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

Harshaw · Jun 7, 2009

Smash23 said:
Now you are just putting words in my mouth.

I was simply reading it based on your context. If that's not what you meant, then fine.

Yes that is what it says. It does say that a weapon cannot be 18 inches or longer in length in order for it to constitute a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”
However, it also says:

In other words, the Second Amendment must be viewed through the eyes of Article 1 Section 8, which only discusses the militia. It says that the Second Amendment was made with the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the militia.

Yes, in terms of the weapon, not the person.

And you’ve conveniently ignored the other cases that Stevens cited.

The court in Stevens cited ONLY Miller, and offered no textual support FROM Miller for its assertion.

Miller does not say what they claimed it does.

“There is perhaps a misunderstanding that when you refer to a decision of [foreign courts] that you are using those as binding precedent,” Mrs. Ginsberg said. “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article from a professor?”
Mrs. Ginsberg argued the Supreme Court has lost standing in the international community by failing to integrate foreign decisions into its constitutional rulings. The court’s only female jurist noted the Canadian Supreme Court is “probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court” because “you will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”
“The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a close kinship to the view of the U.S. Constitution as a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification,” Mrs. Ginsberg said in a speech four years ago.

It’s not theory. I’ve given you actual examples of how these restrictions are applied. So please show me how they are not practical and don’t work.

Mrs. Ginsburg did a pretty good job of it herself, supra.

Majorities? Dissents are dissents for a reason, because the dissenter doesn’t hold the majority opinion. Are you saying that because not all judges on a panel agree on a decision, that they must be making stuff up?

No. :roll: But what I said should be abundantly clear. Dissents exist for a reason; I invite you to explore it.

Bodi · Jun 7, 2009

Voidwar said:
No, not really. The vast majority of times, it is a literacy issue, and only for one of them.

Or both, but in this case, it is only you. You did not understand the simple english of my post, and you are compounding the issue by ignoring it.

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.

Again, interpretation. I did not say that I felt that it meant something particular, I said that I feel that it is clear and concise. Really now, is your reading comprehension that astoundingly bad?

And it is an ablative absolute that is the issue with the 2nd Amendment and accordingly it should read, “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

:2wave:

Smash23 · Jun 7, 2009

Harshaw said:
Yes, in terms of the weapon, not the person.

That statement makes no sense in context to what I posted previously.

In other words, the Second Amendment must be viewed through the eyes of Article 1 Section 8, which only discusses the militia. It says that the Second Amendment was made with the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the militia.

How can this only apply to weapons? It talks about the purpose of the Second Amendment in general, not about weapons.

The court in Stevens cited ONLY Miller, and offered no textual support FROM Miller for its assertion.

Excuse me, I meant other cases cited by Warin, which is what we were originally talking about.

No. :roll: But what I said should be abundantly clear. Dissents exist for a reason; I invite you to explore it.

Of course dissents exist for a reason, because not all judges will agree. What exactly is this supposed to demonstrate?

Voidwar · Jun 7, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
Again, interpretation.

No, no interpretation, just the bald facts about clauses and compound sentences.

Bodhisattva said:
I did not say that I felt that it meant something particular, I said that I feel that it is clear and concise. Really now, is your reading comprehension that astoundingly bad?

Not as bad as your memory. . . .

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

Bodhisattva said:
And it is an ablative absolute that is the issue with the 2nd Amendment and accordingly it should read,

Ablative absolute is a Latin construction, and imitations thereof in English are common in the works of authors who were well studied in Latin. The founders were such authors, and I am certain that our second amendment reads exactly as they meant it to read. I'll take the founder's decision, since they were well studied in Latin, over yours, as to how it "should read".

Furthermore, it is still a dependant clause construction, and the ablative absolute is not an exclusionatory construction. What that means is, it merely points out one good reason, possibly among many, for what stands alone in the independent clause. It does NOT rule out other reasons or circumstances.

Voidwar · Jun 7, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
Or both, but in this case, it is only you. You did not understand the simple english of my post, and you are compounding the issue by ignoring it.

What makes you think I did not understand what you typed here ? :

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

I understood your assertion, it is simply inaccurate. I already detailed why.

Voidwar said:
No, not really. The vast majority of times, it is a literacy issue, and only for one of them.

RightinNYC · Jun 7, 2009

Voidwar said:
What do you think I mean when I say "None of the government's business" ?

What part of the Constitution limits them?

Based on what ? What marriage benefits or drug regulations are in the Constitution and Bill of Rights ?

Do you not understand that there were laws on the books that didn't make it into the Constitution?

Actually, you were, when you mentioned the Amish and Quakers . . .

And now we're talking about something different. Try answering the question.

Why don't you decribe the actual bill you are talking about, and how it would ever get passed into law. Define these "extra taxes" or give me an example in American history.

A special tax imposed on people of a particular religion.

I don't think that is what you are doing, but no, I do not.

Why not? Doesn't seem to fit with your simplistic framework.

YOUR logic lead you to extrapolate there. I am not responsible for your "freestylin".

It's the fact that your logic is so basic that leaves these questions open.

That is teaching it.

No-one can stop a kid from closing his eyes and praying before a test, and no one needs any law or policy regarding it.

It's not a question of "needs." It's a question of whether it's permissible if a teacher leads it, or if time is available for students.

Then its not hindu, and its certainly not atheistic, and its certainly not Judaic, but most importantly, it is not worth wasting one minute of school time on.

The fact that you don't think it's worth wasting time on doesn't bear on its constitutionality.

I guess I don't get this comment. You asked :

and I replied :

Your comment did not provide the specificity I was seeking, and seems to be a non-sequitur. It is not my political views at issue, but the fact that there isn't a word about funding for sectarian institutions in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. So, the founders delineated the jobs of the government, or its "business", and the funding you mention was not on their list, so, as I stated earlier, it is None of the government's business.

The Bill of Rights is not a positive grant of power to Congress. It is a restriction. I'm asking you if your reading on the BoR restricts Congress from funding sectarian institutions. There are many, many ways in which this can happen, and I'm just amused that you think you've figured it all out.

While I realize this was not addressed to me, I would like to point out . . .

I'm not certain if you were talking about a point in history prior to the fourteenth, but after it, states are barred from violating any of the same rights the fed is.

That's not the case, per celticlord's point above.

Furthermore, the poster in question was not referring to the 14th amendment as limiting the states. He was arguing (erroneously) that the amendments in and of themselves limited the states simply because they referred to "the people."

Basically, my biggest problem with all this is that you're taking an incredibly simplistic approach to what is actually a very complex issue. It's easy to say something is not that hard if you eliminate all nuance and replace it with sweeping rules. The fact is that your approach is misguided, unimplementable, and completely contrary to the past 220 years of history.

Voidwar · Jun 8, 2009

RightinNYC said:
And now we're talking about something different. Try answering the question.

LOL This is talking eh ?

What I have already posted already addresses your rebuttals.

If you claim not, I will put together a post with every question you have in your last post, completely answered by an already posted quote by me. :2wave:

Goobieman · Jun 8, 2009

Smash23 said:
While personally I don't believe that the Second Amendment applies to regular citizens being able to own guns....

You know that the SCotUS has ruled on this, and says that it does -- right?

Smash23 · Jun 8, 2009

Goobieman said:
You know that the SCotUS has ruled on this, and says that it does -- right?

I'm entirely aware of what the Supreme Court has said about the 2nd Amendment, doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

Goobieman · Jun 8, 2009

Smash23 said:
I'm entirely aware of what the Supreme Court has said about the 2nd Amendment, doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

Hmm.
What do they call it when you disagree with the controlling authority?
Pissing into the wind?

Goshin · Jun 8, 2009

Smash23 said:
I'm entirely aware of what the Supreme Court has said about the 2nd Amendment, doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

Hm...

You don't hold with original intent.

You don't care what the Supremes say about it.

What does that leave, other than just your opinion?

Smash23 · Jun 8, 2009

Goobieman said:
Hmm.
What do they call it when you disagree with the controlling authority?
Pissing into the wind?

You mean like when our Founding Fathers disagreed with authority? I'm pretty sure they were pissing into a hurricane.
And assuming that the 'controlling authority' is infallible is a logical fallacy, its called appeal to authority.

Smash23 · Jun 8, 2009

Goshin said:
Hm...

You don't hold with original intent.

You don't care what the Supremes say about it.

What does that leave, other than just your opinion?

:rofl
Disagreeing with someone and not caring about what they say are two different things. It's called an opinion for a reason. Just as you are welcome to one, so am I.

Goobieman · Jun 8, 2009

Smash23 said:
You mean like when our Founding Fathers disagreed with authority? I'm pretty sure they were pissing into a hurricane.

Well, you can believe what you want -- but in order for you to have any legitimate discussion of the issue, you have to recognize and accept the fact that the 2nd amendment, according to those who determine these things, does indeed cover an individual right to arms.

Your statement of disagreement holds no water.

Goobieman · Jun 8, 2009

Goshin said:
Hm...
You don't hold with original intent.
You don't care what the Supremes say about it.
What does that leave, other than just your opinion?

And, how do you support an opinion regarding a matter of law when you automatically dismiss any and every decision made by any any and every court?

Smash23 · Jun 8, 2009

Goobieman said:
Well, you can believe what you want -- but in order for you to have any legitimate discussion of the issue, you have to recognize and accept the fact that the 2nd amendment, according to those who determine these things, does indeed cover an individual right to arms.

Your statement of disagreement holds no water.

This is my original post on this thread, I suggest you read it. I recognize the actions of the Supreme Court, but that does not mean I have to agree with every decision they render.
"Just as war is freedom's cost, disagreement is freedom's privilege."

Smash23 said:
While personally I don't believe that the Second Amendment applies to regular citizens being able to own guns, I think that the 2nd Amendment will be incorporated.

The reason I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment applies to regular citizens is this:

However, the Supreme Court has interpreted this Amendment differently. In Presser v. Illinois the Court ruled that the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals.

Although Presser v. Illinois and United States v. Cruikshank both affirmed that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the Federal government and not the states, I think that the current Supreme Court will affirm otherwise.
The Court has determined that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause incorporates most of the Bill of Rights. Most of the amendments have already been incorporated including the 1st, 3rd, 4th, most of the 5th, and the 6th. The 2nd Amendment has also already been incorporated by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Personally, I think the Supreme Court will do the same.

Goobieman · Jun 8, 2009

Smash23 said:
This is my original post on this thread

I read it. I responded directly to the part that said:

While personally I don't believe that the Second Amendment applies to regular citizens being able to own guns,

How about supplying some support for that belief.
Be sure to avoid citing any court decisions.

I recognize the actions of the Supreme Court, but that does not mean I have to agree with every decision they render.

You can disagree all you want -- and you can do so on the grounds that citing a ruling by a court is 'an appeal to authority' -- it only means that, in terms of having a discussion regarding the 2nd amendment as law, and the legal issues surrounding it, your position is unsupportable.

Smash23 · Jun 8, 2009

Goobieman said:
How about supplying some support for that belief.
Be sure to avoid citing any court decisions.

I've already posted why I believe so. My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is different from that of the Supreme Court. The Court has a right to rule they way they did, but I also have a right to disagree with them. Simple as that. And you jumping down my throat because of my opinion is ridiculous.

You can disagree all you want -- and you can do so on the grounds that citing a ruling by a court is 'an appeal to authority' -- it only means that, in terms of having a discussion regarding the 2nd amendment as law, and the legal issues surrounding it, your position is unsupportable.

I wasn't having a discussion about the 2nd amendment. My first conversation on this thread had to do with original intent and the legitimacy of our federal courts system. Again, I suggest you read it. I never claimed that the Supreme Court was unfounded in it's decision. I did not say that citing a ruling from a court is an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to authority when you assume that the 'authority' is always correct, without analyzing the argument.

Goobieman · Jun 8, 2009

Smash23 said:
I've already posted why I believe so.

The "preamble" argument?

This is only sound if you can show that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is comprised exclusively of the right to bear arms in the service of the militia, to the exclusion of any and all other occasions -- the amendment protects the RKBA in its entiretly, regardless of any stated reason; to argue that the 2nd only protects the collective right in militia service, you have to show that the right, in its entirety, consists only of the collective right.

My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is different from that of the Supreme Court. The Court has a right to rule they way they did, but I also have a right to disagree with them. Simple as that. And you jumping down my throat because of my opinion is ridiculous.

Telling you that your conflicting opinion holds no weight in a discussion regarding the legal issues surrounding the 2nd isn't jumping down your throat - it's a statement of fact.

I wasn't having a discussion about the 2nd amendment.

You made a statement regarding the 2nd. I addressed that statement.

I never claimed that the Supreme Court was unfounded in it's decision. I did not say that citing a ruling from a court is an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to authority when you assume that the 'authority' is always correct, without analyzing the argument.

I dont recall seeing your analysis of the court's argument when you brought up the 'appeal to authority' fallacy. Please provide your analysis the relevant decision that shows the unsoundness of the court's decision.

Bodi · Jun 8, 2009

Goobieman said:
Hmm.
What do they call it when you disagree with the controlling authority?
Pissing into the wind?

SCOTUS is fallible, and this has been addressed a million times... why do you choose to ignore it? Oh, because you agree with THIS decision, that is why. :lol:

Bodi · Jun 8, 2009

Goobieman said:
And, how do you support an opinion regarding a matter of law when you automatically dismiss any and every decision made by any any and every court?

Maybe we should ask Plessy?

Bodi · Jun 8, 2009

Voidwar said:
No, no interpretation, just the bald facts about clauses and compound sentences.

This is getting stupid. :roll:

- You said that the Constitution is written in simple English and needs no interpretation.
- You have repeatedly MISUNDERSTOOD and TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT things that I have stated IN SIMPLE ENGLISH.
- I mention that, since you are having trouble comprehending my simple English, there is an INTERPRETATION ISSUE
- This means that, logically, simple English can be INTERPRETED IN DIFFERENT WAYS depending on the reader
- Hence, the Constitution, written in simple English, can be INTERPRETED IN DIFFERENT WAYS DEPENDING ON THE READER.
- This DOES NOT mean that the Constitution has different meanins
- This DOES mean that one Interpretation is incorrect.

Does that help you a little? I am sure that you feel that you read everything that I have typed perfectly, but when you repeat it back, it is not accurate. I am sure that you don't agree, but I am the one that knows what I am not only saying, but meaning. I am sure that you don't understand a single aspect of what I am talking about, even though it is written in SIMPLE ENLGISH! :lol:

Not as bad as your memory. . . .

You are taking it out of context... again. I said that it is clear and concise, and that means the meaning of it is just that. It has nothing to do with how I feel, that is just a statement regarding how it is.

Ablative absolute is a Latin construction, and imitations thereof in English are common in the works of authors who were well studied in Latin. The founders were such authors, and I am certain that our second amendment reads exactly as they meant it to read. I'll take the founder's decision, since they were well studied in Latin, over yours, as to how it "should read".

"Should read" is how it DOES READ. It can flip flop either was, and it means that same exact thing. I am only translating it into the language of today so that you, and others like Goobieman, can understand it.

Furthermore, it is still a dependant clause construction, and the ablative absolute is not an exclusionatory construction. What that means is, it merely points out one good reason, possibly among many, for what stands alone in the independent clause. It does NOT rule out other reasons or circumstances.

Possibly among many? And you are trying to say that there is no "Interpretation"? :rofl

Scarecrow Akhbar · Jun 8, 2009

RightinNYC said:
Did you ever notice that there's a difference between an individual right against the fed gov. and an individual right against the state? Guess not.

I don't waste time trying to notice that which doesn't exist.

The Constitution's Bill of Rights applies to all people, and thus regulates the states.

Get used to it. It's history.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Jun 8, 2009

Smash23 said:
Amendments only supersede those parts of the Constitution that they change, if they change part of the original at all.

Very good!

So if the body of the Constitution does not mention arms, and the Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep them and bear them shall not be infringed, which takes precedence? Right! The people get to keep their guns, the government gets to butt out.

Goshin · Jun 8, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
SCOTUS is fallible, and this has been addressed a million times... why do you choose to ignore it? Oh, because you agree with THIS decision, that is why. :lol:

You are absolutely correct. SCOTUS has screwed up royally on several notable occasions.

What I think many of us would like to know is, whether Smash has anything backing up his position other than just opinion?

He doesn't accept original intent, and I presume constructionism is out.
He doesn't agree with existing SCOTUS law on the subject.
I'm wondering if there's anything more there than "the Constitution should mean whatever I WANT it to mean!"

G.

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

See OP for 2-pat question

The court will hear the case (or one like it)

The court will NOT hear the case (or one like it)

The court will incorporate the 2nd against the states

The court will NOT incorporate the 2nd against the states

Other

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Just waiting for my set...

New member

Girthless

New member

Burned Out Ex-Mod

New member

New member

New member

New member

Just waiting for my set...

Just waiting for my set...

Just waiting for my set...

Burned Out Ex-Mod