Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 85

Thread: Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed

  1. #71
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    GWB may have done several things wrong, but he unqustionably got it right when he picked his justices.
    True Dat!


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Last Seen
    01-10-12 @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    906

    Re: Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Think so?
    Show that the positions are consistent.
    I don't think that's how burdens of proof work. I've been waiting to see how they're inconsistent.

  3. #73
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    It won't happen in the US. But I do wish they'd clear up the langauge a little and rewrite the admendment. Just to make it more clear. But that would mean somoene certainly wouldn't liek the rewrite.
    Not sure I agree there. The Amendment is written pretty well, IMO. I once read a piece where several grammar experts verified that the grammar was consistent with the plain meaning and general understanding of the 2nd, as unequivocally about the rights of the individual America to own and bear arms, as not only a right of self defense, and of defense of one's nation, but in also defense against ones government propensity for tyranny.

    I'll see if I can dig it up for you.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  4. #74
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed

    Quote Originally Posted by Patria Antiqua View Post
    I don't think that's how burdens of proof work. I've been waiting to see how they're inconsistent.
    You can't see it on its face? Wow.
    I'll type slowly and use small words.

    Breyer argues that a court has no business overturning the will of the people, because the people better know how to deal with their issues than a judge.

    The court, in CA Prop 8, did exactly that - overturned the will of the people.
    Roe v Wade did just that - overturned the will of the people.

    To be consistent, Breyer would oppose the court's actions re: CA Prop 8 and Roe v Wade, because he believes that a court has no business overturning the will of the people, because the people better know how to deal with their issues than a judge.

  5. #75
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed

    Found it - J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

    Exceprt -
    [Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

    "In reply to your numbered questions:

    [Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

    [Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

    [Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

    [Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

    [Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

    [Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

    [Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

    [Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

    [Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

    [Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

    [Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

    [Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

    [Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

    "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

    "My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

    "(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

    "(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

    [Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

    "(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

    Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  6. #76
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Yes - the plain English interpretation of the 2nd.

    If liberals intepreted the 2nd the way they interpret the rest of the Constitution, everyone would be required to have a gun and there would be an entitlement program to provide guns for those that cannot afford one.

  7. #77
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Not sure I agree there. The Amendment is written pretty well, IMO. I once read a piece where several grammar experts verified that the grammar was consistent with the plain meaning and general understanding of the 2nd, as unequivocally about the rights of the individual America to own and bear arms, as not only a right of self defense, and of defense of one's nation, but in also defense against ones government propensity for tyranny.

    I'll see if I can dig it up for you.


    Tim-
    Actually, one reason for the long standing debate on the amendment is both sides believe they are clearly reading it. it seems clear to both. But they get two different meanings. This suggest the writing could use some cleaning up. Remember, something can be correct, but convoluted. Correct is not the same as clear. (though I haven't see the gammar experts you cite)

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Last Seen
    01-10-12 @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    906

    Re: Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    You can't see it on its face? Wow.
    I'll type slowly and use small words.

    Breyer argues that a court has no business overturning the will of the people, because the people better know how to deal with their issues than a judge.

    The court, in CA Prop 8, did exactly that - overturned the will of the people.
    Roe v Wade did just that - overturned the will of the people.

    To be consistent, Breyer would oppose the court's actions re: CA Prop 8 and Roe v Wade, because he believes that a court has no business overturning the will of the people, because the people better know how to deal with their issues than a judge.
    I notice that he doesn't really say anything about whether or not a law's constitutionality has anything to do with it.

    As it happens, the people generally don't know how to deal with anything better than a judge, and I'm glad I have courts to keep me safe from conservatives.

    Mark this one down as "needs more information."

  9. #79
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed

    Quote Originally Posted by Patria Antiqua View Post
    I notice that he doesn't really say anything about whether or not a law's constitutionality has anything to do with it.
    I'm sorry -- I showed the inconsistency.
    You're supposed to now show how I am wrong.

  10. #80
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Not sure I agree there. The Amendment is written pretty well, IMO. I once read a piece where several grammar experts verified that the grammar was consistent with the plain meaning and general understanding of the 2nd, as unequivocally about the rights of the individual America to own and bear arms, as not only a right of self defense, and of defense of one's nation, but in also defense against ones government propensity for tyranny.

    I'll see if I can dig it up for you.


    Tim-
    I've found a couple that agree with you, but also some that don't. As you're familiar with those that agree, here's a few who don't:

    Almost certainly, part of what they had in mind was limiting the powers of the Federal government. The Feds should not be empowered to forbid the people in the individual States to use guns, because that would prevent the States from raising armed defence forces. It would make them impotent. But the framers set a grammatical conundrum for us when they put the main clause in the passive voice: ‘shall not be infringed’. Infringed by whom? If only they had said in active voice, ‘The Federal government shall not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms’, then we could at least be sure of what the subject was, and thus who is constrained by the amendment. By putting the main clause in the passive, they failed to make it clear. An enormous amount hangs on that. It may be that individual States like New York and Texas and California have an absolute right to ban all private gun ownership if their own legislatures deem it wise. Maybe all the Second Amendment denies is the right of the Federal government to require it.


    Lingua Franca - 14/12/2002: Grammar and Guns - When Words Fail...

    In the case of the Second Amendment, the absolute also shows a clear cause-and-effect relationship: because a well-regulated militia is necessary, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Add to this the fact that the expression “to bear arms” overwhelmingly occurs in military contexts, not civilian ones, both in the 18th century and today: as the historian Garry Wills (1995) has put it, one does not bear arms against a rabbit. It would thus be hard to discount the militia when interpreting the Second Amendment.

    The Web of Language

    The best way to make sense of the Second Amendment is to take away all the commas (which, I know, means that only outlaws will have commas). Without the distracting commas, one can focus on the grammar of the sentence. Professor Lund is correct that the clause about a well-regulated militia is “absolute,” but only in the sense that it is grammatically independent of the main clause, not that it is logically unrelated. To the contrary, absolute clauses typically provide a causal or temporal context for the main clause.

    The founders — most of whom were classically educated — would have recognized this rhetorical device as the “ablative absolute” of Latin prose. To take an example from Horace likely to have been familiar to them: “Caesar, being in command of the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence” (ego nec tumultum nec mori per vim metuam, tenente Caesare terras). The main clause flows logically from the absolute clause: “Because Caesar commands the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence.”

    Likewise, when the justices finish diagramming the Second Amendment, they should end up with something that expresses a causal link, like: “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/op...6freedman.html

    This is why I say it's poorly written. Everyone sees it saying what they think it says.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •