RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types.

RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 4:26:32 PM)
I really don't see the ambiguity you are talking about in most of the Bill of Rights, except the 9th, that one I am just not sure exactly what the intent is. I'll have to think about it and reread it a few more times I guess. However, just because something should be done <such as in your example>, does not mean it legally can. What is the point of having a written constitution if the wording can just be ignored when it suits you to do so? If there is a flaw in the document or how it is written, that is what the amendment process is for, isn't it?

slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 4:29:36 PM)
Or the genius of the Document is that it leaves itself open to interpretation...thereby remaining flexible [8\|]

Iamsemisweet -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 4:33:08 PM)
The other way to look at the application to the states, is what good is it for the federal government not to be allowed to abridge freedom of speech if the states can do so with impunity? One of the things that Lincoln did was fundamentally change how the Constitution was viewed. Technically, the South wanting to leave the Union was not something that was prohibited by the Constitution. The Civil War marked a huge change in states' rights and how the constitution was viewed.

slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 4:33:43 PM)
By the way are you claiming that there is no ambiguity in the second.....when courts have been arguing for generations,and will continue to do so,over the meaning and placement of a comma?Or the differing arguments over the meaning of " a well regulated militia"?

TreasureKY -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 4:39:07 PM)
Your question from the other thread... quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: I would imagine that the argument would be that Congress hasn't created the requirement for permits; the requirement is by local law. Well doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? Sorry... my comment was a bit flippant, at worst... and an over-simplification, at best. [:)] While the US Constitution applies to all States, it is a very broad document that does not address much specifically. It has been left to the States to create their own Constitutions (which had to be accepted by Congress before admittance into the Union) and local laws and ordinances to address in more detail, issues that affect Citizens. While it is true that a State or local Government wouldn't be allowed to directly create a law counter to the First Amendment of the US Constitution (in being admitted to the Union, they have to agree to uphold the Constitution), there are enough issues under the control of the local Government and directly affected by the exercise of our right to free speech, that it is easy for First Amendment rights to be impeded in the strictest sense. Permits are typically required under the canopy of public safety to prevent individuals who are not participating in a demonstration from being negatively affected by the actions of the individuals exercising their rights under the First Amendment. In other words, your rights stop where my rights begin. I have the right not to have my sleep disturbed by someone with a bullhorn in my neighborhood at 3am. I have the right to not have my ability to move about freely be infringed (blocking my driveway or the public roads). I have a right to not have my shrubbery used as a portapotty by an overflow of demonstrators next door with insufficient bathroom facilities. Those types of things. Unfortunately, the spirit of permit ordinances are too often abused. The following is a link providing a lot of information you might find useful for your paper. Supreme Court Drama Here are a couple of more links: Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment How to Use your First Amendment Rights

Iamsemisweet -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 4:42:52 PM)
I think they have the meaning of "a well regulated militia" worked out. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court invalidates Chicago's handgun ban and holds the Second Amendment applies to the states (for more background information and briefs see: SCOTUS Wiki). In District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller, the Supreme Court holds in part: quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u By the way are you claiming that there is no ambiguity in the second.....when courts have been arguing for generations,and will continue to do so,over the meaning and placement of a comma?Or the differing arguments over the meaning of " a well regulated militia"?

slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 4:48:07 PM)
And you think this qualifies as the last word on the subject ?

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 4:52:52 PM)
quote: By the way are you claiming that there is no ambiguity in the second No, I'm claiming that I don't see any ambiguity. I'm not sure how it could be interpreted differently than to say that people are allowed to have weapons, and that the government can't interfere with that. Where does the ambiguity come into it?

Iamsemisweet -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 4:55:38 PM)
I think it qualifies as the last word on whether the right to bear arms is only related to the militia. The answer is no. That was the big argument of the "anti-gun" lobby, and it is gone. The Supremes definitely left open the question of what regulations can be applied to the right to bear arms. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u And you think this qualifies as the last word on the subject ?

slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 4:57:53 PM)
Okay than explain to me what constitutes a well regulated militia?

Iamsemisweet -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 5:01:38 PM)
Well slv, in the context of the right to bear arms, it doesn't seem to matter. Or am I misunderstanding your point? This is the Syllabus from the Washington DC case: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Syllabus of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 5:03:43 PM)
Thank you so much Treasure!! Both for the info and the links. It's very useful. The bit about the State constitutions being approved by Congress before they can join the Union leads to another question. What about the original 13 states, didn't their constitutions predate Congress? Did they have to submit their Constitutions for approval, or were they grandfathered in?

slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 5:05:57 PM)
What do the founders intend with the word "arms". Clearly the Court has already agreed that government has not only a right but an absolute need to "infringe" a citizens right to posses certain classifications of weapons......while a strict constitutionalist might make a specious argument that the amendment makes no such distinction.

slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 5:11:26 PM)
My point semisweet is that the amendment is sufficiently ambiguous that interpretation is possible...and such interpretation is wholly dependent on the makeup of the court.At present we have a Court that has a decided conservative tilt,that will not always be so...and future challenges might result in different interpretations bringing me back to my original point(I never meant this to be a gun rights argument it just sort of devolved there...lol) to wit,the Document itself lends itself to interpretations and it is in fact deliberately so.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 5:21:31 PM)
quote: Okay than explain to me what constitutes a well regulated militia? I don't think that's relevant Mike. The militia is the reason why people are allowed to have guns, but it doesn't say that they can only have them in the context of the militia. I read it as "Because we need a well-regulated militia, the government can't interfere with people having weapons. The only way I could see the "well-regulated Militia" bit really applying would be to say that all weapons need to be registered, so that the State knows who has what weapons in the event that the Militia needs to be called up. That could be justified under the "well-regulated" bit because it doesn't actually interfere or infringe the owning of weapons, but does contribute to the regulating of the militia. <Just for clarification, I am not actually in favour of people owning guns, in fact I am strongly opposed to it. I'm just examining the document and it's apparent meaning dispassionately. Also, my primary interest is in the freedoms of speech and assembly and the official limitations of them.>

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 5:23:43 PM)
quote: My point semisweet is that the amendment is sufficiently ambiguous that interpretation is possible Where is the ambiguity in the 1st Amendment, which is, after all, the focus of this thread. [:)]

slvemike4u -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 5:30:54 PM)
No issues Heather as to your intent....none at all. Let's move beyond the "well regulated militia"..... And start discussing how ambiguous the word "arms" has become.At the time of the Founders these were flintlocks.....but some wil, postulate that since the amendment clearly states that gov't can not abridge the right to bear arms...that this includes all arms presently available....this is ludicrous of course,and any sane person would understand that...yet the argument is made that a citizen should beagle to posses fully automatic weapons. Again a question for the court to decide....again ambiguous.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 5:56:42 PM)
quote: yet the argument is made that a citizen should beagle to posses fully automatic weapons. That's what the words say. By what justification do you exclude them from the word "arms". I think you only see it as ambiguous because you don't want to allow fully automatic weapons. There's no ambiguity whatsoever, as far as I can see, if it said "some arms" or "reasonable arms" I could see that, but it doesn't, it just says "arms". Where is the justification for interpreting that to mean anything other than what it says? E2A: The whole flintlock thing is a red herring. Arms includes axes, swords, knives, as well as guns. It simply means weapons, and as written, there is no indication that there is any intent to limit what sort of weapons they are allowed.

TreasureKY -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 6:04:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather What about the original 13 states, didn't their constitutions predate Congress? Did they have to submit their Constitutions for approval, or were they grandfathered in? The original 13 colonies (more precisely the representatives from) were the authors of the Articles of Confederation (which went into effect in 1777) and was our governing document prior to the US Constitution. The final draft for our US Constitution was sent to Congress is 1787. The State laws of Connecticut were a model for the US Constitution. They had two documents considered to be their Constitution prior to the American Revolution... the original in 1638, and one that superseded it in 1662. Delaware's Constitution was adopted in 1776, a few months prior to the convention of the third Continental Congress and the proposition of the Articles of confederation a year later. Georgia had a document entitled "Rules and Regulations of the Colony of Georgia" in 1776. They drafted a new Constitution in 1777, and again in 1789, and again in 1798. They've had five more before their most recent ratified in 1982. Maryland's original Constitution was written in November of 1776. Massachusetts was a late-comer not having a Constitution until 1780. New Hamshire's original Constitution also dates to 1776, as does New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. New York's was adopted in 1777. Rhode Island was governed by the original royal charter granted in 1663 up until 1843. You can find many of the source documents here.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: A question for Constitutional scholar types. (9/27/2011 6:11:22 PM)
Do you know if all of those had to be approved or not. I'm assuming that any of the ones that came after 1789 did, but what about those that were adopted before, any idea? Oh and thanks for the link, you are a veritable "treasure" trove of helpful information. [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875