Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I know you're interpreting the second amendment wrong, and I suspect you think the same as me. I've got the wording on my side, and you've got the NRA. Who's right? Well me obviously, but if you were on the supreme court you'd be in the position to interpret it in the way you think it was written, and I'd have to make my windows bulletproof in case a neighbor accidentally shoots at my house when trying to kill a burglar.
|
again, not turning this into a 2nd amendment debate, but one need only look at the federalist and anti-federalist papers, as well as most other essays and documentation AT THAT TIME PERIOD, to completely understand that the 2nd amendment in no way implies, states, or mandates that ONLY a standing government military is afforded a right to bear arms. People who cannot understand that concept are being completely and willfully ignorant of history and the plain meaning of words.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Because the 'plain word' isn't always so plain? The Constitution didn't come with a reference guide to explain away questions for all time.
|
WTF??? no reference guide? Do you feel that the founders intentionally used vague language and deliberately misleading terms in assigning certain enumerated powers to a central (read that as federal) government so that 200+ years later the courts could come up with any meaning whatsoever to satisfy the political moments of the year?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
How does e-commerce square with the concept of interstate commerce?
|
learn the history of WHY they were given the power over interstate commerce, in order to prevent ONE state from being taxed a significantly higher amount than any other state due to some animosity or otherwise negative influence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Does the absence of words in the Constitution mean something?
|
Absolutely, it means that the federal government has ZERO authority to have any power over whatever is unsaid.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
When the Second Amendment declares a right to bare arms, does the lack of an 'any' or 'all' mean that the right can be abridged just not eliminated or is it more fundamental?
|
shall not be infringed means 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'!!! how much more simple should they have said it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
In the real world these are questions that need to be addressed. Article III creates the one supreme court for a reason. If all the founder's had intended was for the 'plain' wording of the Constitution to be self-evident then we wouldn't need a supreme court most of us can read the wording of the Constitution just as well as any justice.
|
Again, because not every law that is created by an ever burgeoninig congress is constitutional, especially if congress has no authority over said subject of law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Furthermore, your 'plain word' approach to Constitutional law completely overlooks the concepts of judicial review and stare decisis.
|
Judicial review, to determine whether the congress had the authority to assume power over said subject of law and 'stare decisis' to keep future politically minded justices from altering the plain text, like 'shall not be infringed' really means 'reasonable restrictions'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
You're the one who brought up Marbury v. Madison which set forth that, "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.".
|
right, this would be to attempt to ensure that powers like the commerce clause aren't used to regulate things that would be grown, harvested, and used by an individual, on their own property, of which said crop would NEVER cross state lines or be sold to others in a market environment, yet have political ideology pervert the plain meaning of regulating 'interstate commerce' to be 'interpreted' to mean any activity that could affect interstate OR intrastate commerce if 'intrastate commerce' were to have an effect on said interstate commerce, no matter how slight.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Even if you want to argue the Marbury was wrongly decided (and you may have a point), that is irrelevant in the face of over 200 years case law built off of this premise. Moreover, the decision has never been countered by Congress in the last two centuries either.
|
why would congress wish to counter this decision when they have politically appointed justices who will more often than not side with 'compelling government interest' in nearly all cases?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Though the Constitution is silent in this regard, it is silent in many regards so either a) we look to intent and by looking to the Federalist Papers we can see the desire for judicial review or b) we 'plain word' it and there is no Constitutional right, but instead the right was taken by the Court and Congress has tacitly made it law by allowing it. Either way it is and has been since Marbury and thus the Court's job is literally to interpret the Constitution.
|
and when said interpretation flies in the face of the 'plain word' or an interpretation is broadly expanded to include powers that are in no way written within the articles of the constitution, what then? oh sorry guys, 9 fuckheads in black robes just took away all private property rights, too bad so fucking sad?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Finally, on a purely pragmatic note, as others have pointed out we don't live in 1772.
|
and? this means what?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
In fact, we are not even the same government we were then. We live in an executive centric system,
|
say 'thank you FDR'!!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
have a national economy based upon IT and services, and we serve as the hegemon in a geopolitical 'sea of anarchy'. None of these realities were desired or even intended by the founders.
|
again, big thanks to FDR
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
However, our ancestors chose to take this country in a different direction and we cannot 'unring the bell'.
|
2nd amendment good sir.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
This system of judicial power is completely ingrained into our government. You can't realistically extricate it without upheaving our entire government.
|
wasn't advocating removing the supreme court. only advocating putting people in who aren't willing to pervert the constitution according to their 'causes'.