More evidence of Virginia's blueness...

SmarterthanYou said:
so radio, tv, and internet are not protected forms of free speech? or better yet, maybe you can show us where the text of the framers defined 'arms' as only muskets and cannons.
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not say that the right to free speech shall not be abridged. It says that "Congress shall pass no law,... limiting the right to free speech." The difference in wording is significant and relevant. If the writers had the same intent, the would have used the same words.

The framers used the word arms, as it was defined in 1780. They had not imagined the invention of the machine gun, or the nuclear missile.

Speech is still speech, regardless of if its transmitted by a newspaper or television. A musket is not a machine gun.

I will say that honest disagreement such as the one we are currently discussing, is exactly why we need a Supreme Court to intemperate the Constitution.
 
Sardonic said:
Our AG said he wouldn't enforce any gun control laws, how do you feel about that proclamation? Lol

It is actually a rhetorical question because I know you would support him in this matter.
Click to expand...

considering that your PA state constitution reads thus:
Article I, Section 21 The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
he would then be doing his consitutional duty.

be that as it may, if another AG or state court decides that a gay marriage law is NOT considered a right and continue to deny it, would you then say it's him doing his job?
 
maineman said:
are you really that idiotic to think that the words in the oath of office have no bearing? The AG upholds the constitution. It's his job. He decides how to do that... if the voters don't like his approach, they can refuse to reelect him or they can impeach him.
Click to expand...

while I actually do agree with this much, would you then agree that if in the interim, the people used jury nullification to deny the AG from enforcing unconstitutional laws?
 
maineman said:
the constitution I was referring to was the state constitution... that's why I said that the AG is to uphold not only the state constitution but the federal one as well. The Virginia state constitution states:

Section 15. Attorney General.

An Attorney General shall be elected by the qualified voters of the Commonwealth at the same time and for the same term as the Governor; and the fact of his election shall be ascertained in the same manner. No person shall be eligible for election or appointment to the office of Attorney General unless he is a citizen of the United States, has attained the age of thirty years, and has the qualifications required for a judge of a court of record. He shall perform such duties and receive such compensation as may be prescribed by law, which compensation shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected. There shall be no limit on the terms of the Attorney General.
Click to expand...

thank you for the clarification.
 
Jarod said:
The Constitution does not say that the right to free speech shall not be abridged. It says that "Congress shall pass no law,... limiting the right to free speech." The difference in wording is significant and relevant. If the writers had the same intent, the would have used the same words.

The framers used the word arms, as it was defined in 1780. They had not imagined the invention of the machine gun, or the nuclear missile.
Click to expand...
you can prove that they never imagined that technology in arms would grow?

Jarod said:
Speech is still speech, regardless of if its transmitted by a newspaper or television. A musket is not a machine gun.
Click to expand...
but both are ARMS, which would be protected for the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

Jarod said:
I will say that honest disagreement such as the one we are currently discussing, is exactly why we need a Supreme Court to intemperate the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I again refer you to Jefferson.
 
maineman said:
juries are free to do what they feel is just, within the constraints of their instructions from the bench.
Click to expand...

so if a judge tells a jury they are not allowed to exercise jury nullification, something that the framers considered a RIGHT even before the constitution was ratified, the juries could then not use it?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so you're saying that a supreme court decision can render the constitution to mean something it never intended? or should we take the decision to mean exactly what it says, that any law violative of the consitution is null and void? maybe you should read jeffersons quote in my signature.
Click to expand...

1. I am saying that the Supreme Court is the ultimate decider of the meaning the words writers of the Constitution used. If the justices are doing their job correctly they are rendering the Constitution to mean exactly the meaning of the words in the Constitution.

2. Jefferson's quote is entirely consistent with a Supreme Court that determines the Constitutionality of laws after they have been passed by the legislature and signed by a president. There are three tribunals that must agree to the Constitutionality of a law. (Except in the rare occasion where the presidents veto is overridden.)

3. My third point is that Jefferson and the other "writers" of the Constitution often disagreed sharply on the meaning of the document they wrote together.
 
maineman said:
juries are free to do what they feel is just, within the constraints of their instructions from the bench.
Click to expand...

At least in Florida, they are instructed to "Follow the law" and told that they have a duty to do so, regardless of personal beliefs'.
 
Jarod said:
1. I am saying that the Supreme Court is the ultimate decider of the meaning the words writers of the Constitution used. If the justices are doing their job correctly they are rendering the Constitution to mean exactly the meaning of the words in the Constitution.

2. Jefferson's quote is entirely consistent with a Supreme Court that determines the Constitutionality of laws after they have been passed by the legislature and signed by a president. There are three tribunals that must agree to the Constitutionality of a law. (Except in the rare occasion where the presidents veto is overridden.)

3. My third point is that Jefferson and the other "writers" of the Constitution often disagreed sharply on the meaning of the document they wrote together.
Click to expand...

then it's your belief that the framers wrote a constitution to protect freedom and liberty from a tyrannical government, then turned that document over to a government with no check and balance from the people?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
considering that your PA state constitution reads thus:
Article I, Section 21 The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
he would then be doing his consitutional duty.

be that as it may, if another AG or state court decides that a gay marriage law is NOT considered a right and continue to deny it, would you then say it's him doing his job?
Click to expand...

She's not from PA, I am, and I was supporting our AG in her refusal to defend PA's gay marriage prohibition. Nothing to do with guns.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you can prove that they never imagined that technology in arms would grow?

but both are ARMS, which would be protected for the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.



I again refer you to Jefferson.
Click to expand...

1. No it cannot be proven either way, it can only be interpreted.
2. Using your interpretation, correct. Using my interpretation, incorrect.
3. Jefferson was not saying the Supreme Court does not interpret the Constitution. He also is not the decider of what the Supreme Court does, it was the subject of debate among the authors of the Constitution.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then it's your belief that the framers wrote a constitution to protect freedom and liberty from a tyrannical government, then turned that document over to a government with no check and balance from the people?
Click to expand...

No, the checks and balances from the people come in to play when the legislature passes the law and the president signs it. They also come into play when the elected president appoints, and the Senate comfirms the Supreme Court Justice.
 
maineman said:
nuclear arms are arms... is the right to bear them by citizens protected by the 2nd?
Click to expand...

would the government ever use nuclear arms against us? the 2nd Amendment protects any weapon that the people would have used against them to be better gunned and manned than the government.
 
Jarod said:
1. No it cannot be proven either way, it can only be interpreted.
2. Using your interpretation, correct. Using my interpretation, incorrect.
3. Jefferson was not saying the Supreme Court does not interpret the Constitution. He also is not the decider of what the Supreme Court does, it was the subject of debate among the authors of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
then, like zappa, you have a poor understanding of our historical founding. is that what public education is doing now?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
would the government ever use nuclear arms against us? the 2nd Amendment protects any weapon that the people would have used against them to be better gunned and manned than the government.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that?

And who gets to decide what the Government would or would not use against us?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top