Today's lesson in the constitution
- Thread starter Craig234
- Start date
Yes, with great interest I might add.
I love the right, always claiming "illegitimate" when they don't agree. Cry a river
And so according to your reasoning, from today's conference we now know SCOTUS "approves" of discrimination in the workplace based on one's sexual orientation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-workers-bias-case.html
Damn, that really is a shame . . .
Thank you for confirming . . .
Except that it's not and the emphasis you so wanted to impart, "The original wording of the 2nd by Madison. Read it and weep, idiot", vanished into the ether.
Do you really dispute that "infringements", in the context of the 2nd Amendment, meet the standard of "illegitimate" laws?
It is a term that is Lockean in origin and is often used to define extra-constitutional government actions.
Your displeasure is amusing; is it because you dislike the term in general or just my particular (correct) usage here?
I get that you disagree with me, isn't that a given? Your point -- whatever the fuck it is -- might be better made if you actually made an argument that I'm wrong.
No right is absolute in an ordered society.
Even the most important rights, rights that can not be transferred to the care and control of another person (un/inalienable rights) can be legitimately impacted. Life is taken, liberty is taken, property is taken . . . The legal disability of rights after due process is not an infringement.
Infringements are restrictions that are enacted and enforced without any constitutional authority and/or arbitrary restrictions enacted as blanket prohibitions or prior restraints.
That's the rub. The actual prohibition on the federal government is not how the words of the 2nd Amenmdent are defined. The real prohibition is that no power was ever granted to the federal government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.
The federal laws that we have were first enacted under the tax code (National Firearms Act of 1934). All subsequent law has been written under the commerce clause, claiming that since firearms are a commodity / product that travels in interstate commerce, Congress can write nearly any laws it wants.
For decades when federal laws were challenged the government forgot about the commerce clause and claimed the power to restrict the personal arms of private citizens comes from Congress' power to regulate the militia.
I know, it's a brain twister . . .
SCOTUS in 2008 invalidated all that "collective right" bullshit; the hundreds of laws that were upheld / sustained over 60 years, using that bullshit legal reasoning will crumble when challenged.
Really, there are a shit-ton of laws that are illegitimate infringements; when it is time, a flood of challenges will happen and Constitution respecting judges and Justices will put the constitutional ship back on its keel.
It will be wonderful.
Nope. That post is still out there. Clearly, the intent was in the context of the militia, with or without the conscientious objector clause, authored/compiled/edited by Madison.
Gotta love Locke. Had to invent a philosophy that included a supernatural source of rights to justify revolt because life was such a shitbag at his time.
Not impressed with your bloviation. Just an inflated way of saying the same thing these other RW crybabies whine about when they don’t like a decision.
Squawk! Unelected, black-robed tyrants!
Squawk! Dred Scott!
Do you know there's a distinction between "emphasis you wanted to impart" and the actual "post"?
I'm gonna guess English isn't your primary language.
Well, if that's the standard for supported argument I'm just going to say the Madison was talking about patents and copyrights.
And your personal opinion is of zero import or consequence.
Locke's political philosophy is what the Constitution is built upon.
And I'm certainly not impressed with your scatterbrained, incoherent ramblings that have nothing to do with my statements.
Case in point:
WTF are you muttering about?
Yeah, stick with the copyright thing.
With the right, decisions that they don’t like are always “illegitimate”. Your long-winded version of the same crying and gnashing of teeth is no different.
Dred Scott?
Unelected, black-robed tyrants?
You don’t follow this forum much, do you?
Locke? Tell us about your Creator, Jethro.
You act as if the left doesn't whine and pout about cases it disagrees with. Citizens United anybody? I'm still trying to decipher what cases I've supposedly been haranguing about though. I've repeatedly said SCOTUS is and has been firmly on my side . . . The lower federal decisions that begat the "collective right" theories have been invalidated so besides stating that, where have I cried and gnashed teeth?
Not my statements. Why have you brought them up multiple times now?
I must ask though, isn't Dred Scott universally accepted by all, left and right, as a despicable, horrible and yes, illegitimate decision?
No. Even if I did I only reply to the words I quote or that are spoken to me; I don't go off and assign positions to the person I'm replying to, that others on the board stake out,. What's the value in that? It's obvious you find it impossible but try to just reply to that person . . .
My position is that the mention in the DoI about a "Creator" wasn't a theological statement, it was a political one establishing that rights are inherent. It doesn't matter where one believes rights originate from, just as long as you don't think government gives them to us.
It doesn't matter if you don't buy into that. It doesn't matter if your think it is the most ridiculous thing you have ever heard. I can guaranfuckentee whatever political ideology you latch on to wasn't around when the founders and framers were pouring over political treatises. Marx wasn't a founding father.
Whether you like it or believe in it, the government of the US is contractually bound to treat the rights of the citizen as inherent and not granted, given, created or established by government. It's like a pacifist being against violence and shunning weapons but being protected by citizens with weapons willing to do violence on their behalf.
It really just comes down to who gives a fuck what leftist contrarians and naysayers think?
Walk into a courtroom after you have "exercised" a non-codified right and see if you can defend that inherent bullshit. See how far that gets you.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
says the statist fuckstick who worships government after surrendering freedom. the founders would have shot, hung, or exiled your dumbass back to england.
evince
Truthmatters
were slaves allowed to own guns?