View Poll Results: See OP for 2-pat question

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • The court will hear the case (or one like it)

    11 50.00%
  • The court will NOT hear the case (or one like it)

    1 4.55%
  • The court will incorporate the 2nd against the states

    8 36.36%
  • The court will NOT incorporate the 2nd against the states

    4 18.18%
  • Other

    2 9.09%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 164

Thread: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

  1. #61
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    40,475

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smash23 View Post
    The words are vague for the very reason that as society changes so will the application of those words. Modernist interpretations by the courts are not made arbitrarily and there are some restrictions on the courts in order to ensure that they do not overstep their bounds.
    To extend this viewpoint to its logical conclusion...

    If the USC were interpreted that "Freedom of speech" meant only the spoken word, and "freedom of the press" only applied to text printed on paper, in the context of modern society, you'd accept that as valid?

    If it was determined that the States could establish state religions and restrict other religions, since the 1A originally only restrained the Feds as some postulate?

    It it was found that the printing of fill-in-the-blank warrants, enabling police to essentially search anyone and anything anytime they felt like it, was not a violation of the 4th Amendment "because we need it to fight crime in the modern nation", you'd accept that?

    You see my point? If the Constitution is as flexible as a rubber band, then potentially all the restraints could come off.

    G.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 01:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smash23 View Post
    Even original intent is an interpretation.
    Simply false. The words mean what they mean and the wording is not vague but extrememly explicit, as the founders knew exactly what they were about.

  3. #63
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    Simply false. The words mean what they mean and the wording is not vague but extrememly explicit, as the founders knew exactly what they were about.
    I generally agree with this approach, but this is absolutely an overstatement. How can you argue that the language of the Constitution is "extremely explicit"? Think about the literally millions of legal questions that need to be answered - you think the Constitution has an answer for all of them?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smash23 View Post
    Even original intent is an interpretation. The Constitution is vague, it does not attempt to cover every eventuality. Interpretation is a must.
    No.

    In most areas the Constition is painfully explicit.

    "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep AND BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is not open to debate.

    Nor has any technological advance altered the meaning of this Amendment. Frankly, as technology has advanced, the interpretation of other aspects of the Constitution has expanded to protect the freedoms of the people, hence, the First Amendment covers the Internet, and radio, and television, even though none of that could have been imagined by any of the Founding Fathers. Similarly, the concept of "cartridges", is a self-contained device including the primer, the power, and the bullet that enabled multiple firings without reloading, and the subsequent development of fully automatic firing weapons are merely advances acceptable to the original intent of the Second Amendment.

    Not to mention the fact that no one challenged the Second Amendment after all these devices had been invented, not until the mid-thirties. What magical event happened to suddenly alter the landscape then?

    Nothing.

    After all, the intent of the Second Amendment is to make sure the people had within thier immediate reach the tools to shoot uppity politicians.

  5. #65
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-22-16 @ 07:06 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,215

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No.

    In most areas the Constition is painfully explicit.

    "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep AND BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is not open to debate.

    Nor has any technological advance altered the meaning of this Amendment. Frankly, as technology has advanced, the interpretation of other aspects of the Constitution has expanded to protect the freedoms of the people, hence, the First Amendment covers the Internet, and radio, and television, even though none of that could have been imagined by any of the Founding Fathers. Similarly, the concept of "cartridges", is a self-contained device including the primer, the power, and the bullet that enabled multiple firings without reloading, and the subsequent development of fully automatic firing weapons are merely advances acceptable to the original intent of the Second Amendment.

    Not to mention the fact that no one challenged the Second Amendment after all these devices had been invented, not until the mid-thirties. What magical event happened to suddenly alter the landscape then?

    Nothing.

    After all, the intent of the Second Amendment is to make sure the people had within thier immediate reach the tools to shoot uppity politicians.
    Interestingly enough the government does regulate the public airwaves eg Janet Jackson's nipple slip at the Super Bowl.

  6. #66
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No.

    In most areas the Constition is painfully explicit.

    "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep AND BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is not open to debate.
    The fact that you do not perceive nuance does not mean it is not there.

    It's just absurd to argue that much of anything in the Constitution is "painfully explicit."

    If you disagree, please explain the "painfully explicit" meanings of the following clauses:

    1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

    2. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

    3. "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

    If you could come up with a comprehensive and cogent explanation of each in less than 1,000 pages, you'd have a bright future ahead of you in writing legal textbooks.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 01:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Arrow Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I generally agree with this approach, but this is absolutely an overstatement. How can you argue that the language of the Constitution is "extremely explicit"?
    Because it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Think about the literally millions of legal questions that need to be answered - you think the Constitution has an answer for all of them?
    The constitution is a set of rules for government to follow, not citizens.

    Those millions of legal questions ? Legal = Legislative, not constitutional, and between citizens, not Congress and the POTUS.

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 01:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
    No official state church. No laws that prohibit religious liberty.


    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    2. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
    Reasonable, meant that you have a reason, I.E. a warrant. Not surprising this was clipped.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    3. "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
    No arresting without showing a judge probable cause, no killing or imprisoning or fining without a trial.

  9. #69
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    Because it is.

    The constitution is a set of rules for government to follow, not citizens.

    Those millions of legal questions ? Legal = Legislative, not constitutional, and between citizens, not Congress and the POTUS.
    wtf? Legal quite frequently means constitutional and involves Congress/Potus. I don't know where you're coming up with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    No official state church.
    What qualifies as an official state church? Any gov funding for sectarian institutions? Prayer in public schools? Can gov favor one religion to another? Religion to non-religion?

    No laws that prohibit religious liberty.
    How do you define this? What about people who don't believe in Social Security (Amish)? People who don't believe in supporting war with their taxes (quakers)? People who believe in marrying multiple wives? People who believe in taking spiritual hallucinogens?

    Reasonable, meant that you have a reason, I.E. a warrant. Not surprising this was clipped.
    What constitutes a search? Are you saying there are no cases that anything can happen without a warrant? What constitutes a seizure? How long does a detainment have to be? Can someone be searched after arrest? What exceptions are there for exigent circumstances? Do you need a warrant to arrest?

    No arresting without showing a judge probable cause,
    I'm hoping that you just misspoke and didn't mean to say that police have to go prove probable cause to a judge before they can arrest someone who they observe committing a crime.

    no killing or imprisoning or fining without a trial.
    What kind of trial? What safeguards are in place? What about bail? What about governmental takings? What about seizures? What about temporary deprivations?


    These things are far more complex than you're making them out to be, and you know that. For generations, people far smarter than you or I have struggled over these exact issues. The claim that you've got it figured out and everyone else is just mistaken does not really fly.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #70
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    07-22-09 @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19

    Re: Will the SCotUS incorporate the 2nd amendement against the states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    They aren't so vague.

    In some cases, they are general. But they aren't "vague." There are those who say they're vague simply so they can divine any meaning they want.

    Again, if they mean anything, they mean nothing.
    They may be general but they are also vague. In many clauses, the explicit meaning is not enumerated. For example, the 8th Amendment states: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
    What is considered excessive? What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment?
    This is vague, the Framers did not explicitly list what does and does not fall into those categories.

    Oh, in many cases, indeed they are. The 2nd Amendment debate is a great example. The 6th Circuit declared (US v. Warin) that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states and not individuals and gave no real reasoning for it; they just declared it. Then, almost every other Circuit Court simply cited Warin as their backup for declaring the same thing. So, you have all sorts of court cases that cite nothing but each other as their Constitutional basis.
    Courts cannot just 'declare' anything. You may not like a court's reasoning, but that doesn't mean that they don't have any.

    Not on any practical level there aren't.
    Sure there is.
    Courts do not have their own enforcement mechanisms, they must rely upon the Executive Branch to implement their decisions. If they don't feel that the Executive Branch is likely to comply, more than likely they won't rule in a certain way.
    Secondly, Congress has the power to revoke a courts appellate jurisdiction for any case at any time. If Congress does not want a court to rule on a particular case it can remove its jurisdiction, even if the case is sub judice.
    Thirdly, in general, Court's must pay due deference to stare decisis.
    In addition, Congress has the power to amend the Constitution. If Congress does not agree with a judicial decision, it can choose to change the Constitution so that such an interpretation cannot be made again. Congress has already done this in at least 4 cases.

Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •