• 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!

The Ninth Amendment

MickeyW said:
I guess I'm confused by this. The NRA and all the other gun groups that I'm affiliated with, contact me with a lot of material, using great detail, in outlining a certain politician's or bureaucrats, anti-gun agenda. I consider that, as being educated on those people and their absurd agenda.
Click to expand...

OK you make a point but you assume that what the NRA is doing is correct. Is it? Lets see.

Gun control is an advocacy organisation. A polite name for propaganda organisation.

The NRA is a firearm owner organisation that has interest in sports and shooting. It's sole reason for existence is the right to firearm ownership. As such the reason for existence is long forgotten.

The NRA contact you with political material that informs you who or what politicians are doing and what gun control organisations are doing along with its own plans with the hidden message of sit back we are fighting or you. The occasional message of which politician to contact in the hopes the politician can do some good. Would that be a reasonably accurate and unbiased view?

Now what good does this do and I'll admit it is a whole lot better than nothing which is what most others do. Politicians do not control what legislation gets passed. There is only one thing that does and that is public pressure. No politician is going to commit political suicide by going against strong public opinion.

Public pressure means pressure from the public demanding legislation or action. It is measured by how serious it is. The least serious is an organisation saying we represent...... Next a petition then all the way to an organisation that commands the media, can get thousands to complain and demand in the media and can put thousands of feet on the street. This is demonstrated power to influence votes if need be. Unquestionably vote are in the balance. Votes = power Political power cannot be obtained with out support (votes) Or the only currency of politics is power. You cannot buy political power nor can/will any politician deliver promises if power will be lost. Popularity = power. If support is strong enough it will become party policy but only as long as support is there.

The NRA should be educating people on how to oppose gun controls propaganda and remove the strangle hold gun control has on the media.

In propaganda it is not only what you do but how you do it. On could spend a billion dollars on advertising or publications and get nothing in return. The NRA has many tens of million members if 1% wrote the media one letter a month complaining about gun controls coverage and pointing out how gun control was endangering the public, that would be more than enough to turn this fight on it's head. The cost trivial.

Sorry I may not have been very clear here I am distracted and apologise. Fighting smart is a whole lot better than fighting wrong and not knowing it.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I don't understand the confusion that is so common regarding the Ninth. And I do think the OP has a good point, incorporating the right to keep and bear arms into the meaning of the amendment, even though the language of the Second fairly well obviates any need to invoke the Ninth regarding gun rights.

All the Ninth says is that an exhaustive listing of the rights of citizens is impossible. Nobody can name them all, and there is not enough paper to begin to write them on because they are so numerous.

Further, that the writers chose to enumerate some of those rights by way of the BOR cannot be used to deny or disparage the existence of other rights not named in the document.
Click to expand...

A great way of putting it. The confusion arises when politics tries to make it something else to suit its agenda
 
Crimefree said:
What gave you the impression I was going to write an all encompassing thesis on the subject?

I bet not one of the facts I brought up was mentioned in your course.

The anti-saloon league failed because like the NRA and most firearm organisation they never had a clue what they should have been doing.

Your strawman construction is noted. The police were never out gunned and you have not shown a single reason to believe they were. The Thompson was not just available to gangs and there were other suitable armaments in the police armoury or available.

Prohibition had ended when the FDR acted. It had nothing to do with fire power and everything to do with 5000 moonshine cops now with out a job. Giving BATF a reason for existence with the same staff. Or is this just an irrelevant but convenient fact?

Government created the public pressure for a law that was passed by stealth and stupidity.

You want lessons in pressure group legislation or better how to prevent it? If you know how start teaching firearm organisation who sure as hell could do with all the help they can get.
Click to expand...

You were trying educate someone who is way ahead of you... The NFA was passed 6 months after the 21 st Amendment, so the time line was very short and it followed an assassination attempt on FDR as well. In rural areas the police were certainly outgunned by the gangsters and in urban areas the gang and police wars were getting to be too much, so that's what brought the NFA around.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act
\
While the NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority to tax, the NFA had an underlying purpose unrelated to revenue collection. As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. The $200 making and transfer taxes on most NFA firearms were considered quite severe and adequate to carry out Congress’ purpose to discourage or eliminate transactions in these firearms. The $200 tax has not changed since 1934.
Click to expand...

So as I said, it was the right thing for the right time. Unfortunately for the Thompson, originally designed as a WWI trench broom, the war ended before the gun was released to the army. Then of course it found its way into the crime flow, so just like today, gun control is an effort to thwart such proliferation, and the fact that the gun crowd legal eagles are trying to use the ninth amendment to derail such attempts to disarm crime only shows that the gun crowd has no interest in public safety and is for such proliferation as to support crime in that effect. So the gun crowd indeed has a "screw you" attitude.
 
Crimefree said:
The reason gun control gets stronger is that firearm organisation are so useless in preventing it.
Click to expand...

The reason gun control gets stronger is because more and more people are demanding it.
 
jet57 said:
You were trying educate someone who is way ahead of you... The NFA was passed 6 months after the 21 st Amendment, so the time line was very short and it followed an assassination attempt on FDR as well. In rural areas the police were certainly outgunned by the gangsters and in urban areas the gang and police wars were getting to be too much, so that's what brought the NFA around.
Click to expand...

I don't care what the common perception was but I suggest you show me the alternate plans and suggestion for the 5000 odd moonshine cops before you claim anything else. These 5000 were not just going to vanish into the woodwork and were considerably more a problem than supposedly government being out gunned. You have not refuted my claim that the Thompson and other HMC's were not available to the police thus out-gunned is ridiculous.

Apparently you head is screwed on backwards.

I'm not going to find all the stuff but wiki will do

When the Volstead Act, which established Prohibition in the United States, was repealed in December 1933, the Unit was transferred from the Department of Justice back to the Department of the Treasury where it became the Alcohol Tax Unit (ATU) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Special Agent Eliot Ness and several members of The "Untouchables", who had worked for the Prohibition Bureau while the Volstead Act was still in force, were transferred to the ATU. In 1942, responsibility for enforcing federal firearms laws was given to the ATU.

The National Firearms Act (NFA), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on June 26, 1934, currently codified as amended as I.R.C. ch. 53, is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The Act was passed shortly after the repeal of Prohibition. The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the Federal firearms laws. The Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA") is Title I.

All transfers of ownership of registered NFA firearms must be done through the federal NFA registry. The NFA also requires that permanent transport of NFA firearms across state lines by the owner must be reported to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF, or BATFE).

Criminal syndicates completely controlled the liquor industry. Assassinations, bombs, bullets and corruption were routine; every industry paid tribute, directly or indirectly, to bootleggers and gangsters who had forged such close ties with local authorities that anonymous prohibition enforcement squads became necessary in some cities. Chicago was one of those cities.

It really does not matter much in any event. Motivations are far more important to me than who did what.

So as I said, it was the right thing for the right time.
Click to expand...

It was a political manoeuvre and had nothing to do with gun control. That was simply a scapegoat.
Unfortunately for the Thompson, originally designed as a WWI trench broom, the war ended before the gun was released to the army. Then of course it found its way into the crime flow, so just like today, gun control is an effort to thwart such proliferation,
Click to expand...

The thought that the human race remains so deluded that bans and restriction of an object can change human behaviour is a scary thought indeed. It is no doubt held in popular belief by those who seek to gain from perpetrating it.

and the fact that the gun crowd legal eagles are trying to use the ninth amendment to derail such attempts to disarm crime only shows that the gun crowd has no interest in public safety and is for such proliferation as to support crime in that effect. So the gun crowd indeed has a "screw you" attitude.
Click to expand...

Forgive them they know not what they do but they have been trying the same approach for more than 100 years. It still has the same chance of ultimate success - zero. Firearm organisation just do not understand you cannot fight government by using governments courts.

They don't have a screw you attitude they are protecting their possessions which scoundrels seek to remove. They simply do not have the leadership quality or ability to show them the fallacy of protecting property when it is rights that are really in the balance. Nor are they educated enough to know that the only way of winning is to take gun control head on and play gun controls game. The only prize that counts is public opinion and public support. Gun control has chosen to base that on public safety thus firearm organisations have no choice of how to gain public support. Beat gun control at its own game.

Now do you understand nothing here is new to me but Rome was not built in a day. First you have to convince firearm owners to build a fire under organisation management rear ends and get their act together and start fighting smart.
 
jet57 said:
You were trying educate someone who is way ahead of you... The NFA was passed 6 months after the 21 st Amendment, so the time line was very short and it followed an assassination attempt on FDR as well. In rural areas the police were certainly outgunned by the gangsters and in urban areas the gang and police wars were getting to be too much, so that's what brought the NFA around.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act
\


So as I said, it was the right thing for the right time. Unfortunately for the Thompson, originally designed as a WWI trench broom, the war ended before the gun was released to the army. Then of course it found its way into the crime flow, so just like today, gun control is an effort to thwart such proliferation, and the fact that the gun crowd legal eagles are trying to use the ninth amendment to derail such attempts to disarm crime only shows that the gun crowd has no interest in public safety and is for such proliferation as to support crime in that effect. So the gun crowd indeed has a "screw you" attitude.
Click to expand...

that might be one of the funnier lies we have seen on this board in this forum. Congress was Full of crap and the amount of automatic weapons used in crime was minimal. Same with Short Barreled rifles and the only reason why silencers were added was based on SPECULATION by game wardens that hungry people would use them to poach deer.

you are again lying when you claim these laws are designed to "disarm crime". its already illegal for convicted criminals to own ANY firearm-so laws that ban HONEST PEOPLE from owning them is not "Disarming crime" but infringing on our rights

I saw "screw you" to banoids who are dishonest about their real goals. and their real goals include actually protecting criminals
 
Crimefree said:
I don't care what the common perception was but I suggest you show me the alternate plans and suggestion for the 5000 odd moonshine cops before you claim anything else. These 5000 were not just going to vanish into the woodwork and were considerably more a problem than supposedly government being out gunned. You have not refuted my claim that the Thompson and other HMC's were not available to the police thus out-gunned is ridiculous.

Apparently you head is screwed on backwards.

I'm not going to find all the stuff but wiki will do

When the Volstead Act, which established Prohibition in the United States, was repealed in December 1933, the Unit was transferred from the Department of Justice back to the Department of the Treasury where it became the Alcohol Tax Unit (ATU) of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Special Agent Eliot Ness and several members of The "Untouchables", who had worked for the Prohibition Bureau while the Volstead Act was still in force, were transferred to the ATU. In 1942, responsibility for enforcing federal firearms laws was given to the ATU.

The National Firearms Act (NFA), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on June 26, 1934, currently codified as amended as I.R.C. ch. 53, is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The Act was passed shortly after the repeal of Prohibition. The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the Federal firearms laws. The Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA") is Title I.

All transfers of ownership of registered NFA firearms must be done through the federal NFA registry. The NFA also requires that permanent transport of NFA firearms across state lines by the owner must be reported to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF, or BATFE).

Criminal syndicates completely controlled the liquor industry. Assassinations, bombs, bullets and corruption were routine; every industry paid tribute, directly or indirectly, to bootleggers and gangsters who had forged such close ties with local authorities that anonymous prohibition enforcement squads became necessary in some cities. Chicago was one of those cities.

It really does not matter much in any event. Motivations are far more important to me than who did what.



It was a political manoeuvre and had nothing to do with gun control. That was simply a scapegoat.


The thought that the human race remains so deluded that bans and restriction of an object can change human behaviour is a scary thought indeed. It is no doubt held in popular belief by those who seek to gain from perpetrating it.



Forgive them they know not what they do but they have been trying the same approach for more than 100 years. It still has the same chance of ultimate success - zero. Firearm organisation just do not understand you cannot fight government by using governments courts.

They don't have a screw you attitude they are protecting their possessions which scoundrels seek to remove. They simply do not have the leadership quality or ability to show them the fallacy of protecting property when it is rights that are really in the balance. Nor are they educated enough to know that the only way of winning is to take gun control head on and play gun controls game. The only prize that counts is public opinion and public support. Gun control has chosen to base that on public safety thus firearm organisations have no choice of how to gain public support. Beat gun control at its own game.

Now do you understand nothing here is new to me but Rome was not built in a day. First you have to convince firearm owners to build a fire under organisation management rear ends and get their act together and start fighting smart.
Click to expand...

Nothing you've said shows me to be incorrect in any way. You're just picking up random information and throwing it in.
 
jet57 said:
Nothing you've said shows me to be incorrect in any way. You're just picking up random information and throwing it in.
Click to expand...

This is not a history lesson and thinking because you are aware of historical data is meaningless. Anything outside of what I originally claimed is meaningless. I have proven the points you questioned.

You claim to know about it yet have given it no recognition for the part any plays. I have no idea what you are trying to prove or claim since you have contributed zero on that and are now nit picking about little understood historical facts. I showed how little you understood. You cannot attribute change or laws to something you would like it to be when patently that was not the case.
 
jet57 said:
Nothing you've said shows me to be incorrect in any way. You're just picking up random information and throwing it in.
Click to expand...

I suppose it is impossible for you to conceive that an organisation that existed for the prosecution of alcohol laws which were repealed now had no work to do is a better reason than an era of violence that had come to an end and claiming it was because cops were out gunned.

The mind boggles sometimes at what people will believe.
 
TurtleDude said:
that might be one of the funnier lies we have seen on this board in this forum. Congress was Full of crap and the amount of automatic weapons used in crime was minimal. Same with Short Barreled rifles and the only reason why silencers were added was based on SPECULATION by game wardens that hungry people would use them to poach deer.

you are again lying when you claim these laws are designed to "disarm crime". its already illegal for convicted criminals to own ANY firearm-so laws that ban HONEST PEOPLE from owning them is not "Disarming crime" but infringing on our rights

I saw "screw you" to banoids who are dishonest about their real goals. and their real goals include actually protecting criminals
Click to expand...

I had rather hoped you would contribute your knowledge of the dishonest methods of passing the NFA. The NFA had absolutely zero to do with crime fighting of that there can be no doubt at all. Nor was it seen as an equaliser for so called out gunned cops. Machine guns and the TAX became a substitute for alcohol for the moonshine cops and the financial support thereof.

Gun control advocates are the criminals friends and support team.
 
Crimefree said:
I had rather hoped you would contribute your knowledge of the dishonest methods of passing the NFA. The NFA had absolutely zero to do with crime fighting of that there can be no doubt at all. Nor was it seen as an equaliser for so called out gunned cops. Machine guns and the TAX became a substitute for alcohol for the moonshine cops and the financial support thereof.

Gun control advocates are the criminals friends and support team.
Click to expand...

I have done that at least 50 times on this board during the time I have been here.

the worst dishonesty was passing the Hughes Amendment in 1986. It didn't pass the voice vote but Rangel said it did and REFUSED to do a roll call vote. The only argument in favor of it was Hughes claim that "no one can be against a ban on machine guns"
 
Crimefree said:
This is not a history lesson and thinking because you are aware of historical data is meaningless. Anything outside of what I originally claimed is meaningless. I have proven the points you questioned.

You claim to know about it yet have given it no recognition for the part any plays. I have no idea what you are trying to prove or claim since you have contributed zero on that and are now nit picking about little understood historical facts. I showed how little you understood. You cannot attribute change or laws to something you would like it to be when patently that was not the case.
Click to expand...

You've been diverting since we started. You've shown nothing that even suggests that my comments are wrong in way.
 
Crimefree said:
I suppose it is impossible for you to conceive that an organisation that existed for the prosecution of alcohol laws which were repealed now had no work to do is a better reason than an era of violence that had come to an end and claiming it was because cops were out gunned.

The mind boggles sometimes at what people will believe.
Click to expand...

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

We're done here.
 
OrphanSlug said:
The problem with the 9th Amendment is we really have no idea what it was designed to protect. You could say that it provides a mechanism to ensure that government does not take away rights that are not yet named, but you could also say that this provides a mechanism where the Constitution cannot be interpreted as a means to take any rights away from the people in concert with other Constitutionally specified limitations on government.

I would argue we almost nullified whatever the purpose of the 9th Amendment was to mean as we consistently look to the government to limit or control something. What we also saw realized was a concern expressed by the Federalists where the whole idea of government operation was how to get around Constitutional limitations, and where non-specific utilize argument to craft means for government to limit or control something.

If you agree that the Bill of Rights in total was an effort to safeguard liberties from government interventions then we already can establish that overtime the government has nullified whatever non-named purpose was for the 9th Amendment.

We ask all the time for the courts to determine what are unenumerated or inferred rights to varying degrees of answer depending on subject. For example and for the purposes of this thread, there already are limitations on the 2nd Amendment. Politics aside for a moment on this subject, you cannot go out right now and buy any gun you want entirely on your terms with zero government interference.

Because of that realization we are going to have a hard time looking at all arguments using the 9th Amendment as equal. Because the 2nd Amendment mentions arms, but there is no Constitutional authority granted to the government to regulate relationships or marriage then applying the "gay marriage" to some other subject becomes problematic. We would have to craft an argument that unenumerated rights under the 9th Amendment allows (at least) for liberty in terms of relationships, decisions on abortions, etc. Consider the Row v Wade decisions. The stress was not on unenumerated rights in 9th Amendment terms, the stress was on a counterbalance between the rights of the unborn and the rights of privacy (that is more or less an unenumerated right but the 9th Amendment was not mentioned in Roe v Wade.)

What the Heller decision really did was illustrate stress on the "operative clause" of the second amendment far more than something overreaching from the 9th Amendment. Also, the Heller decision did not look at all guns as equal either. "Lawful weapons" and "military service weapons" were mentioned as not really defined terms, but intentions of restrictions. So you still ended up with a decision that did not contain absolutes.

In the end we are going to have a hard time looking at all of these decisions with stress on the 9th Amendment, which has no real specifics.
Click to expand...

The majority in Roe specifically located a right to abortion in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
matchlight said:
The majority in Roe specifically located a right to abortion in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

Sort of, what they really did was find a mechanism to allow an abortion (within limits) based on the prior decision Griswold v Connecticut (1965.) In that case the right to privacy was recognized and protected by the 14th Amendment. In Roe v Wade both the 14th Amendment with associated case law and the 9th Amendment was mentioned (in the context of "reservation of (unnamed) rights to the people.") Also, the courts in the Roe v Wade decision also recognized a counterbalance. The decision ultimately gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy but only during the first trimester, and turned around and half-ass defined different levels of government interests in the second and third trimesters.

The decision was problematic because it determined who had what rights based on the trimester of the pregnancy, and ended up pitting a woman's right to privacy against a State's right to protect how they defined life. Since the Constitution itself does not define "person" the Roe v Wade justices for the decision argued they could engage in the collision created by "medicine, philosophy, and theology" on the definition of life. That line was literally in the decision as "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." So even saying in the decision that they could not speculate, they did so anyway and used trimester as the means to tilt the decision on abortion one way or another. "Viability" became defined as well.

You really have to read the entire decision, including the opposition opinions, to get how they crafted this counterbalance of rights and definitions (explicit and not.)
 
TurtleDude said:
Prior to Heller, some of the cutting edge pro-rights legal theorists were starting to explore the 9th amendment as a venue for attacking idiocy like the Hughes Amendment or the Clinton AWB. after all-if "rights" the founders never mentioned, never discussed, and most likely never even gave a thought to as being rights (gay marriage, abortion, healthcare etc) are protected by the 9th amendment, why shouldn't a right that was clearly and constantly discussed by the founders be protected as well?

The ARC (Anti rights coalition-the term those of us in the pro-rights movement use to describe the various groups and individuals seeking to restrict or ban guns) has tried to pretend that the Second Amendment only matters to those actively in a state organization known as the "well regulated militia". While this flies in the face of the undisputed fact (See Cruikshank v. US and the writings of St George Tucker) that the founders saw the second as merely GUARANTEEING a pre-existing (government) natural right, some statist judges, misconstruing Cruikshank claimed that since the constitution did NOT CREATE the right, it does not exist.

Now Heller has pretty well destroyed that nonsense but Chelsea Clinton has brayed that her mother hopes to appoint justices who would reverse Heller

I would like to hear those who believe that the USSC correctly found various rights to abortion and gay marriage in the 9th Amendment, should not find a similar right to be armed as one chooses in the same amendment.
Click to expand...

Excuse me.. but did you not just argue that the Constitution does not protect rights on a state level?
 
jaeger19 said:
Excuse me.. but did you not just argue that the Constitution does not protect rights on a state level?
Click to expand...

you need to keep up and understand the difference between pre 14th amendment and post 14th amendment incorporation
 
OrphanSlug said:
Sort of, what they really did was find a mechanism to allow an abortion (within limits) based on the prior decision Griswold v Connecticut (1965.) In that case the right to privacy was recognized and protected by the 14th Amendment. In Roe v Wade both the 14th Amendment with associated case law and the 9th Amendment was mentioned (in the context of "reservation of (unnamed) rights to the people.") Also, the courts in the Roe v Wade decision also recognized a counterbalance. The decision ultimately gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy but only during the first trimester, and turned around and half-ass defined different levels of government interests in the second and third trimesters.

The decision was problematic because it determined who had what rights based on the trimester of the pregnancy, and ended up pitting a woman's right to privacy against a State's right to protect how they defined life. Since the Constitution itself does not define "person" the Roe v Wade justices for the decision argued they could engage in the collision created by "medicine, philosophy, and theology" on the definition of life. That line was literally in the decision as "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." So even saying in the decision that they could not speculate, they did so anyway and used trimester as the means to tilt the decision on abortion one way or another. "Viability" became defined as well.

You really have to read the entire decision, including the opposition opinions, to get how they crafted this counterbalance of rights and definitions (explicit and not.)
Click to expand...


No "sort of" about it. And I get exactly how the Roe majority "crafted" its masterpiece of doubletalk. Roe is every bit as much a substantive due process decision as Lochner--or, for that matter, Obergefell. As I said, the Court in Roe located a right to abortion in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was the District Court that relied on the Ninth Amendment. The Supreme Court apparently followed that line for a while, too--but only in preliminary drafts of the Roe decision.

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

I have read Roe v. Wade several times, carefully--and I have concluded, just like many other people who understand constitutional law, that it is a concocted piece of garbage. There is a rumor that even the law clerks of the rookie justice who authored the majority opinion, Harry Blackmun, recognized it as such a turkey that they privately referred to it as "Harry's Abortion." I can believe it.

Your assertion that Roe was based on Griswold is not accurate, as Justice Scalia noted in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas:

"The Court points to Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 481-482 (1965). But that case expressly disclaimed any reliance on the doctrine of 'substantive due process,' and grounded the so-called 'right to privacy' in penumbras of constitutional provisions other than the Due Process Clause." (emphasis in original) 539 U.S. 558, 594 (2003).

The big problem with Roe is not just the trimester scheme, which the Court scrapped in Casey. It is that the majority never even tried to explain why the right to personal privacy it had in earlier decisions found to be implied by various parts of the Constitution included a right to abortion. It simply asserted that it did. That is why Roe has been pilloried by constitutional scholars for forty-odd years as a decision that is supported by no legal reasoning whatever. Like Lochner and Obergefell, Roe shows why the doctrine of substantive due process deserves the criticism that ii is a convenient ruse, used by the Court to impose ukases that represent nothing more than the policy preferences of a handful of judges who have ignored the constitutional separation of powers and set themselves up as a super-legislature.
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
(chuckle)

The gun crowd supports the proliferation of illegal weapons that get into the streets. They do so by not campaigning against such proliferation and by not supporting efforts to do so. Thus the criminal element just helps themselves to what ever they want.

As I said, FDR was doing what he could to stop the proliferation of Thompson sub machine guns and sawed off shotguns and BARs, as used by Bonnie and Clyde for instance, that gave the gangs more fire power than the cops. That is the problem today as well. This notion that the government created gangsters is stupid. The prohibition created a market, that is true, but like any murderer, a man chooses his own path. If said gangsters had been limited to pistols and rifles the gang wars and police wars might have been very different. That is the reasonable argument. Therefore the drivel that TD is adding to this discussion is useless nonsense and just reiterates my point. By supporting proliferation the gun crown are the enablers.
Click to expand...

jet57 said:
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

We're done here.
Click to expand...

Circular argument.

You have been refuted on every excursion and point you have made tying to wiggle off the hook of your asinine claims. Not at any point have you offered the slightest evidence that the cops were out gunned or that it had anything to do with the NFA other than being propaganda to support the NFA.

I suppose it is impossible for you to conceive that an organisation that existed for the prosecution of alcohol laws which were repealed now had no work to do is a better reason than an era of violence that had come to an end and claiming it was because cops were out gunned.

The mind boggles sometimes at what people will believe.

Oh!! did I not put in the obvious dots again? That saw the creation of the NFA to supply work for ~5000 out of work moonshine cops

And you still have not refuted that. Your attendance of a historical gloss paint and varnish course of popularising government propaganda is not evidence of anything other that a waste of money.

So you are right we are done and you have nothing to offer other than another false and incorrect excuse.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
you need to keep up and understand the difference between pre 14th amendment and post 14th amendment incorporation
Click to expand...

I see.. so you disagree with equal protection under the law?

Or are you saying that the founders were wrong?
 
jaeger19 said:
I see.. so you disagree with equal protection under the law?

Or are you saying that the founders were wrong?
Click to expand...

lets get back to your complete error on constitutional law. Where did the founders get the power to enact the constitution and create the Bill of rights? from the several states and their legislators.

where did the states give the federal government the power to impose the bill of rights on the states?

answer-NO WHERE.
 
TurtleDude said:
lets get back to your complete error on constitutional law. Where did the founders get the power to enact the constitution and create the Bill of rights? from the several states and their legislators.

where did the states give the federal government the power to impose the bill of rights on the states?

answer-NO WHERE.
Click to expand...

Again... so you have only two ways to go with your premise:

Either.. you disagree with equal protection under the law.. since according to you, its against the original intent of the founders constitution.

Which would also include disagreeing with Heller, and includes agreeing that states have the right to ban any and all firearms in their state.


OR

The founders got the original constitution wrong. and it had to be fixed.

So which is it?
 
TurtleDude said:
sadly the machinations of the FDR administration meant that the commerce clause was used to give the government control over private citizens in all sorts of areas that the federal Government was never intended to have such power. IF the courts had actually done their job, the bill of rights would have never been needed since the federal government was never given any power over private citizens acting within their own states
Click to expand...

Better safe than sorry seemed to be the approach the founders took with the BoR.

Unfortunately, they weren't safe enough I guess. Hell, even with the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Government over time, was able to erode that to "We can make little infringements here and there."

Well at least with the latest rulings, although not perfect, they were rather optimal in reversing a good amount of damage done. Of course, the incorporation of the fourteenth with the second meant that yet another rightful police power the individual semi-sovereign states had was ripped away.

Eh, it's sad that such clear wording can somehow be worked around.
 
jaeger19 said:
Again... so you have only two ways to go with your premise:

Either.. you disagree with equal protection under the law.. since according to you, its against the original intent of the founders constitution.

Which would also include disagreeing with Heller, and includes agreeing that states have the right to ban any and all firearms in their state.


OR

The founders got the original constitution wrong. and it had to be fixed.

So which is it?
Click to expand...

you don't understand the entire environment surrounding the constitution. The AOC failed. that meant what we had was several states which were each independent states with their own laws. The founders wanted to create a central federal government with the consent of the states. The federal government was given certain powers by the states-such as the power to mint coin, enter treaties, declare war etc. The states agreed to that ceding of state power to a central government.

The founders did not give the CENTRAL government certain powers. Some founders feared that merely NOT delegating some powers to the federal government would NOT PREVENT that federal government from engaging in such areas. SO to appease one faction of the founders and those who were instrumental in ratifying the Constitution, the bill of rights were created to affirmatively LIMIT the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in areas where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was never given any power in the first place

before I go on-do you agree or disagree with that and if you disagree with that-state why
 
jaeger19 said:
Again... so you have only two ways to go with your premise:

Either.. you disagree with equal protection under the law.. since according to you, its against the original intent of the founders constitution.

Which would also include disagreeing with Heller, and includes agreeing that states have the right to ban any and all firearms in their state.


OR

The founders got the original constitution wrong. and it had to be fixed.

So which is it?
Click to expand...

If there was no fourteenth amendment, then yes, states would retain that power, as they rightfully should.

It wasn't a matter of equal protection under the law (state law in particular) being looked down upon or discouraged, but rather, remaining truthful to the ultimate ideal of Federalism which acts as the foundation for the American government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom