Con Law - Lesson 1 "The Preamble"

[Nordberg]

wrong. Miller didn't address the right, only the lack of evidence as it pertains to a short barreled shotgun. stop getting your bullshit from biased media sites. I can post numerous court cases before miller that clearly talk about an individual right.

I get my "bullshit" from Supreme Court sites. The 2nd talks about well-regulated militia. Can you understand the inherent collectivism in that? It also talks about the defense of the nation, which is a time problem. The people do not defend or fight wars. We have a standing army. However a person does not protect a nation, it requires a collective. So try again. I also have listed to many Supremes cases online and on CSPAN.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Nope

but we all know you are.........save yourself the embarrassment and admit your truth

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I get my "bullshit" from Supreme Court sites. The 2nd talks about well-regulated militia. Can you understand the inherent collectivism in that? It also talks about the defense of the nation, which is a time problem. The people do not defend or fight wars. We have a standing army. However a person does not prort\tecta nation, it requires a collective. So try again.

so you WILLINGLY choose to ignore ALL, and I mean ALL of the political commentaries related to the 2nd Amendment and what it means..................

in other words, you IGNORE the actual 2nd Amendment and wish to replace it with your own idiotic interpretation that has been wrong from the start

 

[Into the Night]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


These 52 words were presented to the Constitutional Convention by the "Committee on Style" and adopted to be what we call the Preamble to the Constitution. It is as good of a place to start our study of the United States Constitution as any. While there is debate as to the use of the Preamble to establish law and or structure of American government, it is clearly an attempt to set the tone and explain what the document is, how it is to be viewed and the what the document is intended to be and do.

1) "We the People of the United States..." The first seven words show us the class of people who this document applies to... There were several drafts of this portion of the Constitution including "We the people of the various states" as is used in the Articles of Confederation and there was" or "We the People of the various states" and "The People of the united States... (listing them)" as was used in the Treaty of France. It is commonly noted that the drafters did not know how many States would sign on so listing them was a bad idea. The choice of the novel previously unused phrase "We the People of the United States" creates the existence of an actual Nation of people called the United States... Note that they capitalized the phrase "United States" making it an entity on its own. The States are not even mentioned in the preamble.

2) "In Order to form a more perfect Union" - The reason the Constitution was written, and to establish its supremacy over the previous Government created by the Articles of Confederation.

3) "This Constitution..." is also another important phrase, establishing that this is it, the entirety of what is to be considered The Constitution, establishing that it was to be this single document as distinguished from what English Government calls its Document which is a series of Writings and Documents cobbled together to establish the form and structure of their government. The single document Constitution was a novel idea for these former English Subjects.

4) Particularly interesting is the actual power the "Preamble" has had when interpreting the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court has used it to illustrate the intent of the framers as to what powers they actually intended to give with the subsequent Articles. In, Berman v. Parker, 348 US 26 (1954) the Court held that the term "promote the general welfare.." illustrates that the writers intended to give the Federal Government powers that enabled them to promote the general welfare, in that case use the right of eminent domain.

Nope. You cannot use the 'general welfare' clause to cancel the rest of the Constitution. It is not a power or authority. It is a directive on how to apply the powers and authorities outlined in Articles I, II, and III.

 

[Into the Night]

so you WILLINGLY choose to ignore ALL, and I mean ALL of the political commentaries related to the 2nd Amendment and what it means..................

in other words, you IGNORE the actual 2nd Amendment and wish to replace it with your own idiotic interpretation that has been wrong from the start

Worse, he places the Supreme Court ABOVE the very Constitution that defines it's existence.

In other words, he describes the Supreme Court as the Ultimate Oligarchy.

 

[Taichiliberal]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


These 52 words were presented to the Constitutional Convention by the "Committee on Style" and adopted to be what we call the Preamble to the Constitution. It is as good of a place to start our study of the United States Constitution as any. While there is debate as to the use of the Preamble to establish law and or structure of American government, it is clearly an attempt to set the tone and explain what the document is, how it is to be viewed and the what the document is intended to be and do.

1) "We the People of the United States..." The first seven words show us the class of people who this document applies to... There were several drafts of this portion of the Constitution including "We the people of the various states" as is used in the Articles of Confederation and there was" or "We the People of the various states" and "The People of the united States... (listing them)" as was used in the Treaty of France. It is commonly noted that the drafters did not know how many States would sign on so listing them was a bad idea. The choice of the novel previously unused phrase "We the People of the United States" creates the existence of an actual Nation of people called the United States... Note that they capitalized the phrase "United States" making it an entity on its own. The States are not even mentioned in the preamble.

2) "In Order to form a more perfect Union" - The reason the Constitution was written, and to establish its supremacy over the previous Government created by the Articles of Confederation.

3) "This Constitution..." is also another important phrase, establishing that this is it, the entirety of what is to be considered The Constitution, establishing that it was to be this single document as distinguished from what English Government calls its Document which is a series of Writings and Documents cobbled together to establish the form and structure of their government. The single document Constitution was a novel idea for these former English Subjects.

4) Particularly interesting is the actual power the "Preamble" has had when interpreting the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court has used it to illustrate the intent of the framers as to what powers they actually intended to give with the subsequent Articles. In, Berman v. Parker, 348 US 26 (1954) the Court held that the term "promote the general welfare.." illustrates that the writers intended to give the Federal Government powers that enabled them to promote the general welfare, in that case use the right of eminent domain.

I've always been fascinated how those who want to promote their agenda point this as proof of what the law "really" intended, while people who want to stop the latter pound the table saying, "but it's NOT A LAW".

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I've always been fascinated how those who want to promote their agenda point this as proof of what the law "really" intended, while people who want to stop the latter pound the table saying, "but it's NOT A LAW".

the same goes with those who want to deny that unalienable rights exist because the declaration was only designed as a PSA to king george, therefore has no place in our legal documents as far as what our rights are

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Are you talking about the regulated militia and trying to weasel your way from it? The second was seen as collective in Miller, I think it was 1949. They ruled that sawed-off shotguns could be eliminated. That meant nobody in any state could own them.

I would propose that is exactly what a well-regulated militia made up of citizens is. A citizenry that is fully armed to basic military levels and is willing and able to defend the state and union. Sawed-off shotguns are hardly a military grade weapon.

 

[Nordberg]

so you WILLINGLY choose to ignore ALL, and I mean ALL of the political commentaries related to the 2nd Amendment and what it means..................

in other words, you IGNORE the actual 2nd Amendment and wish to replace it with your own idiotic interpretation that has been wrong from the start

Typical righty who thinks a post of insults is a debate. That is a crude mental life you have there.
You would do well not to say all. That is how a statement is clearly false. You do not mean all as I already noted some that claim it is collective.
However, the reality in 1750 is not today's. The constitution gives us the power to amend the constitution. Guns are a terrible problem begging for a reasonable ruling. You are citing what appears to be NRA crapola.

 

[Nordberg]

I would propose that is exactly what a well-regulated militia made up of citizens is. A citizenry that is fully armed to basic military levels and is willing and able to defend the state and union. Sawed-off shotguns are hardly a military grade weapon.

And what is "well regulated"? We also ended machine guns in the 1930s. That was because they were military grade and seen as unsuitable for the people. Time has proven how right that was.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

And what is "well regulated"? We also ended machine guns in the 1930s. That was because they were military grade and seen as unsuitable for the people. Time has proven how right that was.

That's because we have idiots running things. You can still own a machinegun today as well as automatic weapons. They were regulated starting in the 30's because criminals were using them to commit crimes.

The problem isn't automatic weapons, it is the people. We have a large portion of our population who are fucking retards and lazy shits that live the criminal and gangster life.

In the US up through about the early 70's there was much more of a gun culture in the US. Shooting clubs and such were more common. Regulation of firearms much more lax, and the problem of their use in crimes far less. The problem sense then is one of a declining social fabric and descent into mediocrity.

 

[Nordberg]

That's because we have idiots running things. You can still own a machinegun today as well as automatic weapons. They were regulated starting in the 30's because criminals were using them to commit crimes.

The problem isn't automatic weapons, it is the people. We have a large portion of our population who are fucking retards and lazy shits that live the criminal and gangster life.

In the US up through about the early 70's there was much more of a gun culture in the US. Shooting clubs and such were more common. Regulation of firearms much more lax, and the problem of their use in crimes far less. The problem sense then is one of a declining social fabric and descent into mediocrity.

And now the Ars are being used in mass murders and crimes. It made sense in the 30s and does now too. Take them off the streets and out of homes.
Other countries do not have gun shooter drills in schools. They do not have mass shootings twice a week. Can you guess why we do? Too damn many guns and way too little training and regulation.

 

[Into the Night]

Are you talking about the regulated militia and trying to weasel your way from it? The second was seen as collective in Miller, I think it was 1949. They ruled that sawed-off shotguns could be eliminated. That meant nobody in any state could own them.

Sawed off shotguns are legal.
The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

And now the Ars are being used in mass murders and crimes. It made sense in the 30s and does now too. Take them off the streets and out of homes.
Other countries do not have gun shooter drills in schools. They do not have mass shootings twice a week. Can you guess why we do? Too damn many guns and way too little training and regulation.

The AR and other "assault rifles" are rarely used in crimes. Depending on who you want to quote, the usual figures are 2 - 12% with most being closer to 2% or less. That is, only a tiny fraction of all gun crimes are committed with rifles at all. The bulk of gun crimes are committed with pistols.

 

[Lightbringer]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


These 52 words were presented to the Constitutional Convention by the "Committee on Style" and adopted to be what we call the Preamble to the Constitution. It is as good of a place to start our study of the United States Constitution as any. While there is debate as to the use of the Preamble to establish law and or structure of American government, it is clearly an attempt to set the tone and explain what the document is, how it is to be viewed and the what the document is intended to be and do.

1) "We the People of the United States..." The first seven words show us the class of people who this document applies to... There were several drafts of this portion of the Constitution including "We the people of the various states" as is used in the Articles of Confederation and there was" or "We the People of the various states" and "The People of the united States... (listing them)" as was used in the Treaty of France. It is commonly noted that the drafters did not know how many States would sign on so listing them was a bad idea. The choice of the novel previously unused phrase "We the People of the United States" creates the existence of an actual Nation of people called the United States... Note that they capitalized the phrase "United States" making it an entity on its own. The States are not even mentioned in the preamble.

2) "In Order to form a more perfect Union" - The reason the Constitution was written, and to establish its supremacy over the previous Government created by the Articles of Confederation.

3) "This Constitution..." is also another important phrase, establishing that this is it, the entirety of what is to be considered The Constitution, establishing that it was to be this single document as distinguished from what English Government calls its Document which is a series of Writings and Documents cobbled together to establish the form and structure of their government. The single document Constitution was a novel idea for these former English Subjects.

4) Particularly interesting is the actual power the "Preamble" has had when interpreting the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court has used it to illustrate the intent of the framers as to what powers they actually intended to give with the subsequent Articles. In, Berman v. Parker, 348 US 26 (1954) the Court held that the term "promote the general welfare.." illustrates that the writers intended to give the Federal Government powers that enabled them to promote the general welfare, in that case use the right of eminent domain.

That's quite a leap gayrod.

 

[Into the Night]

I get my "bullshit" from Supreme Court sites.

So it's bullshit. The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution.

The 2nd talks about well-regulated militia.

It also talks about the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. You keep wanting to discard that part, and the Constitution with it.

Can you understand the inherent collectivism in that? It also talks about the defense of the nation, which is a time problem.

Irrelevant strawmen.

The people do not defend or fight wars.

Yes they do.

We have a standing army.

That is also true.

However a person does not protect a nation,

Yes they can.

it requires a collective.

No it doesn't.

So try again. I also have listed to many Supremes cases online and on CSPAN.

Irrelevant. The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

I would propose that is exactly what a well-regulated militia made up of citizens is. A citizenry that is fully armed to basic military levels and is willing and able to defend the state and union. Sawed-off shotguns are hardly a military grade weapon.

Irrelevant. The people have the right to keep and bear Arms. ANY KIND OF WEAPON. Nothing in the Constitution describes a restriction on 'military grade weapons', or prohibits owning any such perceived weapon.

 

[Into the Night]

Typical righty who thinks a post of insults is a debate. That is a crude mental life you have there.
You would do well not to say all. That is how a statement is clearly false. You do not mean all as I already noted some that claim it is collective.
However, the reality in 1750 is not today's. The constitution gives us the power to amend the constitution. Guns are a terrible problem begging for a reasonable ruling. You are citing what appears to be NRA crapola.

The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Lightbringer]

Irrelevant. The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution.

This.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Irrelevant. The people have the right to keep and bear Arms. ANY KIND OF WEAPON. Nothing in the Constitution describes a restriction on 'military grade weapons', or prohibits owning any such perceived weapon.

Not true. Congress can put reasonable limits on what can be kept in the same manner that all "free speech" is not allowed. Speech that incites violence, furthers crime, and the like are restricted and can be prosecuted as one example.

As it stands right now, our gun laws are pretty lax on the whole.