quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So in your convoluted way you are saying that when the government violates someone's
rights they and not the constitution are right. How sad.

Nope. Not even close.

I'm saying that your 2nd isn't a constitutional "right" that you keep banging on about.
Something akin to what DomKen said... it's different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
PS the Supreme Court still holds that the right to bear arms is and INDIVIDUAL right.

Yet they can take away that "right" whenever circumstances are appropriate.
That, by definition, means it is no longer a "right" in the normal sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Felons don't vote either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So in your convoluted way you are saying that when the government violates someone's
rights they and not the constitution are right. How sad.

Nope. Not even close.

I'm saying that your 2nd isn't a constitutional "right" that you keep banging on about.
Something akin to what DomKen said... it's different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
PS the Supreme Court still holds that the right to bear arms is and INDIVIDUAL right.

Yet they can take away that "right" whenever circumstances are appropriate.
That, by definition, means it is no longer a "right" in the normal sense.

As usual, anything DomKen posts is just absolute bullshit.

Felons don't vote either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So in your convoluted way you are saying that when the government violates someone's
rights they and not the constitution are right. How sad.

Nope. Not even close.

I'm saying that your 2nd isn't a constitutional "right" that you keep banging on about.
Something akin to what DomKen said... it's different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
PS the Supreme Court still holds that the right to bear arms is and INDIVIDUAL right.

Yet they can take away that "right" whenever circumstances are appropriate.
That, by definition, means it is no longer a "right" in the normal sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

"If a "right" can be rescinded at an individual level, surely that means, in and of itself,
that the so-called "right" is no longer a right - at least at the same level as the rest
of the constitution. "

Here is another point you fail to comprehend.
Rights were not granted by the constitution they were recognized
You can be denied the exorcise of a right but it is still a right
Those things that can be given or taken away at the whim
of government are privileges, not rights

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So in your convoluted way you are saying that when the government violates someone's
rights they and not the constitution are right. How sad.

Nope. Not even close.

I'm saying that your 2nd isn't a constitutional "right" that you keep banging on about.
Something akin to what DomKen said... it's different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
PS the Supreme Court still holds that the right to bear arms is and INDIVIDUAL right.

Yet they can take away that "right" whenever circumstances are appropriate.
That, by definition, means it is no longer a "right" in the normal sense.

As usual, anything DomKen posts is just absolute bullshit.

Felons don't vote either.

The Constitution doesn't guarantee the vote to anyone. You should read it some time.

Also we're talking about misdemeanors not felonies. Do try to keep up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

"If a "right" can be rescinded at an individual level, surely that means, in and of itself,
that the so-called "right" is no longer a right - at least at the same level as the rest
of the constitution. "

Here is another point you fail to comprehend.
Rights were not granted by the constitution they were recognized
You can be denied the exorcise of a right but it is still a right
Those things that can be given or taken away at the whim
of government are privileges, not rights

And that is exactly my point! [:)]

The 2nd gives the individual the right to hold and bear arms.
It also very specifically states that it shall not be infringed.
You've said and argued that point several times.

Yet a court can rescind that "right" to an individual - which, in your own words, makes it not a "right" but a "privilege".

quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
PS the Supreme Court still holds that the right to bear arms is and INDIVIDUAL right.


Yet they can take away that "right" whenever circumstances are appropriate.
That, by definition, means it is no longer a "right" in the normal sense.

quote:


The Constitution doesn't guarantee the vote to anyone. You should read it some time.

Also we're talking about misdemeanors not felonies. Do try to keep up.

quote:

Also we're talking about misdemeanors not felonies. Do try to keep up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

FR
I wrote this on the other thread but since the subject came up here.

I'm not going to agree that a misdemeanor should be used to take away a constitutional right. Back when they started enforcing this, just after passing the Brady Bill, there were thousands of cops who were disqualified to possess guns. I remember hearing about it for a short time then nothing. Much of the time with this domestic violence stuff, the violence doesn't rise to a level of battery. It could have been a push or a loud verbal altercation. It could have been just an arrest but no conviction.

In most states now, if the cops show up on a domestic, someone is going into custody regardless of whether they can figure out who is at fault. IMO, if a domestic doesn't rise to the level of a felony then a person shouldn't be stripped of anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Felons don't vote either.

What the fuck has this to do with the topic being discussed?? [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Felons don't vote either.

What the fuck has this to do with the topic being discussed?? [8|]

Everything it is an example of a right being curtailed because of their actions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Felons don't vote either.

What the fuck has this to do with the topic being discussed?? [8|]

Everything it is an example of a right being curtailed because of their actions.

Ok. Granted it is yet another example of a "right" being rescinded.
But those voting rights espoused by Phydeaux aren't the same as the 2nd which specifically states that it shall not be infringed.

Everyone has a "right" to breathe air.
And you have vociferously defended the 2nd as a "right" in various other threads.
Yet by action of the supreme court, that "right" can be rescinded.
In which case, it is a privilege, not a right - your own words.

So when is a "right" no longer a right??
When it can be overturned and/or rescinded for anyone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
PS the Supreme Court still holds that the right to bear arms is and INDIVIDUAL right.


Yet they can take away that "right" whenever circumstances are appropriate.
That, by definition, means it is no longer a "right" in the normal sense.

quote:


The Constitution doesn't guarantee the vote to anyone. You should read it some time.

Also we're talking about misdemeanors not felonies. Do try to keep up.

So predictable a idiot know nothing leftist response:

The Constituion doesn't provide affirmative rights. You're correct. But thats just a weasel worded attempt to obstruct the obvious truth. The constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to vote - but it DOES
prevent the government from removing the right to vote.

So just to thoroughly embarass you and reveal the idiocy and deception of your arguments, lets quote shall we?

15th ammendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

Section. 5.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

14th ammendment

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

So.. yes... the united states is prevented from removing your right to vote... In the debate onthe 14th ammendment, thaddeus stephens delivered the following speech whicn is part of the legislative history of the bill (and hence, yes, is of legal weight)..

The second section I consider the most important in the article. It fixes the basis of representation in Congress. If any State shall exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel the States to grant universal suffrage or so shear them of their power as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national Government, both legislative and executive.[19]


24the Ammentment


Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th ammendment



The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


So much for your weasel worded trollshit.


Now, as for the rest of it:

quote:

Also we're talking about misdemeanors not felonies. Do try to keep up.

I previously explained the legal standard the supreme court used to rule whether an action was constitutional or not. Did you see felony/misdemeanor?
Thats because its IRRELEVENT to the discussion.

Thanks for playing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
PS the Supreme Court still holds that the right to bear arms is and INDIVIDUAL right.


Yet they can take away that "right" whenever circumstances are appropriate.
That, by definition, means it is no longer a "right" in the normal sense.

quote:


The Constitution doesn't guarantee the vote to anyone. You should read it some time.

Also we're talking about misdemeanors not felonies. Do try to keep up.

So predictable a idiot know nothing leftist response:

The Constituion doesn't provide affirmative rights. You're correct. But thats just a weasel worded attempt to obstruct the obvious truth. The constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to vote - but it DOES
prevent the government from removing the right to vote.

So just to thoroughly embarass you and reveal the idiocy and deception of your arguments, lets quote shall we?

15th ammendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

Section. 5.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

14th ammendment

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

So.. yes... the united states is prevented from removing your right to vote... In the debate onthe 14th ammendment, thaddeus stephens delivered the following speech whicn is part of the legislative history of the bill (and hence, yes, is of legal weight)..

The second section I consider the most important in the article. It fixes the basis of representation in Congress. If any State shall exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel the States to grant universal suffrage or so shear them of their power as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national Government, both legislative and executive.[19]


24the Ammentment


Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th ammendment



The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


So much for your weasel worded trollshit.


Now, as for the rest of it:

quote:

Also we're talking about misdemeanors not felonies. Do try to keep up.

I previously explained the legal standard the supreme court used to rule whether an action was constitutional or not. Did you see felony/misdemeanor?
Thats because its IRRELEVENT to the discussion.

Thanks for playing.

Wrong!

Bush v. Gore

What the Constitution says is that if the states choose to have elections they have to let everyone vote. But there is no right to vote.

As to the rest, you seem to be confused or as usual lying.

quote:

B Another TOS violation Phydeaux could have your head if he wanted it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
PS the Supreme Court still holds that the right to bear arms is and INDIVIDUAL right.


Yet they can take away that "right" whenever circumstances are appropriate.
That, by definition, means it is no longer a "right" in the normal sense.

quote:


The Constitution doesn't guarantee the vote to anyone. You should read it some time.

Also we're talking about misdemeanors not felonies. Do try to keep up.

So predictable a idiot know nothing leftist response:

The Constituion doesn't provide affirmative rights. You're correct. But thats just a weasel worded attempt to obstruct the obvious truth. The constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to vote - but it DOES
prevent the government from removing the right to vote.

So just to thoroughly embarass you and reveal the idiocy and deception of your arguments, lets quote shall we?

15th ammendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

Section. 5.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

14th ammendment

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

So.. yes... the united states is prevented from removing your right to vote... In the debate onthe 14th ammendment, thaddeus stephens delivered the following speech whicn is part of the legislative history of the bill (and hence, yes, is of legal weight)..

The second section I consider the most important in the article. It fixes the basis of representation in Congress. If any State shall exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel the States to grant universal suffrage or so shear them of their power as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national Government, both legislative and executive.[19]


24the Ammentment


Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th ammendment



The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


So much for your weasel worded trollshit.


Now, as for the rest of it:

quote:

Also we're talking about misdemeanors not felonies. Do try to keep up.

I previously explained the legal standard the supreme court used to rule whether an action was constitutional or not. Did you see felony/misdemeanor?
Thats because its IRRELEVENT to the discussion.

Thanks for playing.

Wrong!

Bush v. Gore

What the Constitution says is that if the states choose to have elections they have to let everyone vote. But there is no right to vote.

As to the rest, you seem to be confused or as usual lying.

A Bush VS Gore was decided because the Dems only wanted to recount
in districts that helped them SCOTUS said total recount or nothing so it was nothing
that was affirming that votes in Rep districts were as important as those in Dem districts.
B Another TOS violation Phydeaux could have your head if he wanted it.
C It appears that the blind squirrel rule does not apply to you.