state militia is required, nor is the second amendment contingent the first clause.

The "first clause" is the context for the rest of the amendment. Gun rights advocates like to argue that the first half of the 2nd amendment is irrelevant to the second part, but if so why did it get put in there in the first place?

quote:

IMO, the right to bear arms, like the right to free speech is not granted by the Constitution. It is inherent to all people.

But, unlike free speech, it is qualified by a contextual purpose stated thus:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

quote:

I just noticed that we have been the only ones discussing this for the past few days. People are probably wishing we would just let it go.

Hey, just cry "Uncle!" and we can be done ;)



stamper_ben -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (7/1/2008 12:02:01 PM)

Hey, I cried "Uncle!" a week ago.[;)]



SteveSund -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (7/1/2008 2:34:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
I have already shown how the BOR could and have been abridged by Congress for the WoT.


There are plenty of other examples, too. If everyone agreed as to what was ok, then the job of the Supreme Court would probably be much easier and less controversial.

quote:


The "first clause" is the context for the rest of the amendment. Gun rights advocates like to argue that the first half of the 2nd amendment is irrelevant to the second part, but if so why did it get put in there in the first place?


I wouldn't say it was irrelevent, but I would say that it isn't dependent. Heller addressed this issue.

quote:


Hey, just cry "Uncle!" and we can be done ;)


I think both of us have thought about this issue enough that we probably won't change our minds. I recall our previous discussion ended in a similar fashion.



mapachito13 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (7/1/2008 2:39:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02

The "first clause" is the context for the rest of the amendment. Gun rights advocates like to argue that the first half of the 2nd amendment is irrelevant to the second part, but if so why did it get put in there in the first place?



A widespread fear during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government. Edward F. Cooke states:

In the eighteenth century people feared that Congress might, by passing a law, prohibit the states from arming their citizens. Then having all the armed strength at its command, the national government could overwhelm the states. [33]

Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry during the opening debates of the Virginia Ratification Convention stated his strong belief that arms are required to secure rights and freedoms from those that would take them away

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. … O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; … Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? … Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?[34]

Source

It seems that the people of the late 18th century were afraid of the federal government and its army more than they are today. And as such the militia was their insurance against a tyranical government by offering them the option of self-defence against that tyranny.

Of course there is the interpretation of the two words well regulated that still needs to be worked out to what that means.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (7/2/2008 8:04:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stamper_ben
Hey, I cried "Uncle!" a week ago.

Congratulations.
Boy, or girl?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteveSund
There are plenty of other examples, too.

Then why did you say that Congress cannot abridge the BoR?

quote:

I wouldn't say it was irrelevent, but I would say that it isn't dependent.

It is one or the other. Either the clause is relevant, or else it has nothing to do with the rest of it.

quote:

I think both of us have thought about this issue enough that we probably won't change our minds. I recall our previous discussion ended in a similar fashion.

True.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13
It seems that the people of the late 18th century were afraid of the federal government and its army more than they are today.

The Federalists weren't afraid of that. The "Jeffersonians" would one day try to cecede from the union.



SovereignIsHe -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (7/3/2008 2:27:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

People have the legal right to own guns but what if we put more of our efforts in sharing Christ especially with those who are in prison? "While I was in prison you visited me." (Matthew 25:36) Maybe Jesus said this because He knew this was the true path to reduce crime. Maybe if the church made a more concerted effort to reach out to the lost sheep in prison there could be a fundamental paradigm shift in our society's crime rate.


Is there a prison that doesn't have some form of ministry??? As for Jesus and the true path to reduce crime... The last thing that Jesus ever took issue with was justice...

John



SovereignIsHe -> RE: YES! Sometimes the SCOTUS does get it right! (7/3/2008 2:37:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kernsfamily


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.

a well-regulated militia? what exactly is that?


A group of civilians who took up arms to fight against tyranny…

quote:

what types of "regulations" would be considered to be "well-regulated"????


I believe the term "well regulated" in the above contex is regarding control... In other words there was a chain of command, structure to some degree...

quote:

i guess it can be read any way you want it to.


...the right of the people

The above makes it pretty clear... This is found in the Bill of Rights and makes reference to “the RIGHT of the people"


John



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI