• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYC Mayor Conducts Gun-Sale Sting in Arizona

Oh, I do get it....Do you get that this is judicial activism, and extra constitutional as to the courts purpose?

j-mac

I get that you consider any decision by the Supreme Court that you do not agree with, to be "judicial activism".

though, I bet you consider it perfectly right & proper for SCOTUS to decide that corporations are people, and have civil rights.

;)
 
Last edited:
Ah, so it was actually the Supreme Court, and every subsequent Supreme Court, that came up with the commerce clause analysis -- NOT the Roosevelt administration! This is fascinating stuff.


Your dishonest ignorance of historical reality is pathetic. FDR threatened the USSC with packing and then that court started ignoring more than one hundred years of precedent. since you claim to have a law degree from a somewhat prestigious law school, tell me what caused the USSC to ignore the 130 years of precedent (Culminating with Schechter Poultry) and suddenly start allowing stuff that had been struck down a couple years before
 
I get that you consider any decision by the Supreme Court that you do not agree with, to be "judicial activism".


That is not what I asked. Can you answer the question?


j-mac
 
...but once I own that gun it no longer is affecting interstate commerce if I decided to sell it to someone who also lives in ohio.

hmmm....interesting point.

unfortunately, following that logic, Congress has no right to pass laws banning racial discrimination in housing, sales, or hiring....if it takes place all in one state....as it is intra-state commerce.
 
Last edited:
hmmm....interesting point.

unfortunately, following that logic, Congress has no right to pass laws banning racial discrimination in housing, sales, or hiring....if it takes place all in one state....as it is intra-state commerce.

exactly, that is a state power properly
 
Your dishonest ignorance of historical reality is pathetic. FDR threatened the USSC with packing and then that court started ignoring more than one hundred years of precedent. since you claim to have a law degree from a somewhat prestigious law school, tell me what caused the USSC to ignore the 130 years of precedent (Culminating with Schechter Poultry) and suddenly start allowing stuff that had been struck down a couple years before

Sadly my law school didn't teach mind reading. But logically, one might presume that, since the court packing scheme failed, it probably wasn't particularly influential. One might also assume that the shift in the Court's philosophy had more to do with the fact that Roosevelt served as President for many years and thus had the opportunity to nominate many like-minded justices.
 
Sadly my law school didn't teach mind reading. But logically, one might presume that, since the court packing scheme failed, it probably wasn't particularly influential. One might also assume that the shift in the Court's philosophy had more to do with the fact that Roosevelt served as President for many years and thus had the opportunity to nominate many like-minded justices.

so precedent did not matter to his picks? that is how the leftward ratchet of jurisprudence is explained-lefties ignore precedent and ratchet the court left-subsequent conservatives respect precedent and cement into place the radical decisions before them.

but the fact remains, no one can, with a straight face, claim that the founders saw the commerce clause as a carte blanche to regulate small arms. the CC was to allow congress to prevent say Ohio from levying tariffs on Pittsburgh Coal floating down the Ohio to ST Louis
 
good thing the Federal government overstepped its bounds, otherwise much of the South would still be segregated and many Americans would still be second-class citizens.


Not really, the 14th amendment would have prevented much of that.
 
so precedent did not matter to his picks? that is how the leftward ratchet of jurisprudence is explained-lefties ignore precedent and ratchet the court left-subsequent conservatives respect precedent and cement into place the radical decisions before them.

but the fact remains, no one can, with a straight face, claim that the founders saw the commerce clause as a carte blanche to regulate small arms. the CC was to allow congress to prevent say Ohio from levying tariffs on Pittsburgh Coal floating down the Ohio to ST Louis

Wow, could that be any more ironic, given the fact the current Court is packed with utlra-conservative justices who have been overturning precedents left and right? :lol:

I would agree that the Founding Fathers would not approve of the current commerce clause analysis. Nor would they approve of the current anti-slavery analysis. As wise as the Founding Fathers were, they were not Gods. Times change.
 
Wow, could that be any more ironic, given the fact the current Court is packed with utlra-conservative justices who have been overturning precedents left and right? :lol:

I would agree that the Founding Fathers would not approve of the current commerce clause analysis. Nor would they approve of the current anti-slavery analysis. As wise as the Founding Fathers were, they were not Gods. Times change.

Ultra conservatives? LOL-only a hard core welfare socialist could make such a claim. but thanks for admitting that the commerce clause is a joke as currently interpreted. and that bogus current interpretation has done more to bloat the federal government than any other legal precedent
 
14th Amendment: ratified in 1868.

Civil Rights Act ending Segregation: signed into law in 1964.

The 14th Amendment had 96 years to fail its mission.

that really has no relevance
 
good thing the Federal government overstepped its bounds, otherwise much of the South would still be segregated and many Americans would still be second-class citizens.


You have anything to back up that bigotted statement?


j-mac
 
Ultra conservatives? LOL-only a hard core welfare socialist could make such a claim. but thanks for admitting that the commerce clause is a joke as currently interpreted. and that bogus current interpretation has done more to bloat the federal government than any other legal precedent

Oh, current CC analysis is anything but a joke. It was instrumental in overturning Jim Crow laws and has had many other salutary effects. The Founding Fathers got it mostly right, but they weren't perfect beings. Their work has been improved on over the years.

As for the current Court, there's no question that it is the most conservative in living memory.
 
Oh, current CC analysis is anything but a joke. It was instrumental in overturning Jim Crow laws and has had many other salutary effects. The Founding Fathers got it mostly right, but they weren't perfect beings. Their work has been improved on over the years.

As for the current Court, there's no question that it is the most conservative in living memory.


thank goodness for that, if true.

j-mac
 
thank goodness for that, if true.

j-mac

living memory for him might be the court with O'Connor and Souter on it
 
Oh, current CC analysis is anything but a joke. It was instrumental in overturning Jim Crow laws and has had many other salutary effects.

Just because you like the result, it doesn't make it a correct interpretation.


The Founding Fathers got it mostly right, but they weren't perfect beings. Their work has been improved on over the years.

And they anticipated it would be, through amendment -- not by future courts pretending their plain words mean things they don't.


As for the current Court, there's no question that it is the most conservative in living memory.

Even if that were true, which it's not (why did FDR want to pack the Court, again? Thee-horse team what?) -- so what?
 
You are pulling figures out of your arse. As for mandatory minimum sentences, I would absolutely support them for anyone using a gun in aid of committing a felony.
Actually Im not. Turtle cited less than a percent of the illegal guns coming from gun shows, you accepted that figure and used it back, I know for a fact that most sales at gun shows are done by dealers and require completion of the yellow federal form and a background check. So assuming your quest to 'close' some mythical loophole has any validity whatsover, we are talking considerably less than half a percent and frankly...it is beyond moronic that anyone that can see that illegal drugs and the VAST majority of illegal firearms comes from sources other than private sales at gunshows would still insist that they are actually convinced that is a solution to a problem. I showed earlier in this thread where Mayor Bloombergs biggest problem is not some random gun sales at a gunshow in Arizona but in fact from other sources in NEW YORK...the single largest provider of illegal firearms in New York City. He...like you...has a hard on over gunshows...which nets absolutely NOTHING in fighting violent crime. Now...if you believe violent criminals using the firearm in the commission of a crime should be locked away for mandatory minimum sentences...then we are onto something. But see...you cant even bring yourself to attack the criminals. You support mandatory minimums for the guys selling a firearm...but not for the criminals in the commission.
 
no one should be able to buy a gun without first making sure they have the legal right to buy a gun. its simply common sense.

we need to find a way to ensure that everyone who buys a gun, has the legal right to do so.
The Constitution pretty much states The right to firearm ownership shall not be abridged...doesnt it? Do you support investigation of everyones legal status BEFORE applying the other 9 amendments of the Bill of Rights?
 
No, at least be honest about it...It is liberal doctrine. The SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to make law. Show me in the Constitution where they do.

j-mac

This is what bothers me about conservatives. Anything they disagree with judicial activism, and anything they like is proper judgement. Why you can't see the problem with that is mind boggling. The SCOTUS is doing their job. When they do, it means one side will be please and the other unhappy. There is no way around that. Sorry.
 
You support infringements of the peoples right to keep an bear arms. So yes you are anti-2nd amendment. Trying to claim the regulated part applies to the peoples right to keep and bear arms makes you anti-2nd amendment.

I support regulations, whihc has been part of this country since the begining. It is false to say that the right to all and any weapons anywhere is forbidden. No court has upheld that.

So, no, I'm frankly more in keepig with the 2nd amendment and it's implimentation than you are. :coffeepap
 
BTW Joe, you never answered my question tell me who do you know that wants to buy a tank? That is just silliness.


j-mac

J, J , J . . . Why do you guys focus so much on the silly. Some here once told me he should be able to have a tank if he wanted one. There's a fellow three block down from me who wants a tank. He'd take a rocket launcher to if he could get one. Do you really believe there are no radicals in the world?

But, this helps you to avoid the point doesn't? That's the only reason I can think that would explain how often you go silly. :2funny:
 
The ATF should be raiding these guns shows and busting everyone breaking the law.
 
I support regulations, whihc has been part of this country since the begining. It is false to say that the right to all and any weapons anywhere is forbidden. No court has upheld that.

So, no, I'm frankly more in keepig with the 2nd amendment and it's implimentation than you are. :coffeepap


The courts are not infallible and as long as they support infringements on the 2nd amendment then they will always be wrong regarding the 2nd amendment. As long as you support infringements on the second amendment you are not pro-2nd amendment.It amounts to saying you are for freedom of religion but think Judaism should be banned.
 
Back
Top Bottom