Today's lesson in the constitution

domer76 said:
The part about bearing arms for a “lawful purpose” is what does not appear in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Each state also has it's own constitution, doesn't it?
This is from PA's constitution (I live in PA.)

21. Right to bear arms.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

22. Standing army; military subordinate to civil power.

No standing army shall, in time of peace, be kept up without the consent of the Legislature, and the military shall in all cases and at all times be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Maybe you can, with your "all-knowing constitutional expertise," dispute the meaning of my state's constitution as it defines our "right to bear arms"?
 
RB 60 said:
Each state also has it's own constitution, doesn't it?
This is from PA's constitution (I live in PA.)

21. Right to bear arms.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

22. Standing army; military subordinate to civil power.

No standing army shall, in time of peace, be kept up without the consent of the Legislature, and the military shall in all cases and at all times be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Maybe you can, with your "all-knowing constitutional expertise," dispute the meaning of my state's constitution as it defines our "right to bear arms"?
Click to expand...

No explanation will be provided.

The thing these 2nd Amendment perverters never consider is that the Bill of Rights was demanded by the states because they feared federal consolidation of power and ratified by the states. If there was any thought, any POSSIBLE interpretation that the 2nd Amendment gave the feds power to dictate to the people and the states, who the approved arms keepers and bearers are, it never would have been ratified.

Especially in states like Pennsylvania (my home too), which call out the individual citizen's right to arms as being protected, the thought that the 2nd Amendment could be used to condition, qualify or restrict the right to arms of its citizens, is hilarious (not that dormer will be laughing so much).
 
domer76 said:
I love the laughs!
Click to expand...

Someone who so consistently evades and ignores direct questions really shouldn't be laughing so much.

Again I'll ask because you've ignored it multiple times now:

What does the 9th Amendment mean to you?

What does the word "retained" in the 9th Amendment mean to you?



"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
​


Your ridiculous line of reasoning dismisses and ignores the 9th and you then go to an even more absurd place for the 2nd Amendment and argue that the enumeration of that right can be used to deny and disparage the right.
 
domer is a positive rights activist. the only rights one has is those that the government tells us we have and that they are all subject to regulation of negation at the whim of our masters.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
domer is a positive rights activist. the only rights one has is those that the government tells us we have and that they are all subject to regulation of negation at the whim of our masters.
Click to expand...

And that's fine; anyone is free to personally embrace any political philosophy they like.

Problem is when they misrepresent and lie about the US Constitution, arguing that the Constitution -- a charter of negative liberties -- can and should be "interpreted" to not only tolerate positive rights but demands them to be fulfilled.

The "taxes" thread and the entire "general welfare" argument seen there, is a case in point.
 
Abatis said:
And that's fine; anyone is free to personally embrace any political philosophy they like.

Problem is when they misrepresent and lie about the US Constitution, arguing that the Constitution -- a charter of negative liberties -- can and should be "interpreted" to not only tolerate positive rights but demands them to be fulfilled.
Click to expand...

of course it's a problem, but it's one we can, and should, overrule. by lethal force if necessary. I, for one, would have no problem killing domer in defense of the constitution.
 
RB 60 said:
Each state also has it's own constitution, doesn't it?
This is from PA's constitution (I live in PA.)

21. Right to bear arms.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

22. Standing army; military subordinate to civil power.

No standing army shall, in time of peace, be kept up without the consent of the Legislature, and the military shall in all cases and at all times be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Maybe you can, with your "all-knowing constitutional expertise," dispute the meaning of my state's constitution as it defines our "right to bear arms"?
Click to expand...

Good for PA. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Dismissed
 
domer76 said:
Good for PA. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Your representation of what the Constitution directs, is embraced by no one of consequence.

The PA representation of what the right to arms is, has been accepted and enforced by SCOTUS for going on 140 years and who's opinion is, like it or not, what the Constitution means.

It is you who is dismissed
 
Abatis said:
Correct.

Your representation of what the Constitution directs, is embraced by no one of consequence.

The PA representation of what the right to arms is, has been accepted and enforced by SCOTUS for going on 140 years and who's opinion is, like it or not, what the Constitution means.

It is you who is dismissed
Click to expand...

Keep floundering, cut and paste. The original intent is clear. CRYSTAL CLEAR.
 
domer76 said:
Keep floundering, cut and paste. The original intent is clear. CRYSTAL CLEAR.
Click to expand...

It would be nice to see you "cut & paste" a single quote and citation that support you.

All you have is your divorced from constitutional principles ignorant reading, polluted by your political agenda.

And that ain't worth anything.

While I "cut & paste" the Supreme Court saying:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."​

You have nothing to quote to support your fantasy that the right to arms does flow from the words of the 2nd and is entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

You say I'm floundering but I'm having no difficulty supporting my points with verifiable sources nor am I struggling in rebutting every single point you make.

You on the other hand are foundering, failing at every attempt to make a point and evading, not rebutting the points made to you.

You are a total fail in constitutional debate and that failure is an unavoidable consequence of you being irreparably wrong . . . About everything.



And again I'll ask because you've ignored it multiple times now:

What does the 9th Amendment mean to you?

What does the word "retained" in the 9th Amendment mean to you?


"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
​


Your ridiculous line of reasoning dismisses and ignores the 9th and you then go to an even more absurd place for the 2nd Amendment and argue that the enumeration of that right can be used to deny and disparage the right.

.
 
Abatis said:
It would be nice to see you "cut & paste" a single quote and citation that support you.

All you have is your divorced from constitutional principles ignorant reading, polluted by your political agenda.

And that ain't worth anything.

While I "cut & paste" the Supreme Court saying:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."​

You have nothing to quote to support your fantasy that the right to arms does flow from the words of the 2nd and is entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

You say I'm floundering but I'm having no difficulty supporting my points with verifiable sources nor am I struggling in rebutting every single point you make.

You on the other hand are foundering, failing at every attempt to make a point and evading, not rebutting the points made to you.

You are a total fail in constitutional debate and that failure is an unavoidable consequence of you being irreparably wrong . . . About everything.



And again I'll ask because you've ignored it multiple times now:

What does the 9th Amendment mean to you?

What does the word "retained" in the 9th Amendment mean to you?


"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
​


Your ridiculous line of reasoning dismisses and ignores the 9th and you then go to an even more absurd place for the 2nd Amendment and argue that the enumeration of that right can be used to deny and disparage the right.

.
Click to expand...

You quote a failed decision.

You, and SCOTUS, have failed to identifybthe “other” rights.

Newton and gravity? Priceless!

The original intent ofvthe 2nd? CRYSTAL!
 
domer76 said:
You quote a failed decision.
Click to expand...

That's not Cruikshank, that's Presser. Presser is a decision that uses the words of the 2nd and is good law today, with no baggage.

domer76 said:
You, and SCOTUS, have failed to identifybthe “other” rights.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point, no one can. Our rights are everything not granted to the federal government in the Constitution.

Madison called our rights "the great residuum" of what was retained after the people conferred limited powers to the federal government through the Constitution. Madison is speaking here about the Federalists (including himself) who argued against adding a bill of rights:



"It has been said, that in the Federal Government [a bill of rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a call of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government."


Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights
​

Let me translate for you . . . People have argued that a bill of rights is not necessary (even dangerous and absurd) because the powers of government are so specifically listed and thus limited, everything not granted to government by the people is retained by the people and safe from government. Since the Constitution is such a rigid bill of powers, with everything that's not granted to government being the rights of the people and remaining in their hands, a bill of rights is not necessary because no aspect of the people's rights is in the hands of government.


The Federalist arguments against adding a bill of rights were acknowledged and codified in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Madison continues:




"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution. . . .

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.​
"
​


Which, with revisions, became the 9th Amendment . . . which I keep asking you about and you keep evading and ignoring (which is completely understandable since you can't allow yourself to even begin to consider what it means).

domer76 said:
Newton and gravity? Priceless!
Click to expand...

Actually, when you understand the nature of our rights as not flowing from the legislative acts of man, the metaphor is perfect . . . but continue with the diversionary histrionics.

domer76 said:
The original intent ofvthe 2nd? CRYSTAL!
Click to expand...

For you it's in a blur of Crystal Meth.

.
 
Abatis said:
That's not Cruikshank, that's Presser. Presser is a decision that uses the words of the 2nd and is good law today, with no baggage.



That's the whole point, no one can. Our rights are everything not granted to the federal government in the Constitution.

Madison called our rights "the great residuum" of what was retained after the people conferred limited powers to the federal government through the Constitution. Madison is speaking here about the Federalists (including himself) who argued against adding a bill of rights:



"It has been said, that in the Federal Government [a bill of rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a call of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government."


Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights
​

Let me translate for you . . . People have argued that a bill of rights is not necessary (even dangerous and absurd) because the powers of government are so specifically listed and thus limited, everything not granted to government by the people is retained by the people and safe from government. Since the Constitution is such a rigid bill of powers, with everything that's not granted to government being the rights of the people and remaining in their hands, a bill of rights is not necessary because no aspect of the people's rights is in the hands of government.


The Federalist arguments against adding a bill of rights were acknowledged and codified in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Madison continues:




"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution. . . .

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.​
"
​


Which, with revisions, became the 9th Amendment . . . which I keep asking you about and you keep evading and ignoring (which is completely understandable since you can't allow yourself to even begin to consider what it means).



Actually, when you understand the nature of our rights as not flowing from the legislative acts of man, the metaphor is perfect . . . but continue with the diversionary histrionics.



For you it's in a blur of Crystal Meth.

.
Click to expand...

The reason you have a right to bear arms is because it’s codified, moron. No supernatural being. No creator. No pre-existance. You don’t find that right in other countrues. Why? Because it’s NOT codified.

CRYSTAL!
 
domer76 said:
The reason you have a right to bear arms is because it’s codified, moron. No supernatural being. No creator. No pre-existance. You don’t find that right in other countrues. Why? Because it’s NOT codified.

CRYSTAL!
Click to expand...

the right is not codified, fucktard. It doesn't say that the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms. it says that it shall not be infringed. THINK, MORON!!!!!!!
 
domer76 said:
The reason you have a right to bear arms is because it’s codified, moron.
Click to expand...

Well first let me bask in the glow of you stating that I do actually possess a right to bear arms.

The reason I have the right to bear arms is not because there is a 2nd Amendment. I have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to the federal government to allow it to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen. The 2nd Amendment does not grant or create the right, it merely recognizes it and redundantly forbids the feds to exercise powers it was never granted (an exception to powers never granted).

To remind you, there was a debate over whether to even add a bill of rights. There was a couple years when there was no recognition of any rights, is it your contention that the people had no federal rights between December 7, 1787 and December 15, 1791?

domer76 said:
No supernatural being. No creator. No pre-existance.
Click to expand...

I do not claim my rights emanate from any supernatural being, just that they are inherent in humans simply because of our capability of reason.


domer76 said:
You don’t find that right in other countrues. Why?
Click to expand...

Because only the USA was established on the following foundational constitutional principles . . .

a) all governmental power originally resides in, and is derived from, We the People
b) government possesses only the limited powers specifically conferred to it by, We the People
c) all powers not surrendered by We the People, are retained by them (rights) and there exist certain powers over one's self that are too important to ever be surrendered to another person (un/inalienable rights)
d) government only exercises those limited powers with the consent of We the People, to perform only the specific duties assigned to it
e) if government violates the compact it is no longer "the government established by the Constitution" and has lost the legitimacy to govern
f) when that occurs the government is subject to We the People rescinding our consent to be governed and reclaiming the powers once conferred -- with violence if necessary


The right to consent to be governed is a meaningless concept if the right to rescind that consent isn't actionable . . . And that is what the 2nd Amendment secures.


domer76 said:
CRYSTAL!
Click to expand...

METH!
 
Abatis said:
Well first let me bask in the glow of you stating that I do actually possess a right to bear arms.

The reason I have the right to bear arms is not because there is a 2nd Amendment. I have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to the federal government to allow it to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen. The 2nd Amendment does not grant or create the right, it merely recognizes it and redundantly forbids the feds to exercise powers it was never granted (an exception to powers never granted).

To remind you, there was a debate over whether to even add a bill of rights. There was a couple years when there was no recognition of any rights, is it your contention that the people had no federal rights between December 7, 1787 and December 15, 1791?



I do not claim my rights emanate from any supernatural being, just that they are inherent in humans simply because of our capability of reason.




Because only the USA was established on the following foundational constitutional principles . . .

a) all governmental power originally resides in, and is derived from, We the People
b) government possesses only the limited powers specifically conferred to it by, We the People
c) all powers not surrendered by We the People, are retained by them (rights) and there exist certain powers over one's self that are too important to ever be surrendered to another person (un/inalienable rights)
d) government only exercises those limited powers with the consent of We the People, to perform only the specific duties assigned to it
e) if government violates the compact it is no longer "the government established by the Constitution" and has lost the legitimacy to govern
f) when that occurs the government is subject to We the People rescinding our consent to be governed and reclaiming the powers once conferred -- with violence if necessary


The right to consent to be governed is a meaningless concept if the right to rescind that consent isn't actionable . . . And that is what the 2nd Amendment secures.




METH!
Click to expand...

“Bear arms” = military
“Well regulated militia” = military

Newton and gravity = hysterical!

CRYSTAL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top