RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (Full Version)

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

Message

Termyn8or -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/4/2016 5:27:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD With the explinations of the 2nd amendments "true" meaning we have been getting what do the other amendments mean if read the same way? Actually, there is a group that maintains that the Declaration of Independence is a "racist document" because it was written when slavery existed. Wouldn't that make the Bible a racist publication too? The Bible is exceedingly racist. The whole Old Testament only refers to Jews. They are allowed to own slaves as long as the slaves are not Jews (still the law in Israel) and god gave them lads, but all they had to do was kill everybody there before moving on in. They also sold their daughters so I guess it is sexist as well. The Constitution was modified to get rid of the 3/5ths shit, but supposedly the Bible cannot be modified, except by King James, Gideon, I have no idea who makes that decision. Plus there are books not published in most Bibles. It is fabled in occult folklore that there were more books by Moses, ten in all, not just five. They supposedly contain the secrets of the supposed magic he was able to do. Even if that is total bullshit, which is possible, someone decides which books go into a given version of the Bible. I saw one straight out labelled "For Catholics". What might be different about that ? And what about the Jewish Bible ? No New Testament, I get that but what books would they include or exclude instead of other Bibles ? And then what about the Talmud ? That is purported to have some really nasty shit in it, if true and they go by it they are worse than any Nazi could ever dream. But then I can't seem to get a copy of it in English. What are they hiding ? And what about the books not included in the Bible ? I have asked religious people about this more than once and none of them come up with satisfactory answers. Bottom line is I just gave it all up and consider it all bullshit. Know whaty else ? I haven't watched one debate or political ad in many years, but I can more accurately predict what these fucks are going to do once elected better than people who think they are well informed because they watched all the lies. I will probably produce such predictions once the election is over. We'll see about the accuracy. T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/4/2016 5:35:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The alternative is that the 2nd is an individual right. However since only illiterates who have never read the constitution believe that the rest must be true. You mean like Obama ? It took the insurance industry to get the courts to rule that driving a car is a privilege to get mandatory car insurance laws passed. Now we have the ACA. Fuck these people up the ass with a baseball bat, the whole thing. You need insurance just to live life now ? Living is now a privilege ? Oh, but not if you don't work and get welfare, then you don't have to pay. Yeah right. T^T

blnymph -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/4/2016 5:39:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or And then what about the Talmud ? ... But then I can't seem to get a copy of it in English. Just to help: try here: http://www.halakhah.com/ or http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm

Termyn8or -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/4/2016 6:01:48 AM)
Thanks. Both bookmarked. T^T

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/4/2016 9:46:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Well as far as the 2nd, I see where you are going. 'A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms...shall not be infringed.' That could be read both ways and I think rightfully so. As for the rest, yes as far as the debate for the original BOR, the founders drew them up for ratification in the interest of the people except where specified and found it necessary in the 2nd and 10th...to include both. I do however refer you to a quote during his senate hearings, "I think the 10th amend. is about the most dead-letter amend, of them all." Judge Bork. Also, "A person has no inherent right to privacy." At which time my father a life long repub who had quickly become very disenchanted with Reagan, actually for the first time, called his senator to tell him to vote Bork down...saying "This man thinks he has a right to know how I make love to my wife." (contraception) Plus the BOR (14th) has been extended by the courts (1884) to create the corporation as being a person and awarded the same rights as one, which was the beginning of the onslaught of corporate corruption, venality, malfeasance and outright criminality. The corp. before that, having been highly regulated. As per the rules of sentance structure the rights of the people phrase is dominant, the militia phrase in suplimentary. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is a complete sentance and thus is the meaning of the whole. 'A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a free state, is an acknowlegement for the need for local militias but you ignore the fact that local militias were often called out on short notice performing the duties of the western posse or the more modern neighborhood watch. It in no way even implies that membership in a militia was needed to exercise that right. If membership in a militia were needed it would not be a right but rather a privilage granted to militia members and the founders were not so sloppy as to refer to a privilage as a right.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/4/2016 9:50:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Actually, it's not "a group that maintains that ... " The Three-Fifths Compromise is taught by every responsible history department in the US, HS or college. And yes, any properly comprehended reading (as in, blatantly explicated for all to see) of the Bible, or the Talmud, or the Quran, or of ancient Greek or Roman or Mesopotamian history, tells us all about the care and feeding of slaves. I won't argue to the effect, though, that any of that was actually considered 'racist' at the time. The 3/5 compromise was specifically to keep slave holders from getting full representation for their slaves. Remember, that it's only effect was in determining representation in congress.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/4/2016 9:55:03 AM)
The Constitution was modified to get rid of the 3/5ths shit No, it was modified to get rid of the class of people counted as 3/5ths

vincentML -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/4/2016 2:15:40 PM)
quote: We have been assured time after time that ''the people" means the states. May I have a cite for that assurance? Thank you.

vincentML -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/4/2016 2:17:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Actually, it's not "a group that maintains that ... " The Three-Fifths Compromise is taught by every responsible history department in the US, HS or college. And yes, any properly comprehended reading (as in, blatantly explicated for all to see) of the Bible, or the Talmud, or the Quran, or of ancient Greek or Roman or Mesopotamian history, tells us all about the care and feeding of slaves. I won't argue to the effect, though, that any of that was actually considered 'racist' at the time. The 3/5 compromise was specifically to keep slave holders from getting full representation for their slaves. Remember, that it's only effect was in determining representation in congress. The 3/5ths gave the South greater representation in Congress actually. Remember that slaves were property and not persons. Nor did they have the right to vote until 1965. The 13th got rid of that class of people.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/4/2016 2:33:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: We have been assured time after time that ''the people" means the states. May I have a cite for that assurance? Thank you. It is the basis for the argument that the only people that the 2nd protects the rights of are those in the militia under the control of the states. Joether has stated repeatedly that they only allowed firearms to "people they trusted" And Mnottertail claims that it was passed to gaurd the central govenment from insurection by the states. The whole idea that the 2nd only "grants" the right to bear arms to the militia is based upon this concept. See Heller vs DC where DC's entire argument was based upon the right to bear arms not being an idividual but belonging only to the militia, i.e. the states. You do not look in on many gun debates do you. By that I am not trying to attack you in any way, but the argument quite often comes down to that point. See Mr Eds post #17 where he claims that it is reasonable to think that the 2nd is the only one of the first nine that doesn't amount to an individual right. You seem to be being even handed and fair in this discussion. I have forty years of debates with anti gun people who insist that the 2nd isn't a right of the people.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/4/2016 2:39:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Actually, it's not "a group that maintains that ... " The Three-Fifths Compromise is taught by every responsible history department in the US, HS or college. And yes, any properly comprehended reading (as in, blatantly explicated for all to see) of the Bible, or the Talmud, or the Quran, or of ancient Greek or Roman or Mesopotamian history, tells us all about the care and feeding of slaves. I won't argue to the effect, though, that any of that was actually considered 'racist' at the time. The 3/5 compromise was specifically to keep slave holders from getting full representation for their slaves. Remember, that it's only effect was in determining representation in congress. The 3/5ths gave the South greater representation in Congress actually. Remember that slaves were property and not persons. Nor did they have the right to vote until 1965. The 13th got rid of that class of people. Prior to the 3/5 agreement all of them were counted, and states like South Carolina were demanding a full count of the slaves, as their poplulation was 60% slave. Actually prior to the ratification of the Constitution we were under the articles of Confederation were each state got one vote, period. When allotment by population came up the slave states demanded counting slaves and anti slave states took your position, that if they were property that shouldn't be counted. 3/5 was the compromise. Sorry I was following his lead and didn't verify that it was the 14th, thanks for the correction.

vincentML -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/4/2016 7:40:46 PM)
@BamaD quote: For the right of the people means the states. 1. The 10th Amendment declares that federal actions not enumerated by the constitution shall revert to the states or the people. It seems in the 10th that the state and the people are equivalent. But, that equivalency fades away with the later 14th Amendment and with Heller. Clearly the state and its residents are not equivalent. The state is a legal body established to govern persons, people, and individuals who reside or have commerce within its jurisdiction. In your interpretation it would be oxymoronic to say in the Due Process Clause that the state cannot deprive the state of life, liberty, etc. There is clearly a separation between state as agency of government and persons as the governed. This is really clear in Heller. The jurisdictional authorities were enjoined from depriving the individual of his right to own a gun. Your reinterpretations of the other nine amendments in the BORs fail for lack of equivalency between state and people as clarified by both the 14th and Heller, imo. An imaginative but flawed over-reach, Bama. Again, imo. 2. The 14th Amendment "The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states," 3. The 14th Amendment "Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction" 4. DC vs Heller clearly enjoins the state from preventing gun ownership by an individual. The 3/5ths Compromise was forged in the Constitutional Congress of 1787. It was new from the git go; it did not replace an existing real situation. It dealt with hypothetical powers, or what the South wanted vs. what the North wanted (the original thirteen states forming the Union) The North felt that since slaves were not free persons and could not vote they should not be counted as represented by congressional districts. The South would have less districts under that formula. The South wanted 100% of slaves counted as represented. They would have many more districts under that formula. The compromise gave the South less than they wanted but more than the North was willing to give. It was a compromise, after all. The southern states dominated the House of Representatives until secession in 1861. Look it up.

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/4/2016 7:46:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML @BamaD quote: For the right of the people means the states. 1. The 10th Amendment declares that federal actions not enumerated by the constitution shall revert to the states or the people. It seems in the 10th that the state and the people are equivalent. But, that equivalency fades away with the later 14th Amendment and with Heller. Clearly the state and its residents are not equivalent. The state is a legal body established to govern persons, people, and individuals who reside or have commerce within its jurisdiction. In your interpretation it would be oxymoronic to say in the Due Process Clause that the state cannot deprive the state of life, liberty, etc. There is clearly a separation between state as agency of government and persons as the governed. This is really clear in Heller. The jurisdictional authorities were enjoined from depriving the individual of his right to own a gun. Your reinterpretations of the other nine amendments in the BORs fail for lack of equivalency between state and people as clarified by both the 14th and Heller, imo. An imaginative but flawed over-reach, Bama. Again, imo. 2. The 14th Amendment "The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states," 3. The 14th Amendment "Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction" 4. DC vs Heller clearly enjoins the state from preventing gun ownership by an individual. The 3/5ths Compromise was forged in the Constitutional Congress of 1787. It was new from the git go; it did not replace an existing real situation. It dealt with hypothetical powers, or what the South wanted vs. what the North wanted (the original thirteen states forming the Union) The North felt that since slaves were not free persons and could not vote they should not be counted as represented by congressional districts. The South would have less districts under that formula. The South wanted 100% of slaves counted as represented. They would have many more districts under that formula. The compromise gave the South less than they wanted but more than the North was willing to give. It was a compromise, after all. The southern states dominated the House of Representatives until secession in 1861. Look it up. Ok, is the main problem between us. My list of what the Bill of rights means was satire, pure and simple. It was pointing out how the states and the people were never the same thing and that to claim that the 2nd was only intended to allow state militias was an absurd argument. Nobody was intended that those rewrites were what I believe.

vincentML -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/5/2016 7:18:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML @BamaD quote: For the right of the people means the states. 1. The 10th Amendment declares that federal actions not enumerated by the constitution shall revert to the states or the people. It seems in the 10th that the state and the people are equivalent. But, that equivalency fades away with the later 14th Amendment and with Heller. Clearly the state and its residents are not equivalent. The state is a legal body established to govern persons, people, and individuals who reside or have commerce within its jurisdiction. In your interpretation it would be oxymoronic to say in the Due Process Clause that the state cannot deprive the state of life, liberty, etc. There is clearly a separation between state as agency of government and persons as the governed. This is really clear in Heller. The jurisdictional authorities were enjoined from depriving the individual of his right to own a gun. Your reinterpretations of the other nine amendments in the BORs fail for lack of equivalency between state and people as clarified by both the 14th and Heller, imo. An imaginative but flawed over-reach, Bama. Again, imo. 2. The 14th Amendment "The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states," 3. The 14th Amendment "Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction" 4. DC vs Heller clearly enjoins the state from preventing gun ownership by an individual. The 3/5ths Compromise was forged in the Constitutional Congress of 1787. It was new from the git go; it did not replace an existing real situation. It dealt with hypothetical powers, or what the South wanted vs. what the North wanted (the original thirteen states forming the Union) The North felt that since slaves were not free persons and could not vote they should not be counted as represented by congressional districts. The South would have less districts under that formula. The South wanted 100% of slaves counted as represented. They would have many more districts under that formula. The compromise gave the South less than they wanted but more than the North was willing to give. It was a compromise, after all. The southern states dominated the House of Representatives until secession in 1861. Look it up. Ok, is the main problem between us. My list of what the Bill of rights means was satire, pure and simple. It was pointing out how the states and the people were never the same thing and that to claim that the 2nd was only intended to allow state militias was an absurd argument. Nobody was intended that those rewrites were what I believe. Well, you fooled me . . [:D] My only excuse is that some people on here say the dumbest things, it's hard to tell the players without a score card.

Termyn8or -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/5/2016 11:06:48 AM)
"I have forty years of debates with anti gun people who insist that the 2nd isn't a right of the people. " Don'tcha just want to shoot the illiterate motherfuckers sometimes ? :-) T^T

BamaD -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/5/2016 12:28:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "I have forty years of debates with anti gun people who insist that the 2nd isn't a right of the people. " Don'tcha just want to shoot the illiterate motherfuckers sometimes ? :-) T^T Fire ants and corn syrup.

Termyn8or -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/5/2016 4:40:40 PM)
I'd like to set them up where only a gun will work. Like a wild animal eating their kids, or a wild animal escaped from prison raping their olady. Know how to make a liberal into a conservative ? Don't give them other people's money. They convert as soon as they get hungry. T^T

mnottertail -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/5/2016 5:17:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD With the explinations of the 2nd amendments "true" meaning we have been getting what do the other amendments mean if read the same way? well, learn to spell, and really fuck the bill of rights it aint nothing special, just clean up bizness from the constitutional convention, there can be no amendment writ larger than another.

mnottertail -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/5/2016 5:18:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "I have forty years of debates with anti gun people who insist that the 2nd isn't a right of the people. " Don'tcha just want to shoot the illiterate motherfuckers sometimes ? :-) T^T Hes a buffoon, cuz he has never had that occur, and you are buffoon for believing his felch.

mnottertail -> RE: What the "new" interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (6/5/2016 5:22:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Well as far as the 2nd, I see where you are going. 'A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms...shall not be infringed.' That could be read both ways and I think rightfully so. As for the rest, yes as far as the debate for the original BOR, the founders drew them up for ratification in the interest of the people except where specified and found it necessary in the 2nd and 10th...to include both. I do however refer you to a quote during his senate hearings, "I think the 10th amend. is about the most dead-letter amend, of them all." Judge Bork. Also, "A person has no inherent right to privacy." At which time my father a life long repub who had quickly become very disenchanted with Reagan, actually for the first time, called his senator to tell him to vote Bork down...saying "This man thinks he has a right to know how I make love to my wife." (contraception) Plus the BOR (14th) has been extended by the courts (1884) to create the corporation as being a person and awarded the same rights as one, which was the beginning of the onslaught of corporate corruption, venality, malfeasance and outright criminality. The corp. before that, having been highly regulated. As per the rules of sentance structure the rights of the people phrase is dominant, the militia phrase in suplimentary. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is a complete sentance and thus is the meaning of the whole. 'A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a free state, is an acknowlegement for the need for local militias but you ignore the fact that local militias were often called out on short notice performing the duties of the western posse or the more modern neighborhood watch. It in no way even implies that membership in a militia was needed to exercise that right. If membership in a militia were needed it would not be a right but rather a privilage granted to militia members and the founders were not so sloppy as to refer to a privilage as a right. Ja, dont pretend you have the faintest clue of English, there is no dominant and supplimentary (sic from someone who cant spell) phrasealogy in the English language, it simply dont work that way, you could consider whether or not it is a sub-clause, but its not, it is clearly an aposiopesis.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625