• 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!

The People

The Constitution was written by the founders of the American republic. The statute was written by a bunch of politicians.

Who you gonna believe?

They were all politicians.

They were all businessmen.

The US Code was written in 1783 by the same people.
 
Bad news -- we are stuck with the US Supreme Court.

Good news -- Ginsberg will croak soon.

court watchers are surprised she hasn't stepped down yet so Obama can pick another lock stock democrat minion. But she's a tough lady. She beat colon cancer, she beat pancreatic cancer and Scalia is one of her best friends in the entire world. I don't agree with her on hardly anything but I respect her. She made the Law review at both Harvard, and then Columbia when she transferred to that NYC school because her husband needed medical treatment best available in NYC. Its too bad she doesn't really support the constitution in many areas. But she's very bright and I wouldn't count on her dying anytime soon
 
court watchers are surprised she hasn't stepped down yet so Obama can pick another lock stock democrat minion. But she's a tough lady. She beat colon cancer, she beat pancreatic cancer and Scalia is one of her best friends in the entire world. I don't agree with her on hardly anything but I respect her. She made the Law review at both Harvard, and then Columbia when she transferred to that NYC school because her husband needed medical treatment best available in NYC. Its too bad she doesn't really support the constitution in many areas. But she's very bright and I wouldn't count on her dying anytime soon

TD I don't know what to make of people like Ginsberg who think the militia clause negates the operative clause of 2A which although Scalia refutes that viewpoint even so Ginsberg believes in it.
 
TD I don't know what to make of people like Ginsberg who think the militia clause negates the operative clause of 2A which although Scalia refutes that viewpoint even so Ginsberg believes in it.

Here is what is going on. Ginsburg is a gun banner. Ginsburg's culture, her philosophy, her party and her politics are all anti gun. She knows damn well what the second amendment means. She doesn't like it so she uses her position to try to change it dishonestly
 
Neither one of you actually answered my question, but thanks anyways.

How about this:

That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to "the people." Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy," Brief for American Civil Liberties Union as Amici Curiae et al. 12, n. 4, "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble"); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279, 194 U. S. 292 (1904) (Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because "[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law"). The language of these Amendments contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating procedure in criminal cases.

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 494 U.S. 259 (1990)

The most important part of this selection is its declaration of a contrast with the word "person," the implication being that "people" is not the plural of "person."
 
Damn. I really wish folks would stop getting this wrong.

Slaves were not considered such. They were considered slaves as that is what they were.
They were counted for legislative representation and taxing purposes as three fifths of all other Persons.

A distinction without a practical difference.
 
TD I don't know what to make of people like Ginsberg who think the militia clause negates the operative clause of 2A which although Scalia refutes that viewpoint even so Ginsberg believes in it.

Scalia had four other judges on his side. Ginsberg had three. So in your estimation that one justice is the difference between the true meaning of the Amendment and simply the votes that held sway that day?
 
How about this:



The most important part of this selection is its declaration of a contrast with the word "person," the implication being that "people" is not the plural of "person."

I already posted that case, but thanks for trying.
 
I already gave him the definitional statute out of Title 1 US Code.

Your citation doesn't include any discussion of the word "people." Here's something for you.


Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote The Social Contract in 1762.

In this, he discusses the fact that "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains." These chains are not natural, but they come about through power and control. According to Rousseau, people must give legitimate authority to the government through a 'social contract' for mutual preservation. In his book, he calls the collective group of citizens who have come together the "sovereign." The sovereign makes the laws and the government ensures their daily implementation. In the end, the people as sovereign are always looking out for the common good as opposed to the selfish needs of each individual.

Popular Sovereignty - Definition
 
Last edited:
I already posted that case, but thanks for trying.

Why do you think the opinion of the Court really matters? The members are political appointees. Their opinion may guide the law but the guidance, for practical purposes, is only temporary. A new Court can change the meaning of any words the old Court defines.
 
My understanding was that the People in the Constitution was those covered by the Constitution which has changed to varying degrees over history.
It never seemed all that complicated.
 
Back
Top Bottom