• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constitutional restrictions on gunsd?

Do you agree with the premise stated in the OP?

  • Total voters
    8
disneydude said:
Its fine to express your opinions about the way you think things should be. However, to pretend that you know the process underwhich the SCOTUS analyzes cases and then to post as if you understand the process when it is obvious when people don't....that isn't just expressing an opinion. I think O'Reilly would call it "bloviating".
Click to expand...

Then cut to the chase. What's this grand process by which all of us are too dumb to know? Enlighten us so we may better engage in debate over our rights and the restrictions upon the SCOTUS (I maintain that the largest problem with the Constitution is that it did not properly restrain the SCOTUS and that it has taken too much power, power it was never meant to have as the founders didn't believe that such gain in power and tyranny could be gained through the judicial branch).
 
Ikari said:
Then cut to the chase. What's this grand process by which all of us are too dumb to know? Enlighten us so we may better engage in debate over our rights and the restrictions upon the SCOTUS (I maintain that the largest problem with the Constitution is that it did not properly restrain the SCOTUS and that it has taken too much power, power it was never meant to have as the founders didn't believe that such gain in power and tyranny could be gained through the judicial branch).
Click to expand...

You're missing the point Ikari....you are asking me to take at a minimum, a one year law school course, and reduce it to a paragraph post.
Just like I would never expect to learn how to plumb a house in a one paragraph post, I certainly would never expect anyone to understand Constitutional analysis in one.

As far as your second contention. The way our government was set up was for there to be three distinct branches of government, each with checks and balances. The SCOTUS has exactly the level of power that was intended at the inception of our system.
 
disneydude said:
You're missing the point Ikari....you are asking me to take at a minimum, a one year law school course, and reduce it to a paragraph post.
Just like I would never expect to learn how to plumb a house in a one paragraph post, I certainly would never expect anyone to understand Constitutional analysis in one.

As far as your second contention. The way our government was set up was for there to be three distinct branches of government, each with checks and balances. The SCOTUS has exactly the level of power that was intended at the inception of our system.
Click to expand...

So you won't tell us what we should know to reach the level which is acceptable to you to be able to discuss the SCOTUS and its policies. It's too complicated huh? Particle physics sort of thing going down. You asked a question to define a few things for you earlier. Were you expecting a 1 year law school course not reduced to a few paragraphs? Remember this?

disneydude said:
If its so easy ethereal....explain the way the SCOTUS undergoes Constitutional Analysis. Discuss what they mean by "Strict Scrutiny" and describe the other levels of Constitutional analysis which the Court undertakes.

If you can do it....I will eat my words.
Click to expand...


Why don't you start there? You wanted to know something before we could be "acceptable" in your eyes to be "worthy" of debate over as system we own. Tell us what it is, if you expected us to answer then help us out and answer the question.

It seems that maybe what's acceptable keeps changing. And in the end all I keep hearing from you is the Rumsfeld excuse.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
So you won't tell us what we should know to reach the level which is acceptable to you to be able to discuss the SCOTUS and its policies. It's too complicated huh? Particle physics sort of thing going down. You asked a question to define a few things for you earlier. Were you expecting a 1 year law school course not reduced to a few paragraphs? Remember this?




Why don't you start there? You wanted to know something before we could be "acceptable" in your eyes to be "worthy" of debate over as system we own. Tell us what it is, if you expected us to answer then help us out and answer the question.

It seems that maybe what's acceptable keeps changing. And in the end all I keep hearing from you is the Rumsfeld excuse.
Click to expand...

You are still missing the point. Let me spell it out.

The question/challenge I posed was satirical because you cannot reduce volume upon volume of jurisprudence into a one paragraph post.
Again...using the example I've been using, its like asking a plumber to explain how to plumb a house in a paragraph. The only answer you are going to get from that will be extremely basic and probably of little value to assist you in undertaking the process.

Suffice it to say, Constitutional rights are not...and have never been absolute. They are "sacred" in the sense that restrictions placed on them will be viewed with the highest levels of scrutiny, much higher than limitations which the state seeks to place on rights that are not Constitutional in nature.
But even Constitutional rights can have restrictions placed upon them as long as the restrictions are based on a "compelling" state interest. If the state gives justifications for the restrictions that are "legitimate"...that is not enough. That would be enough to withstand "standard" scrutiny for limitations placed on rights not deemed Constitutional in nature. If the state gives justifications for the restrictions that are "important" state interests. THAT is also not enough. That would be enough to withstand the intermediate level of scrutiny to rights that are determined by the court to be quasi-Constitutional, but not inalienable. For a restriction on Constitutional rights to withstand Strict Scrutiny, the interest of the state must be compelling. THAT is the highest level of scrutiny. But there are some interests of the state that are "compelling" enough that limitations are allowed. Protection and safety of the community are usually the areas where the court has found the most "Compelling" state interests.

That is Constitutional analysis in a nutshell...but it leaves out a lot of areas that can also influence the level of scrutiny involved. For instance, restriction on a non-constitutional right that targets an insidious group for discriminatory purposes also triggers "strict scrutiny", where it would otherwise only trigger "standard scrutiny".
 
Ikari said:
Why don't you start there? You wanted to know something before we could be "acceptable" in your eyes to be "worthy" of debate over as system we own. Tell us what it is, if you expected us to answer then help us out and answer the question.
Click to expand...

I already know what he's referring to; I understand it perfectly well. The point he continually misses is that I do not recognize the legal doctrines of strict/intermediate scrutiny and rational basis review as being Constitutional.

Essentially, they are excuses for the government to violate and belittle individual rights.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
The question/challenge I posed was satirical because you cannot reduce volume upon volume of jurisprudence into a one paragraph post.
Again...using the example I've been using, its like asking a plumber to explain how to plumb a house in a paragraph. The only answer you are going to get from that will be extremely basic and probably of little value to assist you in undertaking the process.
Click to expand...

So to be "worthy" of the debate, you gave us a question which could not be satisfactorily answered within the constraints of time and server space. So basically, you're setting up from the beginning a method by which you can completely dismiss our arguments without having to put any effort or thought into our considerations, ideals, and arguments.

Didn't buy it when Rumsfeld sold it, I ain't buying it when you're trying to sell it. Debate or piss off.
 
Ethereal said:
I already know what he's referring to; I understand it perfectly well. The point he continually misses is that I do not recognize the legal doctrines of strict/intermediate scrutiny and rational basis review as being Constitutional.

Essentially, they are excuses for the government to violate and belittle individual rights.
Click to expand...


Then you have a problem with the way our system of government was set up. Because the standards of review have always existed.
 
Ethereal said:
I already know what he's referring to; I understand it perfectly well. The point he continually misses is that I do not recognize the legal doctrines of strict/intermediate scrutiny and rational basis review as being Constitutional.

Essentially, they are excuses for the government to violate and belittle individual rights.
Click to expand...

ding ding ding ding

As was my case about not having adequate restriction upon the courts to curb their power.

But it's hard to put forth our opinions, beliefs, and arguments when unfair and engineered barriers are artificially placed. Basically there is an argument saying that if we didn't take 1 year of law in college, we should piss off when it comes to this debate. And we're told we're the arrogant ones. Sheesh.
 
Ikari said:
So to be "worthy" of the debate, you gave us a question which could not be satisfactorily answered within the constraints of time and server space. So basically, you're setting up from the beginning a method by which you can completely dismiss our arguments without having to put any effort or thought into our considerations, ideals, and arguments.

Didn't buy it when Rumsfeld sold it, I ain't buying it when you're trying to sell it. Debate or piss off.
Click to expand...

It reminds me of this:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant]Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Ikari said:
YAY more deflection.

You done? I'm tired of being talked down to and having my points dismissed because I didn't take a law course. I guess you can't comment on the fundamentals of physics like friction and gravity because you didn't take a year of Classical Mechanics and differential equations.
Click to expand...

Precisely....that's why I stick to what I know and don't try to pretend.
 
disneydude said:
Precisely....that's why I stick to what I know and don't try to pretend.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know because you totally have never experienced either gravity or friction and couldn't have learned anything outside a class or have any insight as to make you able to have a debate and maybe even learn or teach a few things. Totally not.

Your arrogance and condescension are truly amazing.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah I know because you totally have never experienced either gravity or friction and couldn't have learned anything outside a class or have any insight as to make you able to have a debate and maybe even learn or teach a few things. Totally not.

Your arrogance and condescension are truly amazing.
Click to expand...

Oh I understand what gravity and friction are, but I wouldn't try to engage in a discussion about the physics behind them. If I did, I would look like a fool, because I practically flunked out of my physics class in college. Not my forte.
 
disneydude said:
Oh I understand what gravity and friction are, but I wouldn't try to engage in a discussion about the physics behind them. If I did, I would look like a fool, because I practically flunked out of my physics class in college. Not my forte.
Click to expand...

Your problem then. To others, having experience in both debate and political theories is enough to engage in an intelligent and productive debate over the rights of the individuals, the restrictions upon the Courts, and comparisons between the various rights and the actions and decisions of the courts. We don't have to take a class and get an A, so please don't hold us to your limitations.

Again, debate or piss off. I think you've sufficiently derailed this thread well enough.
 
Ikari said:
Your problem then. To others, having experience in both debate and political theories is enough to engage in an intelligent and productive debate over the rights of the individuals, the restrictions upon the Courts, and comparisons between the various rights and the actions and decisions of the courts. We don't have to take a class and get an A, so please don't hold us to your limitations.

Again, debate or piss off. I think you've sufficiently derailed this thread well enough.
Click to expand...

If I have...then you've been right there by my side. Kinda little disingenous criticism, right?
 
disneydude said:
If I have...then you've been right there by my side. Kinda little disingenous criticism, right?
Click to expand...

No. You put restriction upon us to this debate, asked questions to which you wanted us to answer before we could be deemed worthy. Answers you knew before hand could not be answered in the time and space available to us. So you purposefully set a barrier to entry you knew couldn't be surpassed even had we the "background" material you felt was necessary to have a debate.

Do you even have a point in this thread? If you don't want to debate the subject of the OP, do us a courtesy and quit derailing the thread with pointless drivel and made up qualifications.
 
disneydude said:
If I have...then you've been right there by my side. Kinda little disingenous criticism, right?
Click to expand...

No, Ikari was merely rebutting your red herrings while I pointed out your ignorance of American legal theory.
 
Actually I WAS discussing the OP until you and Ethereal came around in posts 13 and 14 and started the derailing. So ya wanna point the finger. Look no further than where you are standing.
 
disneydude said:
Actually I WAS discussing the OP until you and Ethereal came around in posts 13 and 14 and started the derailing. So ya wanna point the finger. Look no further than where you are standing.
Click to expand...

lol, no.

I simply pointed out the faulty pretext you tried inserting into the ensuring dialogue e.g., that people must agree with your legal opinion in order to have an informed debate in regards to Constitutional law.

Disneydude: I took a Conlaw course. I will only deign to discuss the Constitution with people that are similarly indoctrinated. Any alternate viewpoints will be summarily dismissed!

That’s your argument and it is silly.
 
Ethereal said:
lol, no.

I simply pointed out the faulty pretext you tried inserting into the ensuring dialogue e.g., that people must agree with your legal opinion in order to have an informed debate in regards to Constitutional law.

Disneydude: I took a Conlaw course. I will only deign to discuss the Constitution with people that are similarly indoctrinated. Any alternate viewpoints will be summarily dismissed!

That’s your argument and it is silly.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to drag me back into this conversation?

If so, let me ask you then...under your view are any limitations/restrictions on enumerated and/or inalienable rights permissible under the Constitution?
 
disneydude said:
Are you trying to drag me back into this conversation?
Click to expand...

You can leave whenever. I won't mind.

If so, let me ask you then...under your view are any limitations/restrictions on enumerated and/or inalienable rights permissible under the Constitution?
Click to expand...

No. Individual rights are absolute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom