Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

Wiseone · Dec 9, 2011

Tigger said:
YES, I am a Constitutional Literalist. I always have been and always will be.

Tigger said:
Then maybe those of us who do care just need to be a little more "forceful" in our push to get things back on track. The Tea Partiers CLAIMED they were going to start changing the system, but I've heard little out of them about that in the last six months.

Tigger said:
We may be a minority, but we are a group that should be willing to do anything and everything to make sure this issue gets corrected.

Tigger said:
Yes I do have some magic wands to wave. Quite a few, as do many of the other who agree with me. They come in a number of different flavors.....

9mm, .45ACP, .40S&W, 5.56mm NATO, 7.62mm NATO, etc....

Tigger said:
No. I just view the world from a very different place than most people do. I long ago realized that all the pretty, happy, joyful stuff in the spiritual world is crap and nothing more. It's the bright bunting placed on the coffin to make people forget there's a dead body inside it. The world is a cruel, nasty, vile place where only the Strong survive. Always has been. We just put up this bunting called "civilization" to try and hide that from our eyes on a daily basis.

Tigger said:
Who's talking about voting as a way to change things?

You have to realize that my preference would be to go back to that tarring and feathering, drawing and quartering, pillarying day and age.

I would suggest it's actually the other way around. Anyone who self-identifies as a Liberal or who has ever voted for a Democrat should be disallowed from owning firearms.

So let me see if I can sort this out. You claim to be a literal Constitutionalist, yet support the removal of 2nd amendment rights for Democrats and those who vote for them?
You also claim that the strong are the ones who survive, yet fail to realize you're in a far weaker position than the rest of us. If it came to violence, I'm quite sure you and whoever fell in at your side would be easily defeated by the rest of the people unwilling to live in your form of government. In fact the notion of Civilization and its existence is the only thing keeping you alive if it were true that without it we'd resort to violence over these issues.

The US constitution also makes no mention of an Air Force, clearly its existence is illegal. Also in Article 1 Section 9 it reads "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" yet you would make it illegal for anyone who has ever voted democrat to own a firearm, that is a ex post facto law, punishing someone for committing a crime or act that they committed while that action was still legal. Also the 14th amendment provides for "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Therefore to deny all liberals their guns would require a trail of each and every one of them, plus it would be a violation of the concept of equal protection under the law.

The 8th Amendment also bars cruel and unusual punishment, something I believe tar and feathering qualifies as. But that also highlights the problem of literal translation, who's to say what is cruel and isn't cruel? Its not a work that can be taken literally where all people who read it agree on its meaning, for example the word "five" would be something we'd all agree on by taking it literally to mean five.

Its such a weak argument it literally makes its own counter argument.

Boo Radley · Dec 9, 2011

Redress said:
Just to make the point: Wikipedia is at least as good a source, probably better than FreeRepublic. You also seem to have not understood the point made by the guy you quoted. History is fun, but you have not shown a great knowledge of it in this thread.

He tends to skew hsitory and other things through the lense of his ideaology, and then get smug about his misunderstandings.

But, whatchagonnado? :coffeepap

Black Dog · Dec 9, 2011

Wiseone said:
The US constitution also makes no mention of an Air Force, clearly its existence is illegal.

The "Air Force" started out as the Army Air Corp, so it is covered under the Constitution and in no way illegal.

Wiseone said:
Also in Article 1 Section 9 it reads "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" yet you would make it illegal for anyone who has ever voted democrat to own a firearm, that is a ex post facto law, punishing someone for committing a crime or act that they committed while that action was still legal. Also the 14th amendment provides for "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Therefore to deny all liberals their guns would require a trail of each and every one of them, plus it would be a violation of the concept of equal protection under the law.

He is over the top, what did you expect?

Wiseone said:
The 8th Amendment also bars cruel and unusual punishment, something I believe tar and feathering qualifies as.

The practice was never an official punishment in the United States, but a form of vigilante justice. So it does not apply at all.

Wiseone said:
But that also highlights the problem of literal translation, who's to say what is cruel and isn't cruel? Its not a work that can be taken literally where all people who read it agree on its meaning, for example the word "five" would be something we'd all agree on by taking it literally to mean five.

The 8th amendment literally translated still means exactly the same thing. You are trying to reference something that is subjective and left for the courts to decide. If a punishment is found to be cruel and unusual punishment, it is said to be so by the courts. Then it would be found unconstitutional and removed as such.

Wiseone said:
Its such a weak argument it literally makes its own counter argument.

So far the argument you present is weak as all that you have shown is Tiger is over the top.

ecofarm · Dec 9, 2011

Air Force is illegal because it's not in the constitution? Really??

Damn, sometimes you just know you're on the internet.

OhIsee.Then · Dec 9, 2011

I had posted: When I read the complete but one sentence admendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I'm reading the words "A well regulated Militia,...; and, in your comments there is no consideration of this. So what does the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." part intend? Interesting how hard it is to interpret and agree on the the written word, with and without the understanding the intent of the architecture of the whole thing.

LaMidRighter said:
Ah yes. The fallacious militia argument. The militia is one of many reasons to allow for an armed populace, it is a secondary thought independent of the main clause which states that the right shall not be infringed. In other words without the militia clause the amendment is still complete in it's context. Have a nice day.

This is an example of one's literal reading (interpretation) vs. a common different literal (interpretation) reading. So who is it that thinks literal reading is possible?

Black Dog · Dec 9, 2011

OhIsee.Then said:
I had posted: When I read the complete but one sentence admendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I'm reading the words "A well regulated Militia,...; and, in your comments there is no consideration of this. So what does the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." part intend? Interesting how hard it is to interpret and agree on the the written word, with and without the understanding the intent of the architecture of the whole thing.This is an example of one's literal reading (interpretation) vs. a common different literal (interpretation) reading. So who is it that thinks literal reading is possible?

This is a good example of one not knowing how to read.

I guess you missed this: The militia is one of many reasons to allow for an armed populace

LaMidRighter · Dec 9, 2011

OhIsee.Then said:
I had posted: When I read the complete but one sentence admendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I'm reading the words "A well regulated Militia,...; and, in your comments there is no consideration of this. So what does the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." part intend? Interesting how hard it is to interpret and agree on the the written word, with and without the understanding the intent of the architecture of the whole thing.This is an example of one's literal reading (interpretation) vs. a common different literal (interpretation) reading. So who is it that thinks literal reading is possible?

This has been hashed out years ago. Literally, the comma denotes that contextually there are two independent points being made, literally the second point in context is the stronger one, so literally the secondary thought dealing with one reason being militias is literally not important. The literal important point is that literally the right to bear arms is not to be infringed so literally you have nothing to stand on. So literally you are dismissed.

OhIsee.Then · Dec 9, 2011

Blackdog said:
This is a good example of one not knowing how to read.

I guess you missed this: The militia is one of many reasons to allow for an armed populace

You think I'm taking a side in this interpretation. You jump to that because of who you are and how you think. My Oh, I see. Then... comes from my behavior as an architect and design engineer and I like to apply it here. You have forgotten the basis, essence, of this poll.
And to continue this fun one can take the position that to have a militia you need to have an armed populace, i.e. the militia has the right to defend the populace from tyranny from a ‘higher’ force by having an armed populace to serve the militia’s authority to defend the locals.

liblady · Dec 9, 2011

LaMidRighter said:
This has been hashed out years ago. Literally, the comma denotes that contextually there are two independent points being made, literally the second point in context is the stronger one, so literally the secondary thought dealing with one reason being militias is literally not important. The literal important point is that literally the right to bear arms is not to be infringed so literally you have nothing to stand on. So literally you are dismissed.

literally, a semi-colon would have been appropriate in that case.

LaMidRighter · Dec 9, 2011

OhIsee.Then said:
You think I'm taking a side in this interpretation. You jump to that because of who you are and how you think. My Oh, I see. Then... comes from my behavior as an architect and design engineer and I like to apply it here. You have forgotten the basis, essence, of this poll.
And to continue this fun one can take the position that to have a militia you need to have an armed populace, i.e. the militia has the right to defend the populace from tyranny from a ‘higher’ force by having an armed populace to serve the militia’s authority to defend the locals.

There is only one side that uses "the militia argument" and it isn't down the middle or pro-2nd. The reason being is that it is a useless argument that doesn't hold up to basic grammer or any of the framer's writings and is a desperate attempt at taking the individual protections out of the amendment. Here's a last hint, the constitution was written as a document to protect rights on the individual level by reigning in federal power and later to hold states to certain standards of rights protection.

LaMidRighter · Dec 9, 2011

liblady said:
literally, a semi-colon would have been appropriate in that case.

Today, not back then. Grammer, like everything else has changed somewhat but the main point is that the comma within the context of the law denotes the difference between two independent thoughts.

Aderleth · Dec 9, 2011

Henrin said:
What you write and what you sign are not comparable. It is your duty above all else to understand any contract you sign and that includes the constitution itself. If they did so or not is another subject, but this truth should be understood in any thing you sign your name on in agreement. If you don't you have failed yourself, no one has failed you.

Two things -

1) It doesn't matter who has failed whom. That's a meaningless digression.

2) You don't know what you're talking about with respect to contract law at all. One of the basic tenets of contract law is that if one or both parties have materially different interpretations of a contract, the party that is innocently mistaken usually wins out (if both are innocently mistaken, the contract can be voided). Moreover, where certain provisions of a contract are vague (as is emphatically the case with respect to the Constitution, which is only marginally a contract in any case) that can be grounds for either annulment of the contract, or reinterpretation by a judge.

Black Dog · Dec 9, 2011

OhIsee.Then said:
You think I'm taking a side in this interpretation. You jump to that because of who you are and how you think. My Oh, I see. Then... comes from my behavior as an architect and design engineer and I like to apply it here. You have forgotten the basis, essence, of this poll.

What?

OhIsee.Then said:
And to continue this fun one can take the position that to have a militia you need to have an armed populace, i.e. the militia has the right to defend the populace from tyranny from a ‘higher’ force by having an armed populace to serve the militia’s authority to defend the locals.

I am not taking any side, you were wrong as he did mention it.

To be honest I can barely understand what you are typing???

earthworm · Dec 9, 2011

Deuce said:
The constitution does not mention my right to own a gun. Don't believe me? See if you can find the word "gun" anywhere in the constitution.

I have a right to bear arms. I'm bearing two, one attached to each shoulder!

(hey, we're being literal aren't we?)

This is carrying "literal" to silly extremes.
But then, some do this as a matter of course.
About 20% here, roughly...

liblady · Dec 9, 2011

LaMidRighter said:
Today, not back then. Grammer, like everything else has changed somewhat but the main point is that the comma within the context of the law denotes the difference between two independent thoughts.

if you say so. i don't agree, but i also don't care, as i think it's ok to own guns, within reason.

LaMidRighter · Dec 9, 2011

liblady said:
if you say so. i don't agree, but i also don't care, as i think it's ok to own guns, within reason.

Everything changes within language, including grammer. You don't have to agree with me but that is life. As to reasonable that is not a condition provided for in the constitution and reasonable is an opinion. Where does one draw the line at reasonable? What gives them the knowledge or authority to make such a decision considering it is extra-constitutional to do so?

liblady · Dec 9, 2011

LaMidRighter said:
Everything changes within language, including grammer. You don't have to agree with me but that is life. As to reasonable that is not a condition provided for in the constitution and reasonable is an opinion. Where does one draw the line at reasonable? What gives them the knowledge or authority to make such a decision considering it is extra-constitutional to do so?

reasonable means no AKs in the hood.

Blue Dog · Dec 9, 2011

Going back to OP.

One can be a textualist in interpreting the Constitution.

However, if phrases are ambigious, the idea of pure textualism goes out the window.

Boo Radley · Dec 9, 2011

Blackdog said:
This is a good example of one not knowing how to read.

I guess you missed this: The militia is one of many reasons to allow for an armed populace

Isn't it the only one mentioned in the amendment? Asked earlier why some thoght it was mentioned?

LaMidRighter · Dec 9, 2011

liblady said:
reasonable means no AKs in the hood.

Which goes back to this, AKs are not that great of weapons in the best of hands and pretty much worthless in a thug's. They have severe rideup, fire a medium rifle round, and are not very accurate at long distances. Realistically the only real danger is the odds of a lucky shot go up somewhat but other than that they are not super weapons in any configuration including select fire. As well most of those people using them "in the hood" are most likely criminals involved in drug and gang activity and already have been stripped of their protections of certain rights including the second after their first felony conviction so there are already laws dealing with that, however these should be addressed at the state and not federal level being that the federal is disbarred of creating laws contrary to the second amendment by the mere existence of it coupled with the tenth amendment disbarment of powers not found in the enumerated powers.

I come back to this though, many of the ridiculous laws I have seen have been deemed "common sense" by someone but really they are kind of stupid to anyone with a fundamental understanding of how firearms work and their proper safety and usage. Again, many people who claim an extra constitutional authority to dictate weapons policy don't have a functional knowledge of weaponry in general and even less so of firearms. These politicians and special interest groups feign ignorance of the constitution in order to circumvent it not just for the basis of gun control but any myriad of agenda based policy and frankly look stupid in the process.

I must make this clear though. I am not calling people stupid for having an opinion on guns or the constitution as I believe there are no stupid opinions and people are more than entitled to that. What I call stupid are very specific political moves based on flawed constitutional application for any particular given agenda.

Black Dog · Dec 9, 2011

liblady said:
reasonable means no AKs in the hood.

No. An AK style weapon legal in the US is just a self loading rifle or carbine depending on barrel length, it is in no way an "assault rifle." An assault rifle has a shorter barrel and a select fire switch for burst/full auto as well as semi. It is less accurate than most semi auto hunting rifles. The problem is the people trying to tell us what "reasonable" is don't know squat about weapons. They get all freaked out over weapons that look like the military counterpart, and legal similarity's pretty much end there.

Now a real AK in the hood is illegal to begin with. So what is reasonable?

OhIsee.Then · Dec 9, 2011

LaMidRighter said:
There is only one side that uses "the militia argument" and it isn't down the middle or pro-2nd. The reason being is that it is a useless argument that doesn't hold up to basic grammer or any of the framer's writings and is a desperate attempt at taking the individual protections out of the amendment. Here's a last hint, the constitution was written as a document to protect rights on the individual level by reigning in federal power and later to hold states to certain standards of rights protection.

Yes, a reading I can do too, it provides the individual’s right to protect himself from tyranny. One shouldn’t even need a local militia.

irviding · Dec 9, 2011

Pretty easy answer... NO. Even Scalia realizes it's pretty impossible to do that. If we were to suddenly use a totally constructionist approach to interpreting the constitution, we'd still have slavery, women wouldn't vote, blacks would be 3/5 of a citizen, DC would not have voting rights, anything other than the original ratifiers of the constitution would no longer be part of the Union... it goes on and on. (I say the latter because Jefferson had to use an activist approach to execute the Louisiana purchase from France after Napoleon took it from the Spanish & sold it).

Black Dog · Dec 9, 2011

irviding said:
Pretty easy answer... NO. Even Scalia realizes it's pretty impossible to do that. If we were to suddenly use a totally constructionist approach to interpreting the constitution, we'd still have slavery, women wouldn't vote, blacks would be 3/5 of a citizen, DC would not have voting rights, anything other than the original ratifiers of the constitution would no longer be part of the Union... it goes on and on. (I say the latter because Jefferson had to use an activist approach to execute the Louisiana purchase from France after Napoleon took it from the Spanish & sold it).

No that is not true. All those things were amended legally with the process set down in the Constitution.

Talk about has no idea.

Jeezy · Dec 9, 2011

This thread is the equivalent of someone going "I love pizza" and being asked "...BUT DO YOU LITERALLY LOVE PIZZA?"

Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

Are you a Literal Constitutionalist?

Yes.

No.

King Of The Dog Pound

global liberation

King Of The Dog Pound

Klattu Verata Nicto

pirate lover

Klattu Verata Nicto

Klattu Verata Nicto

King Of The Dog Pound

pirate lover

Klattu Verata Nicto

pirate lover

Mugwump

Klattu Verata Nicto

King Of The Dog Pound

New member

King Of The Dog Pound