Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

[gfm7175]

Quite true. Personally, I find the 'ignore' feature on this forum quite useless. It's more an inconvenience than anything else. I don't put anybody on my Ignore list. I'd rather play with their weak minds, a hobby you have recently discovered.

As do I. I am not a fan of inconveniencing myself, so I also never use it.

It really is a fun hobby. It's a real life "Roadrunner vs Wile E. Coyote"...

 

[gfm7175]

And good for you for actually reading the thing. Flash's problem is a common one these days. Living in a world of sound bites and Google. It tends to take away context of what they think they know because of the way it partitions knowledge. It tends to take away memory.

Precisely.

This kind of thing has happened before, with the coming of the printed page and the book. Before that time, people used the memory for everything. They had incredible memory. The book removed the need for a lot of that, and that kind of memory retention became something foreign, that you had to specifically train for.

Correct. I even notice with myself that my memory isn't anything near incredible in any way, since I simply make a note on my phone, or look something up on my phone, so my mind doesn't have any necessity to retain information like it would've had in the times before such technological changes.

The Web is like the Book part 2. Those who have never known anything else tend to have their memories partitioned, removing context. Everything becomes a sound bite. You can see it here with Flash quoting only parts of amendments he is making arguments about, and never connecting them to anything inside the Articles of the Constitution. To him, they are separate and distinct, as if they never affect each other at all. History too, becomes a string of sound bites. You can see this too in the way he fixates on just a few court cases, often taking them out of context, to try to support his argument.

Yeah, I've noticed that about Flash.

No, he hasn't. He made a compositional error, but he is still retaining a certain amount of context. Fortunately, the class involved wasn't people.

I consider this a typo on his part. Probably out his own anger. He has consistently tried to argue against our contention that the 1st amendment applies only to the federal government. Give him a break here.

If that was a typo (likely due to his anger), then he's still retaining general context. I'll let him clarify whether that was a typo on his part or not.

He DOES seem to have trouble with this particular concept.

Indeed.

Actually, it sort of does. This is not a non-sequitur fallacy. It is a false authority fallacy. He is contending that a court has the authority to change the 1st amendment of the Constitution. He also for some reason has the idea in his head that we are contending that the 2nd through 9th amendments do not apply to the States, when they clearly do and always have.

My thinking was that a person is indeed able to know about the Bill of Rights, and properly understand it, without having a lick of knowledge about that particular court case. People existing before 1925 were obviously able to do so. But, under his belief that SCOTUS has the authority to change the Constitution, then I can see how his assertion follows in his mind, at least to an extent.

Yeah, I've noticed his idea of our contentions as well. We've been quite clear that we believe they apply to the States, as the Constitution is quite clear about it.

 

[gfm7175]

I know. You said it only restricted Congress.

Correct about what I said.

I agreed you are right until 1925

Correct about what you said.

when the court made it applicable to the states.

The court does not have authority to change the US Constitution in any way. This is where we are stuck... You seem to think that it does have such authority, while Article III of the US Constitution is quite clear that it doesn't have such authority...

You are misinterpreting the wording of the Constitution. When it says "Congress" in the first amendment that same phrase was meant (and did) apply to all the rights (1-8).

No, that phrase only applies to the 1st Amendment. It was not used in the following amendments.

You can't just go by the literal words of the Constitution,

That's the only meaningful way to go by.

you have to understand the intent of all those involved who all understood the entire Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government because it was only the power of the newly created central government that some feared.

What matters is what's written.

The framers did not think those amendments were necessary.

Apparently they did, since they made those amendments and those amendments got ratified.

 

[Flash]

The court does not have authority to change the US Constitution in any way. This is where we are stuck... You seem to think that it does have such authority, while Article III of the US Constitution is quite clear that it doesn't have such authority...

Whether it had the authority or not is irrelevant. It did change the meaning of the Constitution when it made most of the rights applicable to the states and we have been abiding by that changed law for many years. You can argue it had no authority to make those changes, but it did and that is current law.

Maybe Congress did not have the authority to create Social Security, but they did so and we have been operating under that law since the 1930's. Arguing whether Congress had the authority is irrelevant to today's governmental system.

That's the only meaningful way to go by. What matters is what's written.

You only believe that if you don't like the policy. If we go by what is written Congress only has the authority to regulate naturalization but not immigration. However, you give a more liberal interpretation to that term giving Congress more power than the Constitution gave it. Definitions of naturalization do not include immigration (see Blacks Law Dictionary) and naturalization laws included nothing about immigration. You claim immigration was part of naturalization--but not according to the plain, literal words of the Constitution you pretend to follow.

The same thing applies to laws giving the president emergency powers and many other laws or presidential actions.

Apparently they did, since they made those amendments and those amendments got ratified.

They only did that as a deal with those who opposed the new Constitution as a condition for their ratification of the document. If they thought the Bill of Rights was necessary they would have included them in the original document. They said government had no power to limit speech, press, etc. therefore it was not necessary to have a provision saying they had no power to do so.

 

[Gonzomin]

Whether it had the authority or not is irrelevant. It did change the meaning of the Constitution when it made most of the rights applicable to the states and we have been abiding by that changed law for many years. You can argue it had no authority to make those changes, but it did and that is current law.

Maybe Congress did not have the authority to create Social Security, but they did so and we have been operating under that law since the 1930's. Arguing whether Congress had the authority is irrelevant to today's governmental system.



You only believe that if you don't like the policy. If we go by what is written Congress only has the authority to regulate naturalization but not immigration. However, you give a more liberal interpretation to that term giving Congress more power than the Constitution gave it. Definitions of naturalization do not include immigration (see Blacks Law Dictionary) and naturalization laws included nothing about immigration. You claim immigration was part of naturalization--but not according to the plain, literal words of the Constitution you pretend to follow.

The same thing applies to laws giving the president emergency powers and many other laws or presidential actions.



They only did that as a deal with those who opposed the new Constitution as a condition for their ratification of the document. If they thought the Bill of Rights was necessary they would have included them in the original document. They said government had no power to limit speech, press, etc. therefore it was not necessary to have a provision saying they had no power to do so.

Then Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments. That is a bright beacon to their importance.

 

[Flash]

Then Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments. That is a bright beacon to their importance.

Agreed, but they were not important enough to be included in the original Constitution because the framers did not think they were needed since the government was not given the power to restrict any of these rights. Turned out they were very wrong and these guarantees were needed. Plus, these rights only restricted the federal government and states were not limited by their guarantees.

 

[rjhenn]

Agreed, but they were not important enough to be included in the original Constitution because the framers did not think they were needed since the government was not given the power to restrict any of these rights. Turned out they were very wrong and these guarantees were needed. Plus, these rights only restricted the federal government and states were not limited by their guarantees.

That was deliberate for the 1st Amendment, as the wording makes clear. No other Amendment in the BoR has that limiting language.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Flash]

That was deliberate for the 1st Amendment, as the wording makes clear. No other Amendment in the BoR has that limiting language.

It does not have that limiting language but it was well understood that all the rights (1-8) only restricted the federal government because it was only the new powers given the central government that some feared.

That was a well understood principle at that time, it was made clear in Barron v. Baltimore, and changed between 1925-2019 when individual rights were selectively made applicable to the states.

 

[Into the Night]

Whether it had the authority or not is irrelevant.

It is completely relevant! You can't just discard the Constitution!

It did change the meaning of the Constitution when it made most of the rights applicable to the states

They always were. The most of the Bill of Rights was always applicable to the States as well The 1st and 10th amendments are not.

and we have been abiding by that changed law for many years. You can argue it had no authority to make those changes, but it did and that is current law.

It is NOT current law. The 1st amendment still only applies to the federal government. The Constitution is the ONLY authoritative law here.

Maybe Congress did not have the authority to create Social Security,

It didn't.

but they did so and we have been operating under that law since the 1930's.

But it is unconstitutional. It is also collapsing. It is socialism.

Arguing whether Congress had the authority is irrelevant to today's governmental system.

Then you are saying that we are no longer a republic. You are saying the United States is an oligarchy, and that there is no Constitution.

You only believe that if you don't like the policy.

Nope. The Constitution as written is a package deal. It is YOU that applying it selectively. Inversion fallacy.

If we go by what is written Congress only has the authority to regulate naturalization but not immigration.

Immigration is part of naturalization.

However, you give a more liberal interpretation to that term giving Congress more power than the Constitution gave it.

It has always meant that, even before the Constitution itself was written.

Definitions of naturalization do not include immigration (see Blacks Law Dictionary)

False authority fallacy. Black's Law Dictionary is not the Constitution, nor the Magna Carta, nor any other founding document of any nation. It is a useful reference, but it is not authoritative in any way.

and naturalization laws included nothing about immigration.

Naturalization IS part of immigration. It always has been, even before the United States itself existed.

You claim immigration was part of naturalization

That's right.

--but not according to the plain, literal words of the Constitution you pretend to follow.

You are changing what 'naturalization' means. Redefinition fallacy (immigration -> void, void -> naturalization). There is no one to naturalize without immigration, dude.

The same thing applies to laws giving the president emergency powers and many other laws or presidential actions.

Congress created a general budget item that the President can spend on anything by using an 'emergency powers' declaration. That is a budget item. Completely constitutional.

They only did that as a deal with those who opposed the new Constitution as a condition for their ratification of the document. If they thought the Bill of Rights was necessary they would have included them in the original document.

The Bill of Rights changed NOTHING in the Constitution itself. Everything stated in the 1st ten amendments already existed in the Constitution. These amendments only serve to clarify certain points.

They said government had no power to limit speech, press, etc.

That's right. It still didn't BEFORE the 1st amendment was added.

therefore it was not necessary to have a provision saying they had no power to do so.

Correct. It is not necessary. It is a clarification of what's already there, that's all.

Amendments 2 thru 9 did not change anything in the federal government either. Their effect was to extend certain restrictions to the States as well. Amendment 1 and 10 do not apply to the States (except for a portion of amendment 10).

 

[Into the Night]

It does not have that limiting language

Yes it does. The 1st amendment clearly states that it applies to Congress, not the States.

but it was well understood that all the rights (1-8) only restricted the federal government because it was only the new powers given the central government that some feared.

WRONG. Amendments 2 thru 8 always applied to the States as well as the federal government. Amendment 1 does not apply to the States.

That was a well understood principle at that time, it was made clear in Barron v. Baltimore, and changed between 1925-2019 when individual rights were selectively made applicable to the states.

No court has authority to change the Constitution of the United States. Any such ruling can be ignored, and indeed the judge himself can be sued.

Judges are not God.

 

[StoneByStone]

No court has authority to change the Constitution of the United States. Any such ruling can be ignored, and indeed the judge himself can be sued.

Judges are not God.

Has muh constitution ever been ignored by politicians?

 

[Flash]

WRONG. Amendments 2 thru 8 always applied to the States as well as the federal government. Amendment 1 does not apply to the States.

Name one case the court used any of amendments 2-8 to restrict state action before that right was incorporated.

Why did Barron lose his case in Barron v. Baltimore when he claimed the city violated his 5th amendment right against taking his property? The court said the 5th did not apply to the states?

You have yet to explain why so many cases have struck down state laws that violated 1st Amendment rights. The best you do is to say Gitlow v. NY was "unconstitutional."

Who has the power to declare a Supreme Court case unconstitutional? Into the Night does not have the authority to do so.

 

[Into the Night]

Has muh constitution ever been ignored by politicians?

By some. Your point?

 

[Into the Night]

Name one case the court used any of amendments 2-8 to restrict state action before that right was incorporated.

Irrelevant. The amendments exist, whether a court used them or not.

Why did Barron lose his case in Barron v. Baltimore when he claimed the city violated his 5th amendment right against taking his property? The court said the 5th did not apply to the states?

The court is wrong. The 5th has always applied to the States. Barron also does not own waterways. He is not entitled to damages for that reason, not the 5th.

You have yet to explain why so many cases have struck down state laws that violated 1st Amendment rights.

Because the court keeps trying to change the Constitution.

The best you do is to say Gitlow v. NY was "unconstitutional."

It is. The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

Who has the power to declare a Supreme Court case unconstitutional?

The States. They ordained the Constitution to authority. They are the owners of it.

Into the Night does not have the authority to do so.

I don't need the authority to do so. The Court has no authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Flash]

I don't need the authority to do so. The Court has no authority to change the Constitution.

They do it regularly and American law recognizes the changes they have made and we live by those changes everyday. To argue they are wrong is just an academic exercise and has no effect on the law.

Did you ever think all those courts and lawyers may be right and you are wrong?

 

[StoneByStone]

By some. Your point?

"No court has authority to change the Constitution of the United States."

We don't need to change it. Just ignore it.

 

[Into the Night]

They do it regularly and American law recognizes the changes they have made and we live by those changes everyday. To argue they are wrong is just an academic exercise and has no effect on the law.

Did you ever think all those courts and lawyers may be right and you are wrong?

No, I think they are trying to be an oligarchy, and they are succeeding because of people like you.

 

[Into the Night]

"No court has authority to change the Constitution of the United States."

We don't need to change it. Just ignore it.

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

 

[Gonzomin]

When you shoot a deer, a person or some other animal. do you get a boner?

 

[RB 60]

When you shoot a deer, a person or some other animal. do you get a boner?

No. Why, would you?