• 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!

2nd Amendment Run Amok

Frigidweirdo said:
Exactly my point.

The Constitution says one thing to you, reality says something different. Power is power. People search for it. The Founding Fathers were totally aware of this, and as such they made the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that the federal government is ignoring the constitution? What do you mean by "power is power"?
 
Beowulf said:
So are you saying that the federal government is ignoring the constitution? What do you mean by "power is power"?
Click to expand...

I'd say the US federal government and the people tend to ignore the US Constitution at any time they find convenient, so yes.

Power is power in that, if you have power, you can do whatever the hell you like. The US constitution supposedly has the separation of powers, well this is turning into a pile of poo with partisan politics. The Supreme Court has become a game mostly around getting the Presidency which the Republicans have an unfair advantage too, that and the Senate.

So power is there, power is being wielded and the Constitution doesn't stop the power. They simply go around it, they go and work towards getting the Supreme Court, because, quite frankly, if you have the House, the Presidency and the Supreme Court, as the Republicans did for the previous two years, you have the power and there isn't much that can stop it.

And seeing how there are only two viable political parties, only the Democrats can stop them, and the Democrats want what the Republicans have, so.... it's all a load of trash.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
I'd say the US federal government and the people tend to ignore the US Constitution at any time they find convenient, so yes.
Click to expand...
So a lawless government. Got it. I agree.
 
Beowulf said:
So a lawless government. Got it. I agree.
Click to expand...

Not a lawless government. Power is power. The Constitution was set up with a separation of powers, however in the modern era it is creaking badly.

However the Founding Fathers envisaged this. Hence why Mr Gerry said:

"This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown."

The Founding Fathers new power was important when they set up the Constitution. They knew that if they could separate the powers, make each branch fear the other branch, then it might work, but they also knew they needed a Bill of Rights in order to limit power of the government in certain areas.

The Militia was to be the ultimate check and balance. If all else failed, individuals with guns would join the militia, the state run militia, and then take down the Federal government. But things have changed.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Not a lawless government. Power is power. The Constitution was set up with a separation of powers, however in the modern era it is creaking badly.

However the Founding Fathers envisaged this. Hence why Mr Gerry said:

"This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown."

The Founding Fathers new power was important when they set up the Constitution. They knew that if they could separate the powers, make each branch fear the other branch, then it might work, but they also knew they needed a Bill of Rights in order to limit power of the government in certain areas.

The Militia was to be the ultimate check and balance. If all else failed, individuals with guns would join the militia, the state run militia, and then take down the Federal government. But things have changed.
Click to expand...
Great. So, for the class, can you cite the particular clause in the constitution that gives congress the power to enact any law restricting what the people of the states may possess?
 
Beowulf said:
Great. So, for the class, can you cite the particular clause in the constitution that gives congress the power to enact any law restricting what the people of the states may possess?
Click to expand...

And what would be the point of that?

You seem to be trying to get at something, get on with it. I'm not playing this little game all day.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
And what would be the point of that?

You seem to be trying to get at something, get on with it. I'm not playing this little game all day.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I agree. There is no clause in the constitution that gives congress the power to enact any law restricting what the people of the several states may possess.

And that's it. The end. End of "game". I win.
 
Beowulf said:
Exactly. I agree. There is no clause in the constitution that gives congress the power to enact any law restricting what the people of the several states may possess.

And that's it. The end. End of "game". I win.
Click to expand...

Great, you win. Bye.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Great, you win. Bye.
Click to expand...

Super. So we agree that there is no clause in the constitution that gives congress the power to enact any law restricting what the people of the several states may possess.
 
Beowulf said:
Super. So we agree that there is no clause in the constitution that gives congress the power to enact any law restricting what the people of the several states may possess.
Click to expand...

There isn't. the use of the commerce clause as a foundation for federal gun control, is one of the most dishonest and unconstitutional frauds ever perpetrated by the federal government. Sadly, 20 years of uninterrupted Democratic Party appointments to every federal court resulted in this disgusting stain on our jurisprudential fabric becoming ingrained and by the time the GOP was able to get some semblance of judicial balance, timid "conservative judges" realized that rolling back the FDR nonsense would result in eliminating many institutions that people had become addicted to-such as Social security.

One of Scalia's most prominent clerks-Professor Steven G. Calabresi (Northwestern) noted in a lecture to the University of Cincinnati Law School just prior to the USSC decision on the ACA-that his former boss absolutely refused to expand the commerce clause (which is the reason for Scalia's scathing dissent in that case) but he also was loathe to overturn laws he KNEW were unconstitutional, when the public had become reliant upon them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom