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 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 164

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

  1. #81
    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
    Though I was referring more to the enumerated powers of the government.
    I'll give you some applicable examples then:
    1) The 'necessary and proper' clause of Section 8 Article I of the Constitution states: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
    What is considered necessary and proper?

    2) The 'exceptions' clause of Section 2 Article III of the Constitution states: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
    What constitutes an 'exception?'

  2. #82
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:52 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    21,971

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Smash23 View Post
    Vague –adjective, va⋅guer, va⋅guest.
    1. not clearly or explicitly stated or expressed: vague promises.
    Which is what I just said:
    OK, fine. However, you use the term contextually as to imply that the language was poorly written, which is was not, or that it wasn't written in plain language, which it was.

    It's general where it needs to be general, because no, they did not seek to anticipate every possible contingency that every might arise.

    But it is NOT written in such a way that the very plain language is up for complete reinterpretation whenever the reader sees fit. Words have meanings. That's the point of writing them down.




    UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

    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.
    No, that is NOT what it says. It says that for a weapon -- not the person, but the weapon -- to be within the scope of the right protected by the Amendment, it (the weapon) must bear a reasonable relationship for use in a militia.

    The Court did not discuss Miller's membership in a militia. If the ruling turned on that, they simply would have dismissed for lack of standing on Miller's part, because he as an individual would have had no claim to the Amendment's protection.

    Instead, they remanded back to the lower court for determination as to whether or not the sawed-off shotgun in question is such a weapon reasonably related to militia use.

    So, Miller turns on the type of weapon, not the individual or collective character of the right. Saying that it says the right is a collective right is simply pulling something out of thin air.

    Thus, it is not "reasoning"; it is simply lying.



    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
    Because courts find ways to do what they want to do despite any of this. Lately, heck, they've been looking to foreign law when domestic law doesn't give them what they want.

    Like I said, you can quote theory all day long. Judicial practice is something entirely different.


    After an opinion and ruling is rendered, dissents don’t really hold much water. They don’t constitute legal precedent themselves.
    I didn't say you should read them because they have weight as precedent. I said you should read them because they're excellent sources for understanding the shenanigans majorities can pull to get the ruling they want, despite the "restrictions" which are nominally in place.
    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.

  3. #83
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:52 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    21,971

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Smash23 View Post
    I'll give you some applicable examples then:
    1) The 'necessary and proper' clause of Section 8 Article I of the Constitution states: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
    What is considered necessary and proper?

    2) The 'exceptions' clause of Section 2 Article III of the Constitution states: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
    What constitutes an 'exception?'
    These are both what I mean, as I said above, by "general" language.
    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.

  4. #84
    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 Bodhisattva View Post
    Does a cop need to go to a judge in order to get a warrant for a drunk and disorderly?
    Victim ? Either file assault or vandalism or trespassing charges, or leave the citizen alone.

  5. #85
    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
    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.
    You brought polygamy up here . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    People who believe in marrying multiple wives? People who believe in taking spiritual hallucinogens?
    And this was my response . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    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.
    Neither of the citizens you describe are doing anything the government needs to stop or can stop. As I explained, None of the government's business.

  6. #86
    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
    It's not that it prohibits it, it's that it prohibits free exercise.
    Simply false. Paying the same taxes as anyone else does not prohibit free exercise. It quite simply has nothing to do with religion at all. Taxes are about money for upkeep of the state. Trying to pretend that your religion exempts you from taxes, is simple fraud. Plenty of other religions out there, and their congregations pay taxes and exercise freely so bugger off

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    By your logic, anything that doesn't prohibit a religion is fair game - taxes on jews, bans on proselytizing, etc.
    You typed it, so its your logic. Or are you trying to strawman me ?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Also, what about prayer in schools?
    What about it ? I think the first amendment is pretty clear here. If you pick one religion and waste everyone's time on it, then you are, in that school district, attempting to establish the one you picked as that school district's state religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    What about funding for sectarian institutions?
    More specificity would be appreciated here, but my first instinct is, None of government's business.

  7. #87
    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 Bodhisattva View Post
    Obviously, when people disagree about what something means, it means that there is an interpretation issue.
    No, not really. The vast majority of times, it is a literacy issue, and only for one of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    [I feel that the 2nd is clear and concise, and that it speaks of a collective right that incoporates the individual right...
    The rules of grammar are not about what you "feel". You are simply factually wrong here, and as I noted above, it is a literacy issue. You "feel" that way, but you are wrong, because of the fact that in a compound sentence, the dependent clause is subordinate to the independent one.

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
    SCOTUS has to hear the case. Chicago will win. They have a case by case account of 1000's of handgun and assault rifle deaths to back up the ban. They court may allow shotguns and rifles for sport but guns made for killing people I think they will draw the line. Get ready to them them over or do the time Chicago. A good law for a severe problem.
    WRONG.

    The 2nd Amendment trumps Chicago. Whether they like it or not ... their ban is illegal and will be tossed out.

  9. #89
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:30 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,643

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    Victim ? Either file assault or vandalism or trespassing charges, or leave the citizen alone.
    You are ignoring the point... it is not logical, nor in the best interest of society to just sit back and wait for charges to be filed, if they even get the chance. You seem to have no concept as to the level of lawless (state of nature) that you seek...
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  10. #90
    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 Bodhisattva View Post
    You are ignoring the point... it is not logical, nor in the best interest of society to just sit back and wait for charges to be filed, if they even get the chance.
    It most certainly is in the best interest of a free society that a citizen be considered innocent until proven guilty. It most certainly is in the best interest of a free society that a citizen not be deprived of their liberty for no reason, and until a citizen commits one of the crimes I mentioned or something like them, there isn't a reason.

    "Disorderly", is a hollow charge, and nothing the government need waste its time on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    You seem to have no concept as to the level of lawless (state of nature) that you seek...
    "You have no concept" Really ? I understand my outlook with regard to strict adherance the constitution, just fine. How is insisting that the Supreme Law of the Land be obeyed "lawless" ?

Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •