In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Actually, no, I would have said that the National Guard did not exist in the late 18th century. Also, IIRC, the federal statute defining militia says 18-45...sorry, don't have the site to the US Code handy.
quote:Originally posted by IAMAHUSKER
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Seems damn clear to me. Oh wait, I know what you will say next. You will argue that a militia is actually the National Guard. Wrong!!
In 1792 the federal Uniform Militia Law was created and required all able-bodied free white men ages 16 to 45 to arm themselves to defend their communities.
Their are a lot of supporting documents that most people do not get to see or don't even know exist.
longhunter, you rant and flag-wave for a bit, then you digress into a complaint about a lack of representation, none of which has to do with constitutional interpretation or judicial review. You do acknowledge judicial review exists, but that it is "a lie." However, you propose no alternative mechanism. Then, you suggest that the Supreme Court IS supposed to review decisions, but "not MAKE law." To a point, I agree in that the Court should not render judgments that go beyond the scope of the question asked, but the whole duty of the Court to review decisions IS JUDICIAL REVIEW. So do you or do you not like judicial review?
The very fact that you suggest that words of the Constitution can be manipulated contradicts your assertion that the Constitution is crystal clear." If it was, no manipulation could occur.
Example:
"According to Hartsfield Airport, right now it is 80 degrees outside in Atlanta, GA, sunny, with not a cloud in sight." *not likely to be subject to manipulation because it is pretty clear.*
"The weather in Atlanta is great." *not crystal clear, manipulation is more likely, because there is a lot of ambiguity in the phrase. "Great" is a subjective word; what's "great" mean?, what state (there's an Atlanta, TX too!), when?, etc.*
Finally, you go off on a rant against Brown v. Board of Education I. What's your big beef with Brown v. Board of Education I?
tr fox, sometimes fewer words don't result in a clearer/simpler understanding. Compare the following two sentences:
1. This is a nice gun.
2. The Colt 1911 design by John Browning has been used to win more handgun competitions, ranging from NRA Bullseye matches to IPSC tournaments than any other semi-auto designed in the last 90 years.
Which is provides a more clearly understandable statement? Which provides the reader with a greater level of understanding? Which results in the reader asking fewer questions?
jpwolf, you might want to duke it out with longhunter! He believes the Constitution is clear enough that there is NO ambiguity and that nothing outside the four corners of the document should be used to figured out what the founding fathers were saying. Let the fun begin!
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
In those places, where the constitution seems ambiguous to those of us living here in these modern times, it's as simple as going back, doing a little research, and you will have the answer you were looking for. The founders recorded their debates, their reasons, and their MINDS, for us to clarify any questions we might have later. Most every question has already been answered, and ruled on, but it seems lately, those ideas are not a "good fit" for some minority agenda's. Now that the judiary is largely controled by lef thinking idiots, we can re-interperate and re-write history by ignoring precedent, and "make" it a better fit, an unconstitutional "fit", but a better fit for their agenda which has nothing to do with the majority, or the "general welfare" of the nation.
It's not ambiguous to LH because hhe is 224 years old.[:)]Just kidding LH.No, I think he is saying about the same thing as me. But the point is, if all of their writings are taken into consideration, it removes the ambiguity. Maybe they were trying to make the "final" document a "document", and not a book. But I guarantee you, they didn't want "this".
The founders were very worried about the lack of a sufficient "check" on the judicial branch. Lately, they are ruling so much like the courts in Germany, during the Nazi reign, that it has me really scared. Why haven't they shot down maniacal legislation from the current administration on it's obvious and flagrant unconstituionality? Why did they refuse to overturn 9th circus finding that you have no individual right to own a gun?
quote:Originally posted by mpolans
longhunter, you rant and flag-wave for a bit, then you digress into a complaint about a lack of representation, none of which has to do with constitutional interpretation or judicial review. You do acknowledge judicial review exists, but that it is "a lie." However, you propose no alternative mechanism. Then, you suggest that the Supreme Court IS supposed to review decisions, but "not MAKE law." To a point, I agree in that the Court should not render judgments that go beyond the scope of the question asked, but the whole duty of the Court to review decisions IS JUDICIAL REVIEW. So do you or do you not like judicial review?
The very fact that you suggest that words of the Constitution can be manipulated contradicts your assertion that the Constitution is crystal clear." If it was, no manipulation could occur.
Example:
"According to Hartsfield Airport, right now it is 80 degrees outside in Atlanta, GA, sunny, with not a cloud in sight." *not likely to be subject to manipulation because it is pretty clear.*
"The weather in Atlanta is great." *not crystal clear, manipulation is more likely, because there is a lot of ambiguity in the phrase. "Great" is a subjective word; what's "great" mean?, what state (there's an Atlanta, TX too!), when?, etc.*
Finally, you go off on a rant against Brown v. Board of Education I. What's your big beef with Brown v. Board of Education I?
Well for you I hope it has become clear that I am No "law" student.Rather I am a VERY CONCERNED citizen of OUR country.If I rant it is because it is a VERY emotional issue with me.
When we go back in time and we were the "Kings" subjects,the "common" folks over here were upset because as colonists they had no representation ,I am sure that we agree upon that at least. So the revolution was against the lack of representation,the tyranny etc. and it had gone to the point of NO return.
What I am attempting to get across here (and seemingly failing)is the fact that without representation just how is ANY of the 3 branches the way it Was INTENDED by the founders?
I do still believe the process to be a lie.BECAUSE it is a sham of what is SUPPOSED to be. It would be difficult I guess for someone whom has not been working at the poverty level or below to understand what that may be like.To work everyday and not feel representation in ANY way.No I do not refer to the welfare,stamps etc.But I do believe that the welfare system,or should I say the recepiants thereof are by and large folks that have given up.Why try to fight?For what purpose?When you believe that the "elite"run the country,the courts and all that goes with them why bother?Its not like its gonna make a difference...The elite still can outspend,use the media,in a basic sense Do their will,so what is the point,might as well let them and We'll just take all we can get from the B******s!
I have heard this again and again and again in the trenches,the streets of our own great country.
As so far as Manipulating the CONSTITUTION.
I do not believe that it SHOULD be,nor that it was intended to be.I believe that the assumption was made that the people would remain Patriotic,and would stand WITH the Constitution.I have seen good attorney's manipulate all sorts of things that were not intended to be,an attorney is TRAINED to be a Professional manipulator is he not? And a s my defense consul I guess that I would haop he would be.That is a FAR cry from being a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE however.
If I missed something I apologize...I tried this time...But Councelor,Back off and try talking like a citizen,a common folk if you can get that low.I believe that would be easier understood.This is not a courtroom,. Now I was going to delete that last as I had decided that I was being insulting....I was not trying to be.I value your contribution and the debate that it has sparked here.I think it is healthy and hopefully we are all getting something out of all this.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I don't know as much and am probably not as smart as a lot of people who have posted on this topic. And what I will now say is only one among many ways to look at this sitution. But I feel something is wrong when so many, many words have to be used here to explain or object to the written constitution of the USA. It confounds me that more words (thousands of more words by the way) have to be used to debate some of the short sentences and paragraphs in the US Constitution than there are are words in the partticular part of the constitution being debated. I have always thought of state and the US consttution as being kind of like a "rule book" covering the "play" of the rights of citizens and the powers and duties of government.
In my mind the US Govt. is kind of like a train out of control and headed to a collision on the wrong track. But many citizens ignore this and the ones who talk about it apparently have to complicate the different issues (me included) to where there never seems to be an answer, just more debate. Is there no final answer?
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
Don't short change yourself fox.You bring tons to the table and I thank you!You are right,It should'nt take what it does to debate the constitution,I believe the rulebook thing also.I am afraid of the final answer...I do think it ALL comes back to education,or the lack of it.About the Constitution,about the roles that the branches are supposed to play,and what their duties and OURS as citizens are supposed to be.
quote:Originally posted by mpolans
tr fox, sometimes fewer words don't result in a clearer/simpler understanding. Compare the following two sentences:
1. This is a nice gun.
2. The Colt 1911 design by John Browning has been used to win more handgun competitions, ranging from NRA Bullseye matches to IPSC tournaments than any other semi-auto designed in the last 90 years.
Which is provides a more clearly understandable statement? Which provides the reader with a greater level of understanding? Which results in the reader asking fewer questions?
Spoken like a Lawyer.....We as the framers do not and they did not all walk around with law degrees.Which of course is why attornies think they know so much more what the founders meant...no wait,you said you can't get inside their dead heads....caught myself on that one. Well .......hmmmmmm...Its evident to me at least that the framers were not Lawyers. But while I am here,
If we do not have representation ,again I ask you WHY doesn't that effect all phases of governement?
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
It's not ambiguous to LH because hhe is 224 years old.[:)]Just kidding LH.No, I think he is saying about the same thing as me. But the point is, if all of their writings are taken into consideration, it removes the ambiguity. Maybe they were trying to make the "final" document a "document", and not a book. But I guarantee you, they didn't want "this".
mpolans: your example about the two different statements involving the "is a nice gun" is very valid. However, I still believe that in order to function at our best, everything should be kept as simple as reasonably possible. This includes interpertation of the constituion, the ability and knowledge required to use computers, insurance policies, etc., etc. So in that regard I would like to see people, when trying to understand the meaning of the 2nd amendment for just one example, instead of millions of words being used for both sides to "explain" the second, I would prefer that everyone agree to try to understand the 2nd at it's most simple and basic level. For example, absoutely NO ONE can deny that the 2nd clearly and empahtically gives SOMEONE "unenfringed rights" to keep and bear arms. And that right, regardless who it goes to, is not allowed at present. If it is allowed then exactly who is presently enjoying that "unenfringed right"?
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
P.S. JPWolff: You may get your wish about the NRA because I read in the paper that it is 100 million in debt. But if the NRA goes down I think you and everyone will regret it. I heartily agree that the NRA is far from perfect and makes mistakes. But losing it will hurt the pro-gun, pro-constitutional rights groups and people like me. The very existance of the NRA to me has seemed like for over 100 years there has been an NRA "lion" constantly circling the "village" of anti-gun people, groups and legislators as a reminder that they have to be careful in what they do regarding the destruction of our gun rights. As just one tiny tidbit of a reason as to why the NRA should continue to exist is because it is the ONLY progun group I know of that is recognized WORLDWIDE. That automatically makes it easier for the NRA to get the attention and respect that is needed to effectively fight for gun rights. And there are numerous other reasons why the NRA has something of value to us that the other groups don't have.
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
Sorry if it seems like I'm speaking legalease, but the gist of what I'm trying to point out is that things are not as simple as they might seem at first glance.
BTW, I thought many of the founding fathers were attorneys or had a very good understanding of the law. Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, John Adams, George Whythe, among others, were all lawyers.
quote:Originally posted by longhunter
quote:Originally posted by mpolans
tr fox, sometimes fewer words don't result in a clearer/simpler understanding. Compare the following two sentences:
1. This is a nice gun.
2. The Colt 1911 design by John Browning has been used to win more handgun competitions, ranging from NRA Bullseye matches to IPSC tournaments than any other semi-auto designed in the last 90 years.
Which is provides a more clearly understandable statement? Which provides the reader with a greater level of understanding? Which results in the reader asking fewer questions?
Spoken like a Lawyer.....We as the framers do not and they did not all walk around with law degrees.Which of course is why attornies think they know so much more what the founders meant...no wait,you said you can't get inside their dead heads....caught myself on that one. Well .......hmmmmmm...Its evident to me at least that the framers were not Lawyers. But while I am here,
If we do not have representation ,again I ask you WHY doesn't that effect all phases of governement?
Well.....+It seems all the MORE reason perhaps that thet wrote it as it was intended?? I was unaware that there were many attorneys working on it.I Am still learning ,or attempting to at least.
Well, I partially agree with you: The NRA does appear to be comprisiming with the Gestapo. However I am a member who will renew my membership. Before you declare me the antichrist let me state my case.
I am probably one of the biggest gun rights advocates out there. I'd like to own a couple of machine guns, although as of right now I'm not quite old enough to register one (just a few long years!). Hopefully one day I will own one. I think people should be allowed to own machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, handguns, pen guns, bazookas, etc. These all serve a defensive purpose, which is what the second amendment is all about.
If it was up to me, everybody who is not convicted of a violent crime would be encouraged to own a handgun or machinegun. Why? Let's look at the situation more closely. The antigun liberals say we should rely on the government for protection. The police show up on average about 8 minutes after you call them. This gives the attacker just enough time to rape your wife, shoot your family and escape without a trace. You need guns to protect yourself before the police arrive. This same government proved itself incompetent to prevent 4 seperate plane hijackings and the New York skyline is permanately changed because of this. We are once again on high terrorism risk. If the pilots or some of the passangers were armed, the terrorists would have died in the process of the attack, and thousands of people would still be alive. If everybody is a concealed carrier a terrorist that attacks out in the open has a high chance of getting shot. We are at war with an enemy that does not attack the government. We are at war with people who are prepared to die just to cause us suffering and death. If the terrorist targets are unarmed, we stand little chance of stopping them.
But anyway, back to the NRA. They should not be boycotted because they are the only ones with real power. With 4 Million+ members and a ton o' cash, they are necessary to fight the Gestapo, and in effect fight terrorism in general.
To sum up my claim in general, we need the NRA. They are the big guns in the war against gun control. Where would the GOA's or JPFO's targeted attacks be without the NRA to take the majority of the opposition? The NRA is the first line of defense, and the other die hard (but smaller) groups are the last line of defense. The NRA can protect us from laws like handgun control, where the dedicated gun groups can protect our true freedom of machine guns and semi auto rifles.
One more thing to keep in mind: the terrorists are ready to die to kill us. The only way they can fail is if somebody kills the terrorist before the terrorist can kill an american. If a terrorist takes 30 shots to the chest before he can kill an american, then he has failed. If he kills so much as one american, his mission is a success and he can die happy.
I guess I agree with thatup to a point.I also believe that its probubly time I told you all that I havr NOT always held my belief about how the NRA is failing.I was a member before some of may have known what a gun was.....I took my first Hunter Safety Course LONG before it was mandatory in our state,back when I was 9 I think.
At any rate I got interested in the process and passed my exam to teach before they would let me(I wasn't old enough)By the time that I was old enough I was teaching in Maine AND New Hampshire. I am an avid pro safety course kind a guy. I had a friend that once got his course thru school....(can you imagine?).
I've not taught nor supported NRA in a while.I used to thump for them constantly,donated $to ILA and the whole bit.Used to give a years dues in friends names for Christmas etc. I guess this is my longwinded way of saying look,I WAS you,but as with the governement itself I am running out of patiance with an organization that I feel has lost sight.....AS far as the GOA.....I've never recieved ANYTHING from them chopping at the NRA.Just good informative bullitans with like to email/write to the folks that I need to.........
Dsmith;
Just a point about your post, they do NOT have a ton of money anymore.
The NRA could become more effective next year, depending on who is elected onto the Board of Directors. Most of what they do, and how they do it, is decided by these people. The current board obviously needs to go. (or at least part of them) If you are a voting member, here is a link where there are some suggestions (with a link to biographies) close to the bottom. We need all the help we can get, in this fight against our rights. If we can get the NRA back on track, it would help. Of course it may take a few years, before they will be able to build up any kind of financial base, with which to fight from.
I do not have anything against people who send money to the NRA. It's your money do what you will. I would only advise that you are throwing it away. As to the other point about the NRA being the only thing stopping Gun control, hmmmm let's see, 20,000 and counting. Now what what was it they are doing again??? Rather than let the NRA plea bargain away my rights so slowly that the average person doesn't know or doesn't want to know it's happening, I would rather, at this point, just let them blatently try to take them in plain and simple terms. You know the addage about the frog and the boiling water? It works on sheeple too.
There is no possible way to ever know how much worse of a situation we gun people would be in if not for the NRA all these years. I refuse to believe that the NRA has not done a lot more good than bad.
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
There is no possible way to ever know how much worse of a situation we gun people would be in if not for the NRA all these years. I refuse to believe that the NRA has not done a lot more good than bad.
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
I can agree with that...that up to a while ago the NRA DID a lot more good than harm.......DID being the key word here.As I have said all along,I would be back with them pounding the drum myself...if it would do any good.Right now I do not believe that it is and frankly I think money could be better spent elsewhere.That said I also agree that it is a free country(or is supposed to be)and that you can put your money wherever you see fit. Think on this fox,some of the biggest vote for me areas are who?The minorities,the folks moving in,etc.etc.do we have their votes?If not,why not?Because the poloticians promise them things,like jobs,welfare,training,whatever....how do we compete with that I wonder?
quote:Originally posted by mpolans
[Art. I, sec. 8, cl.1: "The Congress shall have Power TO lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
What is meant by providing for the general Welfare? What can Congress NOT do when trying to provide for the general welfare?
The "general welfare" is not so general/ THe General welfare are those powers that are enumerated in article 1, section 8.Basically, the preamble to article one section 8 is saying; In order to pay for the "general" powers listed in this constitution, congress has the authority to raise taxes to pay for the execution of those enumerated powers. Liberals would have you believe that congress can do whatever it wants, if it is for the "genral welfare" of the country. "general" refers to the powers of the federal government. It is not a trump card for the government to get around the boundaries that the constitution has set up against the federal government. Jefferson wrote a great letter to George Washington speaking on this very topic.
Art. I, sec. 8, cl.18: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
What is "necessary and proper?" Who determines this? What/who are the Departments and Officers referred to?
laws that are "necessary and proper" are laws that are necessary to execute the "foregoing" powers, and all other powers VESTED BY THIS CONSTITUTION.... What is "necessary and proper?" Laws that are designed to execute the Those powers enumerated in the constitution. Who determines this? THe people do
Art. I, sec.8, cl.6 says: "To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting..." is one of Congress' powers. If Congress passes a law deeming it necessary and proper to torture and kill counterfeiters, who determines if this conflicts with the 8th Amendment Cruel and Unusual punishment clause? If there is a conflict, what happens?
Once again the people decide through their elected representation what is "cruel and unusual". If the people decide that it is appropriate punishment for counterfeiters, then it is appropriate. To make the argument that the "death penalty" is unconstitutional, because it is "cruel and unusual" is absured, especially considering the fact that the death penalty is recognized in the constitution(5th amendment)
Does the Constitution still seem crystal clear? Some of these actually have some fairly easy answers, but they all involve some level of decision-making where disagreements may arise. Who is to be the ultimate decision-maker if not the Supreme Court?The majority is to be the ultimate decision maker, at least that is whAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. bETTER THE MAJORITY, THEN A FEW UNELECTED, unaccountable judges.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
quote:Originally posted by mpolans
[ you must understand that, read in a vacuum, it and much of the rest of the Constitution isn't exactly the clearest written document of all time. Personally, I think some of this was an intentional effort to come up with a document ASAP that was fairly workable in order to form a badly needed effective government...get the gist of it down, and hammer out the details later via the amendment process.
Interesting theory-but completely lacking any historical basis. The ratifiers of the constitution did not just bang out a constitution ASAP that was "fairly workable. It was necessary to write a document that was very specific as to what the function of the general government would be. THis was necessary, because the states demanded it. The states had just shaken off a ruler, and they were not about to set up a government that they would have to be subservient to. The constitution was not unanimously approved of, nor was it viewed by many as being necessary. The idea of a constitution had to be solt to the states. The founders had to come up with a document thAT THE STATES WOULD ACCEPT-this was not an easy task, because the states were fearful of another overbearing government. The writers came up with a document that placed great limitations on the federal government-tey had to, or the states would not have ratified. I am not sure if it was Hamilton or Madison who said this quote(paraphrased) "THE POWERS OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT ARE FEW AND DEFINED, RESTING PRIMARILY ON TRADE AND DEFENSE, WHILE THE POWERS OF THE STATES ARE INFINITE". Even with all of this, the constituion was BARELY ratified by most of the state governments. A good read on the ratification process is ELLIOTS DEBATES. The states were not about to ratify a constituion that was ambigious or rushed through, because they were suspicious of the idea of a general government to begin with. They insisted on a document that spelled out SPECIFICALLY what the powers of the general government would be-and our constitution does just that
Some believe the Constitution should be taken at its exact word according to those definitions existing at the time it was written. Justice Scalia believes this and even wrote a pretty good book on it, IIRC called "On Constitutional Interpretation".The name of the book is actually A MATTER OF INTERPETATION-and if you actually read it, you will realize that Scalias interpetation is not as you describe.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
BTW, I thought many of the founding fathers were attorneys or had a very good understanding of the law. Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, John Adams, George Whythe, among others, were all lawyers.
[
And many werent-James Madison being the most obvious.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
quote:Originally posted by mpolans
[And since you don't believe in the concept of judicial review, whenever a question of interpretation of the constitution comes up WHO should decide what the correct interpretation should be? A national referendum for ever court case raising a question of constitutional interpretation? Besides being patently, unconstitutional, that seems like a *great* idea. [V] How about having to pass an amendment or redrafting and reratifying the constitution whenever a question of constitutional interpretation comes up? That sounds like another winner to me. [xx(]
L
The constitution places in the hands of the people, via congress the ultimate authority as to whether something is or is not constitutional. A national referendum is nonsense, and is not necessary. The question, is whether or not thepeople choose to exercise the authority-they usually do not. Nothing in the constitution, places in the hands of the judiciary the power to be THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY as to whether something is or is not constitutional. The other branches of government have as much authority to decide whether or not something is or is not constitutional-a power that the other branches did indeed exercise in the past.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Damn good posts Salzo. Man, it is just amazing how much a man can learn by just keeping his mouth (or in this case keyboard) shut and reading. Thanks Salzo!!
Salzo, you write that you believe CONGRESS (as the elected reps of the people) is the ultimate authority as to whether something is or is not constitutional. This would make Congress similar to Parliament in the UK, where Parliament is supreme.
But this cannot be true, for if *you* truly believe this, *you* would have absolutely no reason to complain about the unconstitutionality of any federal law on the books, after all, since it was passed by Congress and signed by the President (elected by reps of the people), it must be constitutional (to you)! This would also vitiate most of your rebuttals above, since if you believe "Congress is the ultimate authority as to whether something is or is not constitutional," then in effect, Congress can NEVER pass an un-Constitutional law. Thus, anything could be "for the general welfare" or "necessary and proper" to carry out the enumerated powers, so long as Congress deems it so.
Your statement would demote the Constitution to being on par with any other law passed by Congress.
Clearly you misspoke, right?
BTW - the counterfeiting/death penalty hypo went to the question of proportionality...punishment fitting the crime, not the constitutionality of the death penalty itself. Unless you also believe that we should draw and quarter kids who jaywalk.
quote:Originally posted by salzo
The constitution places in the hands of the people, via congress the ultimate authority as to whether something is or is not constitutional. A national referendum is nonsense, and is not necessary. The question, is whether or not thepeople choose to exercise the authority-they usually do not. Nothing in the constitution, places in the hands of the judiciary the power to be THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY as to whether something is or is not constitutional. The other branches of government have as much authority to decide whether or not something is or is not constitutional-a power that the other branches did indeed exercise in the past.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
quote:Originally posted by mpolans
Salzo, you write that you believe CONGRESS (as the elected reps of the people) is the ultimate authority as to whether something is or is not constitutional. This would make Congress similar to Parliament in the UK, where Parliament is supreme.
But this cannot be true, for if *you* truly believe this, *you* would have absolutely no reason to complain about the unconstitutionality of any federal law on the books, after all, since it was passed by Congress and signed by the President (elected by reps of the people), it must be constitutional (to you)! This would also vitiate most of your rebuttals above, since if you believe "Congress is the ultimate authority as to whether something is or is not constitutional," then in effect, Congress can NEVER pass an un-Constitutional law. Thus, anything could be "for the general welfare" or "necessary and proper" to carry out the enumerated powers, so long as Congress deems it so.
Your statement would demote the Constitution to being on par with any other law passed by Congress.
Clearly you misspoke, right?
BTW - the counterfeiting/death penalty hypo went to the question of proportionality...punishment fitting the crime, not the constitutionality of the death penalty itself. Unless you also believe that we should draw and quarter kids who jaywalk.
quote:Originally posted by salzo
The constitution places in the hands of the people, via congress the ultimate authority as to whether something is or is not constitutional. A national referendum is nonsense, and is not necessary. The question, is whether or not thepeople choose to exercise the authority-they usually do not. Nothing in the constitution, places in the hands of the judiciary the power to be THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY as to whether something is or is not constitutional. The other branches of government have as much authority to decide whether or not something is or is not constitutional-a power that the other branches did indeed exercise in the past.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
The way that I understood it,the one branch would make the law...and then the Judicial branch would"enforce"it or not ...depending on its Constitutionality of course.So as to the question posed to me earlier....about Judicial review....yes,But they were NEVER meant to write the law.They could actually disagree based on the Constitution,Yes? When was the last tim ethat they did so? Are you telling me that everthing written of late is always in line with the Constitution?
quote:Originally posted by mpolans
Salzo, you write that you believe CONGRESS (as the elected reps of the people) is the ultimate authority as to whether something is or is not constitutional. This would make Congress similar to Parliament in the UK, where Parliament is supreme.
But this cannot be true, for if *you* truly believe this, *you* would have absolutely no reason to complain about the unconstitutionality of any federal law on the books, after all, since it was passed by Congress and signed by the President (elected by reps of the people), it must be constitutional (to you)! This would also vitiate most of your rebuttals above, since if you believe "Congress is the ultimate authority as to whether something is or is not constitutional," then in effect, Congress can NEVER pass an un-Constitutional law.
Mpolans- Congress is the ultimate authority, but I can complain when congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, and I can complain before they pass a law that it is unconstitutional. Congress can, and does pass unconstitutional laws all of the time. The reason they can do this, is because the ultimate check in the checks and balance scheme, the people, allow congress to pass laws that are unconstitutional.
You, like many seem to be of the opinion that if the government says it is constitutional,whether it is the courts, congress, or the president, then it is constitutional. If the constitution says "the people can not wear blue hats", but congress passes a law that says the people can wear blue hats, does that mean that wearing blue hats is constitutional? NO, it is still unconstitutional, notwithstanding the fact that the law was passed. If the people decide to voice their objection to the blue hat law, on the grounds that the blue hat law is unconstitutional, and the majority views the law as unconstitutional, then congress will not pass the law. But if the people dont care one way or the other about the blue hat law, then congress WILL pass the law, even though the law is unconstitutional.
I admit it is not perfect, but it is the best system, because the people have a say in the actions of the government. When the courts are the ultimate authority, the courts can do whatever they wish, because they are the least accountable to the people. Do you really believe, that the founders would set up a representative government, only to have their wishes overturned by the branch of government that is least accountable to the people? Our system is a system of accountability. The government is accountable to the people. If the people do not like what their representation is doing, then the people can exercise their authority over the government and vote those representatives out of office. If the courts assume the role of legislature, then the people have virtually no recourse, and government is no longer accountable to the people.
What do you think of the recent CFR ruling? COngress passed a law abridging the freedom of speech. The president signed the law abridging the freedom of speech. The Supreme court upheld the law abridging the freedom of speech. The constitution says that "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech". Is the law unconstitutional? Well if the constitution says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, but congress passes a law doing just that, and the president signs, and the supreme court upholds, that law is still unconstitutional, because the constitution says the government cant do that. Even though all the branches said the law was OK, the law is still unconstitutional, because the CONSTITUTION says so.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
quote:Originally posted by salzo
Mpolans- Congress is the ultimate authority, but I can complain when congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, and I can complain before they pass a law that it is unconstitutional. Congress can, and does pass unconstitutional laws all of the time. The reason they can do this, is because the ultimate check in the checks and balance scheme, the people, allow congress to pass laws that are unconstitutional.
You say the Founding Fathers intended the people to be the ultimate check and that their will is to be exercised by a Congress that can violate the Constitution at its discretion, yet you don't believe that Supreme Court Justices, who are nominated by an elected president and confirmed by an elected senate, and who are subject to impeachment by an elected house of representatives have any "check?" On one hand, it seems as if you try to reason that Congress should have all the power because they're directly elected by the people, yet if we look at our history, much of it illustrates that the founding fathers did not intend for the people to have as much direct input into the leadership of our country as you presume. This is most clearly pointed out by the fact that originally, senators were not popularly elected, and by the fact that the president is not popularly elected (instead, we have the electoral college system). Thus, originally, only 1/6 of our government was supposed to have been directly elected by the people. How to reconcile this with your fervent insistence that Congress should be the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution and its interpretation because it's "elected by the people?"
You, like many seem to be of the opinion that if the government says it is constitutional,whether it is the courts, congress, or the president, then it is constitutional.
Regardless of what I (or you) believe, if the Supreme Court (NOT congress or the president) says it is constitutional, then under the laws as they exist and are enforced currently in the real world (since Marbury v. Madison), they ARE constitutional. Discussing some hypothetical fictional utopian society where this is not the case is absurd.
If the constitution says "the people can not wear blue hats", but congress passes a law that says the people can wear blue hats, does that mean that wearing blue hats is constitutional? NO, it is still unconstitutional, notwithstanding the fact that the law was passed. If the people decide to voice their objection to the blue hat law, on the grounds that the blue hat law is unconstitutional, and the majority views the law as unconstitutional, then congress will not pass the law. But if the people dont care one way or the other about the blue hat law, then congress WILL pass the law, even though the law is unconstitutional.
I admit it is not perfect, but it is the best system, because the people have a say in the actions of the government. When the courts are the ultimate authority, the courts can do whatever they wish, because they are the least accountable to the people. Do you really believe, that the founders would set up a representative government, only to have their wishes overturned by the branch of government that is least accountable to the people? Our system is a system of accountability. The government is accountable to the people.
As I pointed out before, the founding fathers set up a government that was accountable to the people, but not nearly as directly accountable as you seem to believe.
If the people do not like what their representation is doing, then the people can exercise their authority over the government and vote those representatives out of office. If the courts assume the role of legislature, then the people have virtually no recourse, and government is no longer accountable to the people.
The court is not supposed to assume the role of the legislature, even under the concept of judicial reivew. The Court is supposed to say a law is constitutional or unconstitutional, but is not supposed to reform the law or propose new language. Sure, not all judges follow this (the judicial activists like Brennan, et al do not), but as you have said before, it's not a perfect system.
What do you think of the recent CFR ruling? COngress passed a law abridging the freedom of speech. The president signed the law abridging the freedom of speech. The Supreme court upheld the law abridging the freedom of speech. The constitution says that "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech". Is the law unconstitutional? Well if the constitution says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, but congress passes a law doing just that, and the president signs, and the supreme court upholds, that law is still unconstitutional, because the constitution says the government cant do that. Even though all the branches said the law was OK, the law is still unconstitutional, because the CONSTITUTION says so.
*I* believe that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. But I also recognize that my personal opinion does not determine whether a law is constitutional any more than a supporter of McCain-Feingold's does. It is constitutional (for the time being) because the Supreme Court has ruled that it is, and thus, it will be enforced.
Because I believe the Constitution was meant to be a higher law than mere legislation passed by Congress (part of that supreme law of the land thing), we're going to have to agree to disagree. I cannot agree with the idea that the Constitution should be dragged down to a level on par with the US Code.
quote:Originally posted by mpolans
My comments in blue.
quote:Originally posted by salzo
Mpolans- Congress is the ultimate authority, but I can complain when congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, and I can complain before they pass a law that it is unconstitutional. Congress can, and does pass unconstitutional laws all of the time. The reason they can do this, is because the ultimate check in the checks and balance scheme, the people, allow congress to pass laws that are unconstitutional.
You say the Founding Fathers intended the people to be the ultimate check and that their will is to be exercised by a Congress that can violate the Constitution at its discretion, yet you don't believe that Supreme Court Justices, who are nominated by an elected president and confirmed by an elected senate, and who are subject to impeachment by an elected house of representatives have any "check?"
nominations of judges is in no way a "check" on the judiciary. Using your logic, the only check the people have on the judiciary is the nomination process. Once nominated, again using your logic, they are free to do whatever they want. And you call that a check?? A real "check" , would have to be something that checks the existing judiciary-not a potential judiciary. I am suprised that you mentioned the impeachment "check"-most lawyers and lawyer wannabes dont even mention that check-they tend to think that the judiciary checks everyone, and no one checks the judiciary. The most important check on the judiciary, is in article 3 section 2 "...in all the other cases before mentioned,the Supreme court shall have APPELLATE jurisdiction, both to law and fact, WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS, AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE." Seems pretty clear to me, that the constitution places in the hands of CONGRESS the ultimate authority as to whether something is, or is not constitutional.
On one hand, it seems as if you try to reason that Congress should have all the power because they're directly elected by the people
I did not say that. I said they should have the most power.And they have the final word. Congress, then the president(who incidentally, is the only branch that is required to defend the constitution. So if Congress passes something that the executive believs is unconstitutional, he is required by the constitution to veto that law-which makes sense, since he is accountable to the people, unlike the oligarchy wannabe known as the Judiciary),
yet if we look at our history, much of it illustrates that the founding fathers did not intend for the people to have as much direct input into the leadership of our country as you presume.You are assuming what I am presuming
This is most clearly pointed out by the fact that originally, senators were not popularly elected, and by the fact that the president is not popularly elected (instead, we have the electoral college system). Thus, originally, only 1/6 of our government was supposed to have been directly elected by the people.
Again, as I have stated earlier, those branches are most accountable to the people. Who appointed Senators? The state legislatures did. And who elected members of the state legislature? The people. Who appoints the electoral college? The state legislatures. And who elects the state legislatures? The people do.Your 1/6th arithmetic is hogwash.
How to reconcile this with your fervent insistence that Congress should be the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution and its interpretation because it's "elected by the people?"
My "fervent insistence that congress should be the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution and its interpetation because its "ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE".??????? I scanned my previous posts, and not once did I use the phrase "elected by the people", yet you throw it up in there as a quote to illustrate my "fervent insistence". I did not say Congress should be the ultimate arbiter as to whether or not something is constitutional because they are "elected by the people"- I said that Congress is and should be the branch because they are most accountable to the people
You, like many seem to be of the opinion that if the government says it is constitutional,whether it is the courts, congress, or the president, then it is constitutional.
Regardless of what I (or you) believe, if the Supreme Court (NOT congress or the president) says it is constitutional, then under the laws as they exist and are enforced currently in the real world (since Marbury v. Madison), they ARE constitutional. Discussing some hypothetical fictional utopian society where this is not the case is absurd.
NOt true. Ever hear of the Dred Scott decision? What did congress and the president do with that supreme court ruling? They wiped their backsides with it. That is one of many court rulings that were disposed of.
If the constitution says "the people can not wear blue hats", but congress passes a law that says the people can wear blue hats, does that mean that wearing blue hats is constitutional? NO, it is still unconstitutional, notwithstanding the fact that the law was passed. If the people decide to voice their objection to the blue hat law, on the grounds that the blue hat law is unconstitutional, and the majority views the law as unconstitutional, then congress will not pass the law. But if the people dont care one way or the other about the blue hat law, then congress WILL pass the law, even though the law is unconstitutional.
I admit it is not perfect, but it is the best system, because the people have a say in the actions of the government. When the courts are the ultimate authority, the courts can do whatever they wish, because they are the least accountable to the people. Do you really believe, that the founders would set up a representative government, only to have their wishes overturned by the branch of government that is least accountable to the people? Our system is a system of accountability. The government is accountable to the people.
As I pointed out before, the founding fathers set up a government that was accountable to the people, but not nearly as directly accountable as you seem to believe.
You are not paying attention. See above
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
quote:P.S. JPWolff: You may get your wish about the NRA because I read in the paper that it is 100 million in debt. But if the NRA goes down I think you and everyone will regret it. I heartily agree that the NRA is far from perfect and makes mistakes. But losing it will hurt the pro-gun, pro-constitutional rights groups and people like me. The very existance of the NRA to me has seemed like for over 100 years there has been an NRA "lion" constantly circling the "village" of anti-gun people, groups and legislators as a reminder that they have to be careful in what they do regarding the destruction of our gun rights. As just one tiny tidbit of a reason as to why the NRA should continue to exist is because it is the ONLY progun group I know of that is recognized WORLDWIDE. That automatically makes it easier for the NRA to get the attention and respect that is needed to effectively fight for gun rights. And there are numerous other reasons why the NRA has something of value to us that the other groups don't have.
Disagree Fox, it is our responsibility to circle the village. When we get lazy and leave it up to someone else, is when we can be sold out and have the rug pulled out from under us. It is the same thing as getting your info, for example, from media hacks like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. When it comes to getting the real truth, it is ultimately a personal responsibility, otherwise, you will get lied to. It is too easy, for a group, to carry out an agenda contrary to the welfare of the people, if everyone let's you. Trust is much more common than it should be nowadays because it is undeserved most of the time. People are much too lazy to follow it to the next step of "verify". You can be certain that truth is as rare as hen's teeth nowadays too. Even when it is easy for people to verify, they won't because reality does not paint a very pretty picture. Basically people want to remain ignorant because it is easier. It is displayed by millions every day.
Thanks for bringing this back. That is awesome, if for nothing more than it's historical/comparative value, of the last 4 years. It's from before I started here and I read every post, I particularly enjoyed the Constitutional debate. I do have a couple of questions. Who bailed the NRA out of a $100 Million dollar deficit in such a short time frame/are they still in debt? And, if not in debt, could that be a reflection on/of their current course, political ties, leadership and lobby efforts? Could this be a reflection of how debt is/can be used to corrupt an otherwise good organization?
quote:Could this be a reflection of how debt is/can be used to corrupt an otherwise good organization?
They were corrupt long before this. As far as the debt being fact, I don't know. I never heard about it then other than fox bringing it up, and never heard anything about it again after that.
It was a very good discussion, that's why I brought it back.
On 10/18/2003 TR Fox said:
quote:JPWolf: it is interesting that you mention this today as after I got another GOA newsletter in the mail today I started thinking about how effecttive the NRA is compared to the GOA. You may have gotten the same newsletter and believe me there was some good, straight to the point, logical, effective and reasonable thoughts and ideas expressed by GOA. GOA did this in a small newsletter of only a few pages whereas an entire NRA magazine might not do as well. I have been a long time supporter and member of the NRA as has my 21 yearold daughter, my wife and even my 10 month old grandson has a membership. We all have recently donated time, money and physical effort to the local Friends of the NRA because it is a non-profit organization that spends the money it raises to promote gun rights, useage and safety with the Boy Scouts, 4H, etc. I believe in this because if we don't find a way to create more shooters we as a group are going to die out.
So I am saying I have lost a lot of faith in the NRA recently and I continue to support GOA and I frankly do not know what to do about my relationship with the NRA.
My jaw dropped when I read this quote from TR Fox, then I saw it was from 4 years ago. Any comment from today's TR Fox?
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
As far as the debt being fact, I don't know. I never heard about it then other than fox bringing it up, and never heard anything about it again after that.
It was reported by several sources back then.
Here is one of them.
Tr was a rabid NRA supporter when he first started posting about it.
After reading and educating himself, he started to moderate his stance.
After being absent for awhile, he came back as the rabid NRA supporter you see today.
Somehow, he got re-inoculated with 'the NRA is wonderful'.
Always he has supported government controls on firearms and which citizens may exercise basic Rights.
I graduated from H.S. in 1960. Government class was a required course. We were taught that the framers of the Constitution created the first ten ammendments to the Constitution to ensure that there was no misunderstanding what the Constitution meant to the individual. The first ten ammendments were refered to as the "Bill of Rights" I have never talked to a Veteran who believed otherwise. Maybe it will be time to recreate our Govt. Maybe we will have to pay the price again.
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
On 10/18/2003 TR Fox said:
quote:JPWolf: it is interesting that you mention this today as after I got another GOA newsletter in the mail today I started thinking about how effecttive the NRA is compared to the GOA. You may have gotten the same newsletter and believe me there was some good, straight to the point, logical, effective and reasonable thoughts and ideas expressed by GOA. GOA did this in a small newsletter of only a few pages whereas an entire NRA magazine might not do as well. I have been a long time supporter and member of the NRA as has my 21 yearold daughter, my wife and even my 10 month old grandson has a membership. We all have recently donated time, money and physical effort to the local Friends of the NRA because it is a non-profit organization that spends the money it raises to promote gun rights, useage and safety with the Boy Scouts, 4H, etc. I believe in this because if we don't find a way to create more shooters we as a group are going to die out.
So I am saying I have lost a lot of faith in the NRA recently and I continue to support GOA and I frankly do not know what to do about my relationship with the NRA.
My jaw dropped when I read this quote from TR Fox, then I saw it was from 4 years ago. Any comment from today's TR Fox?
Short and to the point. No pro-gun organization by itself can do much harm to our gun rights because they don't "own" our rights. So if an organization claims to want to help, and seems to help even a little, let them do what good they can. In the meantime, support any and all pro-gun groups that are at least trying to help.
It appears impossible for pro-gunners to construct another pro-gun organization as large, as powerful and as well known as the NRA. Rather than work towards the NRA's demise, it would be far better for everyone to "move in" to the NRA house and remodel it. Cause once and if you tear it down, you will never, ever be able to build sometime comparable.
Comments
quote:Originally posted by IAMAHUSKER
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Seems damn clear to me. Oh wait, I know what you will say next. You will argue that a militia is actually the National Guard. Wrong!!
In 1792 the federal Uniform Militia Law was created and required all able-bodied free white men ages 16 to 45 to arm themselves to defend their communities.
Their are a lot of supporting documents that most people do not get to see or don't even know exist.
The very fact that you suggest that words of the Constitution can be manipulated contradicts your assertion that the Constitution is crystal clear." If it was, no manipulation could occur.
Example:
"According to Hartsfield Airport, right now it is 80 degrees outside in Atlanta, GA, sunny, with not a cloud in sight." *not likely to be subject to manipulation because it is pretty clear.*
"The weather in Atlanta is great." *not crystal clear, manipulation is more likely, because there is a lot of ambiguity in the phrase. "Great" is a subjective word; what's "great" mean?, what state (there's an Atlanta, TX too!), when?, etc.*
Finally, you go off on a rant against Brown v. Board of Education I. What's your big beef with Brown v. Board of Education I?
1. This is a nice gun.
2. The Colt 1911 design by John Browning has been used to win more handgun competitions, ranging from NRA Bullseye matches to IPSC tournaments than any other semi-auto designed in the last 90 years.
Which is provides a more clearly understandable statement? Which provides the reader with a greater level of understanding? Which results in the reader asking fewer questions?
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
In those places, where the constitution seems ambiguous to those of us living here in these modern times, it's as simple as going back, doing a little research, and you will have the answer you were looking for. The founders recorded their debates, their reasons, and their MINDS, for us to clarify any questions we might have later. Most every question has already been answered, and ruled on, but it seems lately, those ideas are not a "good fit" for some minority agenda's. Now that the judiary is largely controled by lef thinking idiots, we can re-interperate and re-write history by ignoring precedent, and "make" it a better fit, an unconstitutional "fit", but a better fit for their agenda which has nothing to do with the majority, or the "general welfare" of the nation.
longhunter, you rant and flag-wave for a bit, then you digress into a complaint about a lack of representation, none of which has to do with constitutional interpretation or judicial review. You do acknowledge judicial review exists, but that it is "a lie." However, you propose no alternative mechanism. Then, you suggest that the Supreme Court IS supposed to review decisions, but "not MAKE law." To a point, I agree in that the Court should not render judgments that go beyond the scope of the question asked, but the whole duty of the Court to review decisions IS JUDICIAL REVIEW. So do you or do you not like judicial review?
The very fact that you suggest that words of the Constitution can be manipulated contradicts your assertion that the Constitution is crystal clear." If it was, no manipulation could occur.
Example:
"According to Hartsfield Airport, right now it is 80 degrees outside in Atlanta, GA, sunny, with not a cloud in sight." *not likely to be subject to manipulation because it is pretty clear.*
"The weather in Atlanta is great." *not crystal clear, manipulation is more likely, because there is a lot of ambiguity in the phrase. "Great" is a subjective word; what's "great" mean?, what state (there's an Atlanta, TX too!), when?, etc.*
Finally, you go off on a rant against Brown v. Board of Education I. What's your big beef with Brown v. Board of Education I?
Well for you I hope it has become clear that I am No "law" student.Rather I am a VERY CONCERNED citizen of OUR country.If I rant it is because it is a VERY emotional issue with me.
When we go back in time and we were the "Kings" subjects,the "common" folks over here were upset because as colonists they had no representation ,I am sure that we agree upon that at least. So the revolution was against the lack of representation,the tyranny etc. and it had gone to the point of NO return.
What I am attempting to get across here (and seemingly failing)is the fact that without representation just how is ANY of the 3 branches the way it Was INTENDED by the founders?
I do still believe the process to be a lie.BECAUSE it is a sham of what is SUPPOSED to be. It would be difficult I guess for someone whom has not been working at the poverty level or below to understand what that may be like.To work everyday and not feel representation in ANY way.No I do not refer to the welfare,stamps etc.But I do believe that the welfare system,or should I say the recepiants thereof are by and large folks that have given up.Why try to fight?For what purpose?When you believe that the "elite"run the country,the courts and all that goes with them why bother?Its not like its gonna make a difference...The elite still can outspend,use the media,in a basic sense Do their will,so what is the point,might as well let them and We'll just take all we can get from the B******s!
I have heard this again and again and again in the trenches,the streets of our own great country.
As so far as Manipulating the CONSTITUTION.
I do not believe that it SHOULD be,nor that it was intended to be.I believe that the assumption was made that the people would remain Patriotic,and would stand WITH the Constitution.I have seen good attorney's manipulate all sorts of things that were not intended to be,an attorney is TRAINED to be a Professional manipulator is he not? And a s my defense consul I guess that I would haop he would be.That is a FAR cry from being a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE however.
If I missed something I apologize...I tried this time...But Councelor,Back off and try talking like a citizen,a common folk if you can get that low.I believe that would be easier understood.This is not a courtroom,. Now I was going to delete that last as I had decided that I was being insulting....I was not trying to be.I value your contribution and the debate that it has sparked here.I think it is healthy and hopefully we are all getting something out of all this.
I don't know as much and am probably not as smart as a lot of people who have posted on this topic. And what I will now say is only one among many ways to look at this sitution. But I feel something is wrong when so many, many words have to be used here to explain or object to the written constitution of the USA. It confounds me that more words (thousands of more words by the way) have to be used to debate some of the short sentences and paragraphs in the US Constitution than there are are words in the partticular part of the constitution being debated. I have always thought of state and the US consttution as being kind of like a "rule book" covering the "play" of the rights of citizens and the powers and duties of government.
In my mind the US Govt. is kind of like a train out of control and headed to a collision on the wrong track. But many citizens ignore this and the ones who talk about it apparently have to complicate the different issues (me included) to where there never seems to be an answer, just more debate. Is there no final answer?
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
Don't short change yourself fox.You bring tons to the table and I thank you!You are right,It should'nt take what it does to debate the constitution,I believe the rulebook thing also.I am afraid of the final answer...I do think it ALL comes back to education,or the lack of it.About the Constitution,about the roles that the branches are supposed to play,and what their duties and OURS as citizens are supposed to be.
tr fox, sometimes fewer words don't result in a clearer/simpler understanding. Compare the following two sentences:
1. This is a nice gun.
2. The Colt 1911 design by John Browning has been used to win more handgun competitions, ranging from NRA Bullseye matches to IPSC tournaments than any other semi-auto designed in the last 90 years.
Which is provides a more clearly understandable statement? Which provides the reader with a greater level of understanding? Which results in the reader asking fewer questions?
Spoken like a Lawyer.....We as the framers do not and they did not all walk around with law degrees.Which of course is why attornies think they know so much more what the founders meant...no wait,you said you can't get inside their dead heads....caught myself on that one. Well .......hmmmmmm...Its evident to me at least that the framers were not Lawyers. But while I am here,
If we do not have representation ,again I ask you WHY doesn't that effect all phases of governement?
It's not ambiguous to LH because hhe is 224 years old.[:)]Just kidding LH.No, I think he is saying about the same thing as me. But the point is, if all of their writings are taken into consideration, it removes the ambiguity. Maybe they were trying to make the "final" document a "document", and not a book. But I guarantee you, they didn't want "this".
I agree........except on how old I am![;)]
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
BTW, I thought many of the founding fathers were attorneys or had a very good understanding of the law. Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, John Adams, George Whythe, among others, were all lawyers.
quote:Originally posted by longhunter
quote:Originally posted by mpolans
tr fox, sometimes fewer words don't result in a clearer/simpler understanding. Compare the following two sentences:
1. This is a nice gun.
2. The Colt 1911 design by John Browning has been used to win more handgun competitions, ranging from NRA Bullseye matches to IPSC tournaments than any other semi-auto designed in the last 90 years.
Which is provides a more clearly understandable statement? Which provides the reader with a greater level of understanding? Which results in the reader asking fewer questions?
Spoken like a Lawyer.....We as the framers do not and they did not all walk around with law degrees.Which of course is why attornies think they know so much more what the founders meant...no wait,you said you can't get inside their dead heads....caught myself on that one. Well .......hmmmmmm...Its evident to me at least that the framers were not Lawyers. But while I am here,
If we do not have representation ,again I ask you WHY doesn't that effect all phases of governement?
I am probably one of the biggest gun rights advocates out there. I'd like to own a couple of machine guns, although as of right now I'm not quite old enough to register one (just a few long years!). Hopefully one day I will own one. I think people should be allowed to own machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, handguns, pen guns, bazookas, etc. These all serve a defensive purpose, which is what the second amendment is all about.
If it was up to me, everybody who is not convicted of a violent crime would be encouraged to own a handgun or machinegun. Why? Let's look at the situation more closely. The antigun liberals say we should rely on the government for protection. The police show up on average about 8 minutes after you call them. This gives the attacker just enough time to rape your wife, shoot your family and escape without a trace. You need guns to protect yourself before the police arrive. This same government proved itself incompetent to prevent 4 seperate plane hijackings and the New York skyline is permanately changed because of this. We are once again on high terrorism risk. If the pilots or some of the passangers were armed, the terrorists would have died in the process of the attack, and thousands of people would still be alive. If everybody is a concealed carrier a terrorist that attacks out in the open has a high chance of getting shot. We are at war with an enemy that does not attack the government. We are at war with people who are prepared to die just to cause us suffering and death. If the terrorist targets are unarmed, we stand little chance of stopping them.
But anyway, back to the NRA. They should not be boycotted because they are the only ones with real power. With 4 Million+ members and a ton o' cash, they are necessary to fight the Gestapo, and in effect fight terrorism in general.
To sum up my claim in general, we need the NRA. They are the big guns in the war against gun control. Where would the GOA's or JPFO's targeted attacks be without the NRA to take the majority of the opposition? The NRA is the first line of defense, and the other die hard (but smaller) groups are the last line of defense. The NRA can protect us from laws like handgun control, where the dedicated gun groups can protect our true freedom of machine guns and semi auto rifles.
One more thing to keep in mind: the terrorists are ready to die to kill us. The only way they can fail is if somebody kills the terrorist before the terrorist can kill an american. If a terrorist takes 30 shots to the chest before he can kill an american, then he has failed. If he kills so much as one american, his mission is a success and he can die happy.
At any rate I got interested in the process and passed my exam to teach before they would let me(I wasn't old enough)By the time that I was old enough I was teaching in Maine AND New Hampshire. I am an avid pro safety course kind a guy. I had a friend that once got his course thru school....(can you imagine?).
I've not taught nor supported NRA in a while.I used to thump for them constantly,donated $to ILA and the whole bit.Used to give a years dues in friends names for Christmas etc. I guess this is my longwinded way of saying look,I WAS you,but as with the governement itself I am running out of patiance with an organization that I feel has lost sight.....AS far as the GOA.....I've never recieved ANYTHING from them chopping at the NRA.Just good informative bullitans with like to email/write to the folks that I need to.........
Just a point about your post, they do NOT have a ton of money anymore.
The NRA could become more effective next year, depending on who is elected onto the Board of Directors. Most of what they do, and how they do it, is decided by these people. The current board obviously needs to go. (or at least part of them) If you are a voting member, here is a link where there are some suggestions (with a link to biographies) close to the bottom. We need all the help we can get, in this fight against our rights. If we can get the NRA back on track, it would help. Of course it may take a few years, before they will be able to build up any kind of financial base, with which to fight from.
http://www.gunownersalliance.com/*-1.htm
The gene pool needs chlorine.
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
There is no possible way to ever know how much worse of a situation we gun people would be in if not for the NRA all these years. I refuse to believe that the NRA has not done a lot more good than bad.
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
I can agree with that...that up to a while ago the NRA DID a lot more good than harm.......DID being the key word here.As I have said all along,I would be back with them pounding the drum myself...if it would do any good.Right now I do not believe that it is and frankly I think money could be better spent elsewhere.That said I also agree that it is a free country(or is supposed to be)and that you can put your money wherever you see fit. Think on this fox,some of the biggest vote for me areas are who?The minorities,the folks moving in,etc.etc.do we have their votes?If not,why not?Because the poloticians promise them things,like jobs,welfare,training,whatever....how do we compete with that I wonder?
[Art. I, sec. 8, cl.1: "The Congress shall have Power TO lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
What is meant by providing for the general Welfare? What can Congress NOT do when trying to provide for the general welfare?
The "general welfare" is not so general/ THe General welfare are those powers that are enumerated in article 1, section 8.Basically, the preamble to article one section 8 is saying; In order to pay for the "general" powers listed in this constitution, congress has the authority to raise taxes to pay for the execution of those enumerated powers. Liberals would have you believe that congress can do whatever it wants, if it is for the "genral welfare" of the country. "general" refers to the powers of the federal government. It is not a trump card for the government to get around the boundaries that the constitution has set up against the federal government. Jefferson wrote a great letter to George Washington speaking on this very topic.
Art. I, sec. 8, cl.18: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
What is "necessary and proper?" Who determines this? What/who are the Departments and Officers referred to?
laws that are "necessary and proper" are laws that are necessary to execute the "foregoing" powers, and all other powers VESTED BY THIS CONSTITUTION.... What is "necessary and proper?" Laws that are designed to execute the Those powers enumerated in the constitution. Who determines this? THe people do
Art. I, sec.8, cl.6 says: "To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting..." is one of Congress' powers. If Congress passes a law deeming it necessary and proper to torture and kill counterfeiters, who determines if this conflicts with the 8th Amendment Cruel and Unusual punishment clause? If there is a conflict, what happens?
Once again the people decide through their elected representation what is "cruel and unusual". If the people decide that it is appropriate punishment for counterfeiters, then it is appropriate. To make the argument that the "death penalty" is unconstitutional, because it is "cruel and unusual" is absured, especially considering the fact that the death penalty is recognized in the constitution(5th amendment)
Does the Constitution still seem crystal clear? Some of these actually have some fairly easy answers, but they all involve some level of decision-making where disagreements may arise. Who is to be the ultimate decision-maker if not the Supreme Court?The majority is to be the ultimate decision maker, at least that is whAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. bETTER THE MAJORITY, THEN A FEW UNELECTED, unaccountable judges.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
[ you must understand that, read in a vacuum, it and much of the rest of the Constitution isn't exactly the clearest written document of all time. Personally, I think some of this was an intentional effort to come up with a document ASAP that was fairly workable in order to form a badly needed effective government...get the gist of it down, and hammer out the details later via the amendment process.
Interesting theory-but completely lacking any historical basis. The ratifiers of the constitution did not just bang out a constitution ASAP that was "fairly workable. It was necessary to write a document that was very specific as to what the function of the general government would be. THis was necessary, because the states demanded it. The states had just shaken off a ruler, and they were not about to set up a government that they would have to be subservient to. The constitution was not unanimously approved of, nor was it viewed by many as being necessary. The idea of a constitution had to be solt to the states. The founders had to come up with a document thAT THE STATES WOULD ACCEPT-this was not an easy task, because the states were fearful of another overbearing government. The writers came up with a document that placed great limitations on the federal government-tey had to, or the states would not have ratified. I am not sure if it was Hamilton or Madison who said this quote(paraphrased) "THE POWERS OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT ARE FEW AND DEFINED, RESTING PRIMARILY ON TRADE AND DEFENSE, WHILE THE POWERS OF THE STATES ARE INFINITE". Even with all of this, the constituion was BARELY ratified by most of the state governments. A good read on the ratification process is ELLIOTS DEBATES. The states were not about to ratify a constituion that was ambigious or rushed through, because they were suspicious of the idea of a general government to begin with. They insisted on a document that spelled out SPECIFICALLY what the powers of the general government would be-and our constitution does just that
Some believe the Constitution should be taken at its exact word according to those definitions existing at the time it was written. Justice Scalia believes this and even wrote a pretty good book on it, IIRC called "On Constitutional Interpretation".The name of the book is actually A MATTER OF INTERPETATION-and if you actually read it, you will realize that Scalias interpetation is not as you describe.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
BTW, I thought many of the founding fathers were attorneys or had a very good understanding of the law. Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, John Adams, George Whythe, among others, were all lawyers.
[
And many werent-James Madison being the most obvious.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
[And since you don't believe in the concept of judicial review, whenever a question of interpretation of the constitution comes up WHO should decide what the correct interpretation should be? A national referendum for ever court case raising a question of constitutional interpretation? Besides being patently, unconstitutional, that seems like a *great* idea. [V] How about having to pass an amendment or redrafting and reratifying the constitution whenever a question of constitutional interpretation comes up? That sounds like another winner to me. [xx(]
L
The constitution places in the hands of the people, via congress the ultimate authority as to whether something is or is not constitutional. A national referendum is nonsense, and is not necessary. The question, is whether or not thepeople choose to exercise the authority-they usually do not. Nothing in the constitution, places in the hands of the judiciary the power to be THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY as to whether something is or is not constitutional. The other branches of government have as much authority to decide whether or not something is or is not constitutional-a power that the other branches did indeed exercise in the past.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
But this cannot be true, for if *you* truly believe this, *you* would have absolutely no reason to complain about the unconstitutionality of any federal law on the books, after all, since it was passed by Congress and signed by the President (elected by reps of the people), it must be constitutional (to you)! This would also vitiate most of your rebuttals above, since if you believe "Congress is the ultimate authority as to whether something is or is not constitutional," then in effect, Congress can NEVER pass an un-Constitutional law. Thus, anything could be "for the general welfare" or "necessary and proper" to carry out the enumerated powers, so long as Congress deems it so.
Your statement would demote the Constitution to being on par with any other law passed by Congress.
Clearly you misspoke, right?
BTW - the counterfeiting/death penalty hypo went to the question of proportionality...punishment fitting the crime, not the constitutionality of the death penalty itself. Unless you also believe that we should draw and quarter kids who jaywalk.
quote:Originally posted by salzo
The constitution places in the hands of the people, via congress the ultimate authority as to whether something is or is not constitutional. A national referendum is nonsense, and is not necessary. The question, is whether or not thepeople choose to exercise the authority-they usually do not. Nothing in the constitution, places in the hands of the judiciary the power to be THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY as to whether something is or is not constitutional. The other branches of government have as much authority to decide whether or not something is or is not constitutional-a power that the other branches did indeed exercise in the past.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Salzo, you write that you believe CONGRESS (as the elected reps of the people) is the ultimate authority as to whether something is or is not constitutional. This would make Congress similar to Parliament in the UK, where Parliament is supreme.
But this cannot be true, for if *you* truly believe this, *you* would have absolutely no reason to complain about the unconstitutionality of any federal law on the books, after all, since it was passed by Congress and signed by the President (elected by reps of the people), it must be constitutional (to you)! This would also vitiate most of your rebuttals above, since if you believe "Congress is the ultimate authority as to whether something is or is not constitutional," then in effect, Congress can NEVER pass an un-Constitutional law. Thus, anything could be "for the general welfare" or "necessary and proper" to carry out the enumerated powers, so long as Congress deems it so.
Your statement would demote the Constitution to being on par with any other law passed by Congress.
Clearly you misspoke, right?
BTW - the counterfeiting/death penalty hypo went to the question of proportionality...punishment fitting the crime, not the constitutionality of the death penalty itself. Unless you also believe that we should draw and quarter kids who jaywalk.
quote:Originally posted by salzo
The constitution places in the hands of the people, via congress the ultimate authority as to whether something is or is not constitutional. A national referendum is nonsense, and is not necessary. The question, is whether or not thepeople choose to exercise the authority-they usually do not. Nothing in the constitution, places in the hands of the judiciary the power to be THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY as to whether something is or is not constitutional. The other branches of government have as much authority to decide whether or not something is or is not constitutional-a power that the other branches did indeed exercise in the past.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
The way that I understood it,the one branch would make the law...and then the Judicial branch would"enforce"it or not ...depending on its Constitutionality of course.So as to the question posed to me earlier....about Judicial review....yes,But they were NEVER meant to write the law.They could actually disagree based on the Constitution,Yes? When was the last tim ethat they did so? Are you telling me that everthing written of late is always in line with the Constitution?
Salzo, you write that you believe CONGRESS (as the elected reps of the people) is the ultimate authority as to whether something is or is not constitutional. This would make Congress similar to Parliament in the UK, where Parliament is supreme.
But this cannot be true, for if *you* truly believe this, *you* would have absolutely no reason to complain about the unconstitutionality of any federal law on the books, after all, since it was passed by Congress and signed by the President (elected by reps of the people), it must be constitutional (to you)! This would also vitiate most of your rebuttals above, since if you believe "Congress is the ultimate authority as to whether something is or is not constitutional," then in effect, Congress can NEVER pass an un-Constitutional law.
Mpolans- Congress is the ultimate authority, but I can complain when congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, and I can complain before they pass a law that it is unconstitutional. Congress can, and does pass unconstitutional laws all of the time. The reason they can do this, is because the ultimate check in the checks and balance scheme, the people, allow congress to pass laws that are unconstitutional.
You, like many seem to be of the opinion that if the government says it is constitutional,whether it is the courts, congress, or the president, then it is constitutional. If the constitution says "the people can not wear blue hats", but congress passes a law that says the people can wear blue hats, does that mean that wearing blue hats is constitutional? NO, it is still unconstitutional, notwithstanding the fact that the law was passed. If the people decide to voice their objection to the blue hat law, on the grounds that the blue hat law is unconstitutional, and the majority views the law as unconstitutional, then congress will not pass the law. But if the people dont care one way or the other about the blue hat law, then congress WILL pass the law, even though the law is unconstitutional.
I admit it is not perfect, but it is the best system, because the people have a say in the actions of the government. When the courts are the ultimate authority, the courts can do whatever they wish, because they are the least accountable to the people. Do you really believe, that the founders would set up a representative government, only to have their wishes overturned by the branch of government that is least accountable to the people? Our system is a system of accountability. The government is accountable to the people. If the people do not like what their representation is doing, then the people can exercise their authority over the government and vote those representatives out of office. If the courts assume the role of legislature, then the people have virtually no recourse, and government is no longer accountable to the people.
What do you think of the recent CFR ruling? COngress passed a law abridging the freedom of speech. The president signed the law abridging the freedom of speech. The Supreme court upheld the law abridging the freedom of speech. The constitution says that "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech". Is the law unconstitutional? Well if the constitution says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, but congress passes a law doing just that, and the president signs, and the supreme court upholds, that law is still unconstitutional, because the constitution says the government cant do that. Even though all the branches said the law was OK, the law is still unconstitutional, because the CONSTITUTION says so.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
quote:Originally posted by salzo
Mpolans- Congress is the ultimate authority, but I can complain when congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, and I can complain before they pass a law that it is unconstitutional. Congress can, and does pass unconstitutional laws all of the time. The reason they can do this, is because the ultimate check in the checks and balance scheme, the people, allow congress to pass laws that are unconstitutional.
You say the Founding Fathers intended the people to be the ultimate check and that their will is to be exercised by a Congress that can violate the Constitution at its discretion, yet you don't believe that Supreme Court Justices, who are nominated by an elected president and confirmed by an elected senate, and who are subject to impeachment by an elected house of representatives have any "check?" On one hand, it seems as if you try to reason that Congress should have all the power because they're directly elected by the people, yet if we look at our history, much of it illustrates that the founding fathers did not intend for the people to have as much direct input into the leadership of our country as you presume. This is most clearly pointed out by the fact that originally, senators were not popularly elected, and by the fact that the president is not popularly elected (instead, we have the electoral college system). Thus, originally, only 1/6 of our government was supposed to have been directly elected by the people. How to reconcile this with your fervent insistence that Congress should be the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution and its interpretation because it's "elected by the people?"
You, like many seem to be of the opinion that if the government says it is constitutional,whether it is the courts, congress, or the president, then it is constitutional.
Regardless of what I (or you) believe, if the Supreme Court (NOT congress or the president) says it is constitutional, then under the laws as they exist and are enforced currently in the real world (since Marbury v. Madison), they ARE constitutional. Discussing some hypothetical fictional utopian society where this is not the case is absurd.
If the constitution says "the people can not wear blue hats", but congress passes a law that says the people can wear blue hats, does that mean that wearing blue hats is constitutional? NO, it is still unconstitutional, notwithstanding the fact that the law was passed. If the people decide to voice their objection to the blue hat law, on the grounds that the blue hat law is unconstitutional, and the majority views the law as unconstitutional, then congress will not pass the law. But if the people dont care one way or the other about the blue hat law, then congress WILL pass the law, even though the law is unconstitutional.
I admit it is not perfect, but it is the best system, because the people have a say in the actions of the government. When the courts are the ultimate authority, the courts can do whatever they wish, because they are the least accountable to the people. Do you really believe, that the founders would set up a representative government, only to have their wishes overturned by the branch of government that is least accountable to the people? Our system is a system of accountability. The government is accountable to the people.
As I pointed out before, the founding fathers set up a government that was accountable to the people, but not nearly as directly accountable as you seem to believe.
If the people do not like what their representation is doing, then the people can exercise their authority over the government and vote those representatives out of office. If the courts assume the role of legislature, then the people have virtually no recourse, and government is no longer accountable to the people.
The court is not supposed to assume the role of the legislature, even under the concept of judicial reivew. The Court is supposed to say a law is constitutional or unconstitutional, but is not supposed to reform the law or propose new language. Sure, not all judges follow this (the judicial activists like Brennan, et al do not), but as you have said before, it's not a perfect system.
What do you think of the recent CFR ruling? COngress passed a law abridging the freedom of speech. The president signed the law abridging the freedom of speech. The Supreme court upheld the law abridging the freedom of speech. The constitution says that "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech". Is the law unconstitutional? Well if the constitution says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, but congress passes a law doing just that, and the president signs, and the supreme court upholds, that law is still unconstitutional, because the constitution says the government cant do that. Even though all the branches said the law was OK, the law is still unconstitutional, because the CONSTITUTION says so.
*I* believe that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. But I also recognize that my personal opinion does not determine whether a law is constitutional any more than a supporter of McCain-Feingold's does. It is constitutional (for the time being) because the Supreme Court has ruled that it is, and thus, it will be enforced.
Because I believe the Constitution was meant to be a higher law than mere legislation passed by Congress (part of that supreme law of the land thing), we're going to have to agree to disagree. I cannot agree with the idea that the Constitution should be dragged down to a level on par with the US Code.
My comments in blue.
quote:Originally posted by salzo
Mpolans- Congress is the ultimate authority, but I can complain when congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, and I can complain before they pass a law that it is unconstitutional. Congress can, and does pass unconstitutional laws all of the time. The reason they can do this, is because the ultimate check in the checks and balance scheme, the people, allow congress to pass laws that are unconstitutional.
You say the Founding Fathers intended the people to be the ultimate check and that their will is to be exercised by a Congress that can violate the Constitution at its discretion, yet you don't believe that Supreme Court Justices, who are nominated by an elected president and confirmed by an elected senate, and who are subject to impeachment by an elected house of representatives have any "check?"
nominations of judges is in no way a "check" on the judiciary. Using your logic, the only check the people have on the judiciary is the nomination process. Once nominated, again using your logic, they are free to do whatever they want. And you call that a check?? A real "check" , would have to be something that checks the existing judiciary-not a potential judiciary. I am suprised that you mentioned the impeachment "check"-most lawyers and lawyer wannabes dont even mention that check-they tend to think that the judiciary checks everyone, and no one checks the judiciary. The most important check on the judiciary, is in article 3 section 2 "...in all the other cases before mentioned,the Supreme court shall have APPELLATE jurisdiction, both to law and fact, WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS, AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE." Seems pretty clear to me, that the constitution places in the hands of CONGRESS the ultimate authority as to whether something is, or is not constitutional.
On one hand, it seems as if you try to reason that Congress should have all the power because they're directly elected by the people
I did not say that. I said they should have the most power.And they have the final word. Congress, then the president(who incidentally, is the only branch that is required to defend the constitution. So if Congress passes something that the executive believs is unconstitutional, he is required by the constitution to veto that law-which makes sense, since he is accountable to the people, unlike the oligarchy wannabe known as the Judiciary),
yet if we look at our history, much of it illustrates that the founding fathers did not intend for the people to have as much direct input into the leadership of our country as you presume.You are assuming what I am presuming
This is most clearly pointed out by the fact that originally, senators were not popularly elected, and by the fact that the president is not popularly elected (instead, we have the electoral college system). Thus, originally, only 1/6 of our government was supposed to have been directly elected by the people.
Again, as I have stated earlier, those branches are most accountable to the people. Who appointed Senators? The state legislatures did. And who elected members of the state legislature? The people. Who appoints the electoral college? The state legislatures. And who elects the state legislatures? The people do.Your 1/6th arithmetic is hogwash.
How to reconcile this with your fervent insistence that Congress should be the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution and its interpretation because it's "elected by the people?"
My "fervent insistence that congress should be the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution and its interpetation because its "ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE".??????? I scanned my previous posts, and not once did I use the phrase "elected by the people", yet you throw it up in there as a quote to illustrate my "fervent insistence". I did not say Congress should be the ultimate arbiter as to whether or not something is constitutional because they are "elected by the people"- I said that Congress is and should be the branch because they are most accountable to the people
You, like many seem to be of the opinion that if the government says it is constitutional,whether it is the courts, congress, or the president, then it is constitutional.
Regardless of what I (or you) believe, if the Supreme Court (NOT congress or the president) says it is constitutional, then under the laws as they exist and are enforced currently in the real world (since Marbury v. Madison), they ARE constitutional. Discussing some hypothetical fictional utopian society where this is not the case is absurd.
NOt true. Ever hear of the Dred Scott decision? What did congress and the president do with that supreme court ruling? They wiped their backsides with it. That is one of many court rulings that were disposed of.
If the constitution says "the people can not wear blue hats", but congress passes a law that says the people can wear blue hats, does that mean that wearing blue hats is constitutional? NO, it is still unconstitutional, notwithstanding the fact that the law was passed. If the people decide to voice their objection to the blue hat law, on the grounds that the blue hat law is unconstitutional, and the majority views the law as unconstitutional, then congress will not pass the law. But if the people dont care one way or the other about the blue hat law, then congress WILL pass the law, even though the law is unconstitutional.
I admit it is not perfect, but it is the best system, because the people have a say in the actions of the government. When the courts are the ultimate authority, the courts can do whatever they wish, because they are the least accountable to the people. Do you really believe, that the founders would set up a representative government, only to have their wishes overturned by the branch of government that is least accountable to the people? Our system is a system of accountability. The government is accountable to the people.
As I pointed out before, the founding fathers set up a government that was accountable to the people, but not nearly as directly accountable as you seem to believe.
You are not paying attention. See above
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Disagree Fox, it is our responsibility to circle the village. When we get lazy and leave it up to someone else, is when we can be sold out and have the rug pulled out from under us. It is the same thing as getting your info, for example, from media hacks like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. When it comes to getting the real truth, it is ultimately a personal responsibility, otherwise, you will get lied to. It is too easy, for a group, to carry out an agenda contrary to the welfare of the people, if everyone let's you. Trust is much more common than it should be nowadays because it is undeserved most of the time. People are much too lazy to follow it to the next step of "verify". You can be certain that truth is as rare as hen's teeth nowadays too. Even when it is easy for people to verify, they won't because reality does not paint a very pretty picture. Basically people want to remain ignorant because it is easier. It is displayed by millions every day.
Thanks for bringing this back. That is awesome, if for nothing more than it's historical/comparative value, of the last 4 years. It's from before I started here and I read every post, I particularly enjoyed the Constitutional debate. I do have a couple of questions. Who bailed the NRA out of a $100 Million dollar deficit in such a short time frame/are they still in debt? And, if not in debt, could that be a reflection on/of their current course, political ties, leadership and lobby efforts? Could this be a reflection of how debt is/can be used to corrupt an otherwise good organization?
They were corrupt long before this. As far as the debt being fact, I don't know. I never heard about it then other than fox bringing it up, and never heard anything about it again after that.
It was a very good discussion, that's why I brought it back.
quote:JPWolf: it is interesting that you mention this today as after I got another GOA newsletter in the mail today I started thinking about how effecttive the NRA is compared to the GOA. You may have gotten the same newsletter and believe me there was some good, straight to the point, logical, effective and reasonable thoughts and ideas expressed by GOA. GOA did this in a small newsletter of only a few pages whereas an entire NRA magazine might not do as well. I have been a long time supporter and member of the NRA as has my 21 yearold daughter, my wife and even my 10 month old grandson has a membership. We all have recently donated time, money and physical effort to the local Friends of the NRA because it is a non-profit organization that spends the money it raises to promote gun rights, useage and safety with the Boy Scouts, 4H, etc. I believe in this because if we don't find a way to create more shooters we as a group are going to die out.
So I am saying I have lost a lot of faith in the NRA recently and I continue to support GOA and I frankly do not know what to do about my relationship with the NRA.
My jaw dropped when I read this quote from TR Fox, then I saw it was from 4 years ago. Any comment from today's TR Fox?
As far as the debt being fact, I don't know. I never heard about it then other than fox bringing it up, and never heard anything about it again after that.
It was reported by several sources back then.
Here is one of them.
New York Times
As the following site shows, they were in trouble LONG before 2003.
http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Financials.htm
After reading and educating himself, he started to moderate his stance.
After being absent for awhile, he came back as the rabid NRA supporter you see today.
Somehow, he got re-inoculated with 'the NRA is wonderful'.
Always he has supported government controls on firearms and which citizens may exercise basic Rights.
On 10/18/2003 TR Fox said:
quote:JPWolf: it is interesting that you mention this today as after I got another GOA newsletter in the mail today I started thinking about how effecttive the NRA is compared to the GOA. You may have gotten the same newsletter and believe me there was some good, straight to the point, logical, effective and reasonable thoughts and ideas expressed by GOA. GOA did this in a small newsletter of only a few pages whereas an entire NRA magazine might not do as well. I have been a long time supporter and member of the NRA as has my 21 yearold daughter, my wife and even my 10 month old grandson has a membership. We all have recently donated time, money and physical effort to the local Friends of the NRA because it is a non-profit organization that spends the money it raises to promote gun rights, useage and safety with the Boy Scouts, 4H, etc. I believe in this because if we don't find a way to create more shooters we as a group are going to die out.
So I am saying I have lost a lot of faith in the NRA recently and I continue to support GOA and I frankly do not know what to do about my relationship with the NRA.
My jaw dropped when I read this quote from TR Fox, then I saw it was from 4 years ago. Any comment from today's TR Fox?
Short and to the point. No pro-gun organization by itself can do much harm to our gun rights because they don't "own" our rights. So if an organization claims to want to help, and seems to help even a little, let them do what good they can. In the meantime, support any and all pro-gun groups that are at least trying to help.
It appears impossible for pro-gunners to construct another pro-gun organization as large, as powerful and as well known as the NRA. Rather than work towards the NRA's demise, it would be far better for everyone to "move in" to the NRA house and remodel it. Cause once and if you tear it down, you will never, ever be able to build sometime comparable.