quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You have a lot to learn about constitutional process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Now that shot is beneath you. It's meaning doesn't change without amendment, not just
because someone wants the meaning to change.
You may not be familiar with the "living document" argument. In effect it says that the Constitution
means want they want it to mean, in other words it means nothing.

I was only asking, Bama. As you may know, we have no written constitution here in the UK, nor any amendments to same, obviously. Any 'dead' versus 'living' document debate is indeed unfamiliar. But I've got to say, if it's *not* a living document then, again, it means nothing at all of relevance to today, does it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Now that shot is beneath you. It's meaning doesn't change without amendment, not just
because someone wants the meaning to change.
You may not be familiar with the "living document" argument. In effect it says that the Constitution
means want they want it to mean, in other words it means nothing.

I was only asking, Bama. As you may know, we have no written constitution here in the UK, nor any amendments to same, obviously. Any 'dead' versus 'living' document debate is indeed unfamiliar. But I've got to say, if it's *not* a living document then, again, it means nothing at all of relevance to today, does it?

quote:

Maybe this will help.
Think of the Constitution as a contract between the U S government and the people.
You cannot make a contract and then a few years later change the meaning without actually
changing the contract.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Maybe this will help.
Think of the Constitution as a contract between the U S government and the people.
You cannot make a contract and then a few years later change the meaning without actually
changing the contract.

I absolutely do think of constitution that way, Bama. However, I'd be much more concerned with it's being there to strive to ensure the fundamental things - like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - than trivial things and superficial like the ownership of guns, which, after all, are only ever a means to an end.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Maybe this will help.
Think of the Constitution as a contract between the U S government and the people.
You cannot make a contract and then a few years later change the meaning without actually
changing the contract.

I absolutely do think of constitution that way, Bama. However, I'd be much more concerned with it's being there to strive to ensure the fundamental things - like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - than trivial things and superficial like the ownership of guns, which, after all, are only ever a means to an end.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Why do you suppose the prefatory clause is there?

Prefatory clauses were used in the constitutions of the time when the intent was to stress the importance of the right being protected, as not merely desirable but as essential to the undertaking of establishing a just and free state.

In the Bill of Rights, "the right of the people" everywhere denotes an individual right, peaceably to assemble, to petition the government, to be secure in their persons, but only the Second Amendment contains a prefatory clause which sets apart the right "to keep and bear arms" as essential to the people's ability to maintain their freedoms and as the final guarantor of all other rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
You note that the people, armed, are the militia, but militias don't just happen, especially well-regulated ones. That takes governance of some sort, including verification, enforcement, and consequences.

In the context of the Second Amendment and the usage of the time, "well regulated" intends well turned out with serviceable arms that they know how to use. The militia does not operate as an organized force, or in the terms of the time as a "select militia." Its training does not require formations and drills. But it does require individual skill with its arms, and therein lies a point that I've raised before with regard to CCW license requirements.

I am endlessly frustrated when the use of a firearm was justified, but not in my view the way it was used, i.e., some nut blasting away, killing a person unnecessarily, or killing the wrong person, and in the case of the police, which is admittedly a separate matter, sometimes wounding a dozen or more bystanders in the bargain.

Thanks Kirata. Lucid. I get it.

Subjective perhaps on my part, but seem to underscore the point that it's a product of the 18th century, no longer reflecting "intent" in the context of the 21st century.

I suppose that's up to Congress, though, or the Supreme Court. I've not a lot of faith in either these days.

Its not actually up to either. The supreme court is supposed to faithfully interpret the law.
This is the right's biggest gripe with the left. There is a path to modify the law. Its called an amendment. It has clearly enumerated instructions. Its the rules we americans agreed to live by.

It is an egregious abridgement of the political process when a court invents laws (roe v wade) or abridges laws (Affirmative action decisions) merely because it wants too.

Congress passes laws. But the people pass amendments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Maybe this will help.
Think of the Constitution as a contract between the U S government and the people.
You cannot make a contract and then a few years later change the meaning without actually
changing the contract.

I absolutely do think of constitution that way, Bama. However, I'd be much more concerned with it's being there to strive to ensure the fundamental things - like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - than trivial things and superficial like the ownership of guns, which, after all, are only ever a means to an end.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Maybe this will help.
Think of the Constitution as a contract between the U S government and the people.
You cannot make a contract and then a few years later change the meaning without actually
changing the contract.

I absolutely do think of constitution that way, Bama. However, I'd be much more concerned with it's being there to strive to ensure the fundamental things - like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - than trivial things and superficial like the ownership of guns, which, after all, are only ever a means to an end.

The US Constitution, is the explanation of the government's abilities and limits to any and all persons under its domain of power (i.e. the United States of America, its territories, and one district).

BamaD, doesn't like the US Government for a host of different reasons. So he looks at this as an 'us verse them' approach. Like its a football game. When in reality, the US Government is compose of hundreds of thousands of US Citizens. In fact, when we citizens 'vote', we are performing a civil duty to the nation, in a same manner as someone serving in public office or in the public section (though in a more limited fashion obviously). That the US Government, helps the citizens directly (i.e. employment) or indirectly (i.e. subsidies through the ACA). It helps small businesses and large corporations operating within the United States. And does quite a number of actions that help Americans indirectly as a whole (i.e. run national parks for the benefit of companies that operate near and within them).

What BamaD does not understand, is that a 'contract' is a unit of legal definition. Contracts are created, modified, and ended on a daily basis. There is no 'contract' between the US Government and the people within. Since that would undermine the whole concept of a 'free and good nation'. Those in a position of power can not perform certain actions 'just cus', but through a well establish list of processes. The most noted is of course, the US Constitution. There are plenty of others as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Why do you suppose the prefatory clause is there?

Prefatory clauses were used in the constitutions of the time when the intent was to stress the importance of the right being protected, as not merely desirable but as essential to the undertaking of establishing a just and free state.

In the Bill of Rights, "the right of the people" everywhere denotes an individual right, peaceably to assemble, to petition the government, to be secure in their persons, but only the Second Amendment contains a prefatory clause which sets apart the right "to keep and bear arms" as essential to the people's ability to maintain their freedoms and as the final guarantor of all other rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
You note that the people, armed, are the militia, but militias don't just happen, especially well-regulated ones. That takes governance of some sort, including verification, enforcement, and consequences.

In the context of the Second Amendment and the usage of the time, "well regulated" intends well turned out with serviceable arms that they know how to use. The militia does not operate as an organized force, or in the terms of the time as a "select militia." Its training does not require formations and drills. But it does require individual skill with its arms, and therein lies a point that I've raised before with regard to CCW license requirements.

I am endlessly frustrated when the use of a firearm was justified, but not in my view the way it was used, i.e., some nut blasting away, killing a person unnecessarily, or killing the wrong person, and in the case of the police, which is admittedly a separate matter, sometimes wounding a dozen or more bystanders in the bargain.

Thanks Kirata. Lucid. I get it.

Subjective perhaps on my part, but seem to underscore the point that it's a product of the 18th century, no longer reflecting "intent" in the context of the 21st century.

I suppose that's up to Congress, though, or the Supreme Court. I've not a lot of faith in either these days.

Its not actually up to either. The supreme court is supposed to faithfully interpret the law.
This is the right's biggest gripe with the left. There is a path to modify the law. Its called an amendment. It has clearly enumerated instructions. Its the rules we americans agreed to live by.

It is an egregious abridgement of the political process when a court invents laws (roe v wade) or abridges laws (Affirmative action decisions) merely because it wants too.

Congress passes laws. But the people pass amendments.

The depth of your 'lack of information' is truly bad!

It is up to both Congress *AND* the US Supreme Court to handle the US Constitution, the amendments, and federal laws in current existence (not to mention the Executive Branch). They however, handle this from uniquely different points of view. The US Supreme Court can not change nor modify the US Constitution nor the amendments within. It must, to the best of its ability, be fair, good, and faithful to the US Constitution (aka free of political bias). Congress can create, modify, and nullify laws on the books through bills passed by both the Senate and House. This includes any section of the US Constitution and the amendments.

There is a path to modify a law, its called 'creating a bill that addresses some or all the parts of an existing law'. A bill that is modified in Congress before being voted into law, has one or more amendments. An amendment in US Law, is often referred to as the twenty-seven amendments attached to the US Constitution (the first ten being referred to as 'The Bill of Rights'). There is an explanation in the US Constitution for changing, updating, creating, and nullifying the document: Article V. This usually by way of a Constitutional Convention. An 'no', they are not held very often.

There are plenty of rulings, Phydeaux, that conservatives dislike (i.e. Roe vs. Wade) and liberals (i.e. Heller vs. District of Columbia). There are rulings that Americans, regardless of political view, seem to dislike (i.e. Citizens United vs. FEC). An that its hoped the highest court of the land makes the best decisions. Even if they are not popular at the time (i.e. Brown vs. Board of Education). The problem is when the court makes a decision that is NOT in the best interests of people, how is it corrected?

Congress passes bills. Those bills become law if certain conditions are met (i.e. the President signs the bill into law). The 'people' do not pass amendments, that would be Congress under Article V.

quote:


There is an explanation in the US Constitution for changing, updating, creating, and nullifying the document: Article V. This usually by way of a Constitutional Convention.

quote:


The problem is when the court makes a decision that is NOT in the best interests of people, how is it corrected?
Congress passes bills. Those bills become law if certain conditions are met (i.e. the President signs the bill into law).

quote:


Completely 100% WRONG.
If something has been found to be unconstitutional, congress has NO power to 'fix' it - short of proposing a constitutional amendment and sending it to the states for ratification.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


Completely 100% WRONG.
If something has been found to be unconstitutional, congress has NO power to 'fix' it - short of proposing a constitutional amendment and sending it to the states for ratification.

You are right, that is completely one hundred percent wrong. Many times they only need to revise the law within the consitutional framework.

quote:


The problem is when the court makes a decision that is NOT in the best interests of people, how is it corrected?
Congress passes bills. Those bills become law if certain conditions are met (i.e. the President signs the bill into law).

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR

I would like to address the silly argument that if the British army of 1776 went against
a small portion of the current U S military they would easily defeated allegedly proving somehow that
the second no longer counted.

Had the British army 0f 1776 gone against the civilians in the original 13 states with the privately
owned firearms they now have they would have been defeated with equal speed.

Thus the analogy only looks good when unchallenged and un-refuted.

quote:

For a more recent example, the Mujahadeen shredded the Russians despite the latter's numbers, air power, and armor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


Completely 100% WRONG.
If something has been found to be unconstitutional, congress has NO power to 'fix' it - short of proposing a constitutional amendment and sending it to the states for ratification.

You are right, that is completely one hundred percent wrong. Many times they only need to revise the law within the consitutional framework.

Which as you know is you merely lying and misdirecting again.
Joether's position :

quote:


The problem is when the court makes a decision that is NOT in the best interests of people, how is it corrected?
Congress passes bills. Those bills become law if certain conditions are met (i.e. the President signs the bill into law).

When the court rules that a law is unconstitutional, congress does not have the power to 'fix' the supreme court's decision.
Certainly they may pass other laws - thats self evident.

But Congresses only recourse to 'fix' a supreme court decision is constitutional amendment. As I said.