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 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 164

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

  1. #71
    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 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.
    Have you read the Constitution? It is far from extremely explicit. Original intent assumes that the intent of the Framers is the only thing that matters. It's still an interpretation because intent is not included in the law itself.

  2. #72
    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 Voidwar View Post
    The constitution is a set of rules for government to follow, not citizens.
    The Constitution is a framework, without a lot of detail, hence why the writers are called FRAMERS.

  3. #73
    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
    wtf? Legal quite frequently means constitutional and involves Congress/Potus. I don't know where you're coming up with this.
    The constitution is rules for the government to follow. Most of your "millions", of legal questions, simply are not about the government's inner workings, and have to do with legislation.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    How do you define this? What about people who don't believe in Social Security (Amish)?
    Social Security Withholding law is not a law prohibiting Amishism.

    Render unto Caesar.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    People who believe in marrying multiple wives? People who believe in taking spiritual hallucinogens?
    None of the government 's business. The U.S. invasion of Utah was possibly the most un-American thing the U.S. government ever did.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    What constitutes a search? Are you saying there are no cases that anything can happen without a warrant?
    It is not me saying it, it is the fourth amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    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.
    If they observe the crime being committed, which is very, very rare, then they can intervene on the side of the victim, and make an arrest based on that victim's complaint.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    These things are far more complex than you're making them out to be, and you know that.
    No, they are not. Most of the things you mention have to do with state law, and that too is provided for in the constitution. So long as the State's law, does not violate it's citizens constitutional rights, or the constitution of the particlar state, then it is up to those state legislators involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The claim that you've got it figured out and everyone else is just mistaken does not really fly.
    The founders had it figured out, not me.

  4. #74
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:08 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    21,968

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Smash23 View Post
    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.
    That would be general, not vague, though I was referring more to the enumerated powers of the government.


    Courts cannot just 'declare' anything. You may not like a court's reasoning, but that doesn't mean that they don't have any.
    It does when they don't.

    I gave an example. However, I missed a step when I did. The court in Warin simply declares that there is no individual right to firearm ownership. For that, they cite their own declaration of the same in Stevens v. United States. Stevens says Miller v. United States declares there is no individual right, but cites absolutely no language in Miller which says this (because there isn't any); the Court just declares it to be so out of whole cloth.

    That isn't "reasoning." That's just making something up. And in this case, just plain lying about it.

    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.
    I said there are no restrictions on a practical level. This is all well in good in theory, but in practice, it doesn't work this way. Courts rule simply what they want to rule all the time. Stare decisis is decisis until, well, they don't feel like following it anymore.

    Spend some time reading through a bunch of meaty dissents, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
    2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
    2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
    2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.

  5. #75
    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
    The constitution is rules for the government to follow. Most of your "millions", of legal questions, simply are not about the government's inner workings, and have to do with legislation.
    Link? Try looking at a federal docket some time and tell me how many cases involve constitutional claims.

    Social Security Withholding law is not a law prohibiting Amishism.
    It's not that it prohibits it, it's that it prohibits free exercise. Until you define free exercise, you can't make that argument. By your logic, anything that doesn't prohibit a religion is fair game - taxes on jews, bans on proselytizing, etc.

    Render unto Caesar.
    So you're using Christian principles to explain what the First Amendment meant? Nice.

    None of the government 's business. The U.S. invasion of Utah was possibly the most un-American thing the U.S. government ever did.
    Why? How does that fit into the framework you've created?

    Also, what about prayer in schools? What about funding for sectarian institutions?

    It is not me saying it, it is the fourth amendment.
    No, that's not what the fourth amendment says.

    If they observe the crime being committed, which is very, very rare, then they can intervene on the side of the victim, and make an arrest based on that victim's complaint.
    Where are you getting this?

    1) A victim is not a warrant. You're already backtracking on your earlier statement now that you're realizing how impractical it is.

    2) What if there's no victim? A cop walking alone down the street sees a guy placing a bomb in the middle of the road. He can't do anything?

    No, they are not.
    Yes, they absolutely are. Your answers to the above questions highlight that.

    Most of the things you mention have to do with state law, and that too is provided for in the constitution. So long as the State's law, does not violate it's citizens constitutional rights, or the constitution of the particlar state, then it is up to those state legislators involved.
    What are you talking about? Cases involve religious funding, search/seizure, social security, etc. all directly implicate questions of federal law. These issues are in no way limited to state actions.

    Furthermore, are you pretending the 14th Amendment was never enacted?

    The founders had it figured out, not me.
    If you think that the founders believed that the Constitution fully answered all these questions, then you need to spend some more time looking at some first hand documents.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #76
    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
    So you're using Christian principles to explain what the First Amendment meant? Nice.
    No, I am using an old story about a Jew and a Roman to clarify this question of context.

    Social Security Withholding is not aimed at prohibiting any religion.

    Religious beliefs that mean you can't participate in public life , pretty much says to me that you should move to a theocracy of your own denomination.

    That problem, is their problem, and not one that the law regarding withholding is creating.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Why? How does that fit into the framework you've created?
    They waited until the Mormons had carved a state out, and had all their own elected officials in office, and then the U.S. rode out there with force of arms and replaced all these elected officials because of their religion.

    Patently un-american.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    No, that's not what the fourth amendment says.
    Really ?

    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Where are you getting this?
    Staraight from the source.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    1) A victim is not a warrant. You're already backtracking on your earlier statement now that you're realizing how impractical it is.
    No, I am not. The victim's complaint = oath or affirmation.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    2) What if there's no victim? A cop walking alone down the street sees a guy placing a bomb in the middle of the road. He can't do anything?
    He can call the victim, the DMV. Property they are responsible for is being damaged.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    What are you talking about? Cases involve religious funding, search/seizure, social security, etc. all directly implicate questions of federal law. These issues are in no way limited to state actions.
    Law is outranked by the Constitution. Wherever it conflicts, the law loses and is invalidated in the struggle.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Furthermore, are you pretending the 14th Amendment was never enacted?
    Do I appear to be ?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    If you think that the founders believed that the Constitution fully answered all these questions
    The questions they didn't answer, are pretty much not Constitutional questions, but rather legislative ones.

  7. #77
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:44 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,630

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    No arresting without showing a judge probable cause, no killing or imprisoning or fining without a trial.
    Does a cop need to go to a judge in order to get a warrant for a drunk and disorderly?
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  8. #78
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:44 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,630

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    The Constitution is in English, it does not need to be interpreted , it needs to be obeyed by any and all government entities on U.S. soil.
    I wrote to you in English in the other thread, and you didn't read it correctly at all, obviously you need to go back and attempt to interpret it correctly.

    Obviously, when people disagree about what something means, it means that there is an interpretation issue.

    I feel that the 2nd is clear and concise, and that it speaks of a collective right that incoporates the individual right...

    You, and others, disagree... correct interpretation is crucial.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  9. #79
    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
    No, I am using an old story about a Jew and a Roman to clarify this question of context.

    Social Security Withholding is not aimed at prohibiting any religion.

    Religious beliefs that mean you can't participate in public life , pretty much says to me that you should move to a theocracy of your own denomination.

    That problem, is their problem, and not one that the law regarding withholding is creating.
    I notice that you dodged the question of taxes directed at religious sects, funding for religious institutions, and prayer in schools. Why might that be?

    They waited until the Mormons had carved a state out, and had all their own elected officials in office, and then the U.S. rode out there with force of arms and replaced all these elected officials because of their religion.

    Patently un-american.
    Which has what to do with our discussion? If Congress wants to say that no polygamists or supporters of polygamy can hold office, that would seem to be a-okay under your construction.

    No, I am not. The victim's complaint = oath or affirmation.

    He can call the victim, the DMV. Property they are responsible for is being damaged.
    1) The DMV doesn't own the roads.

    2) At this point, you have to be flaming. You think that if a cop sees a terrorist about to set off a bomb, he cannot arrest them until he gets a sworn affidavit from the DMV?

    Law is outranked by the Constitution. Wherever it conflicts, the law loses and is invalidated in the struggle.
    And in order to determine whether there's a conflict, you need to interpret it. You don't just get to say "oh well it totally means what I say because that's how i read it and I know what's up"

    Do I appear to be ?
    Yes.

    The questions they didn't answer, are pretty much not Constitutional questions, but rather legislative ones.
    No, they're not. You're just making things up at this point.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #80
    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
    That would be general, not vague, though I was referring more to the enumerated powers of the government.
    Vague –adjective, va⋅guer, va⋅guest.
    1. not clearly or explicitly stated or expressed: vague promises.
    Which is what I just said:
    This is vague, the Framers did not explicitly list what does and does not fall into those categories.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    It does when they don't.

    I gave an example. However, I missed a step when I did. The court in Warin simply declares that there is no individual right to firearm ownership. For that, they cite their own declaration of the same in Stevens v. United States. Stevens says Miller v. United States declares there is no individual right, but cites absolutely no language in Miller which says this (because there isn't any); the Court just declares it to be so out of whole cloth.

    That isn't "reasoning." That's just making something up. And in this case, just plain lying about it.
    UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
    The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
    In other words, the Court was asserting that the 2nd Amendment must be interpreted to apply only to militias, within the purview of Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Which is what Stevens v. United States was also asserting. Hence, it is reasoning, even if you may not like the outcome.

    Frank James Stevens v. United States of America
    Since the Second Amendment right ‘to keep and bear arms’ applies only to the right of the state to maintain militia and not to the individual’s right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.
    In addition United States v. Warin also cites 2 other cases for its assertion:
    See also, United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 648, 560 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261, 266 (3d Cir. 1942).

    Here is a quote from the opinion in United States v. Tot:
    It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and adoption and those of learned writers since that this amendment, unlike those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I said there are no restrictions on a practical level. This is all well in good in theory, but in practice, it doesn't work this way. Courts rule simply what they want to rule all the time. Stare decisis is decisis until, well, they don't feel like following it anymore.
    Why does it not work this way? It has worked this way in the past.
    Some examples of jurisdiction stripping by Congress in the past:
    Termination of case Ex Parte McCardle (1869)
    Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
    Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996
    Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

    Implications for Stare Decisis:
    The Supreme Court is superior to all other courts, state and federal, in interpreting national law, and therefore its decisions are binding upon them all. Unlike the decisions of the Supreme Court, which have national precedential authority, the decisions of the US courts of appeals are binding only upon the courts within their geographical circuits.
    Courts must defer to precedent set by a superior court. As a matter of policy, courts should also respect their own prior decisions. However, a court may overturn a prior decision. The Supreme Court did this in Brown v. Board of Education, wherein it set aside the separate-but-equal doctrine that it established in Plessy v. Ferguson.

    The Constitution has been amended four times to reverse Supreme Court decisions:
    1)The Eleventh Amendment, which provides for state immunity in federal court. Enacted in response to Chisholm v. Georgia.
    2)The Fourteenth Amendment, which provides for due process and equal protection in the states. Enacted, partly, in response to Dred Scott v. Sandford.
    3)The Sixteenth Amendment, which provides for the federal income tax. Enacted in response to Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan Trust Co, in which the Court ruled a federal income tax unconstitutional.
    4)The Twenty-Sixth Amendment, which provides that all individuals age eighteen and older possess the right to vote in state and national elections. Enacted in response to Oregon v. Mitchell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Spend some time reading through a bunch of meaty dissents, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
    After an opinion and ruling is rendered, dissents don’t really hold much water. They don’t constitute legal precedent themselves.

Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •