• 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!

Rightwingers lose biggly in Wisconsin.

jnug said:
Which is exactly why Originalism is BS constitutional Law.
Click to expand...

actually it is exactly constitutional law.

The job of the justices is to defend and uphold the constitution.
They do not have the power to re-write it.

If their opinion is no in line with the constitution then their opinion is wrong.
that is how they are supposed to behave.

if you want the constitution changed then that is why there is an amendment process.
 
celticwar17 said:
The only time it was called into question was recently... and there was CERTAINLY a movement to change the OBVIOUS interpretation.

See this is why you don't care about activist judges... you can change whatever interpretation of the constitution you want without the amendment process.... you love the idea of changing the ultimate law of the land through the whim of an activist judge.

Tell me, how is "The People", the state?
Click to expand...

What is said to be OBVIOUS to you was not made so OBVIOUS to the Founders when they wrapped the right firmly in the necessity of having a militia to preserve the state.

I would suggest to you that the people are part of the nation and the nation is the sum of the people and you cannot separate one from the other.
 
ludin said:
actually it is exactly constitutional law.

The job of the justices is to defend and uphold the constitution.
They do not have the power to re-write it.

If their opinion is no in line with the constitution then their opinion is wrong.
that is how they are supposed to behave.

if you want the constitution changed then that is why there is an amendment process.
Click to expand...

Correct, our only disagreement appears to be that you think an effort to divine what was in the minds of the Founders when they created Law makes for sound Constitutional Law and I think it makes for BS. It should be clear that the Legislature should be looking at Court rulings to determine if new laws are required because there are gaps that appear in the Laws we have as time progresses.......a form of Progressivism that is baked into the cake no matter how much some might want to ignore that.

Not only does Originality in Constitutional law give credence to this Karnak the Magnificent routine but instead of guiding the Legislature to consider to act if it needs to do so, it continually efforts to fit square pegs into rounds holes. Again, the entire idea that one judge can divine what was in the minds of the Founders better than another can is hopelessly flawed. What is the basis for the argument that ensues, faith?? What is faith doing in Constitutional Law? It unfortunately also suggests that our Founders were blind and stupid enough to see the square pegs and see the round holes and mystically illusion them away.

Finally, without question the Congress is the most broken or apparently incapable of acting responsibly part of our democracy.
 
jnug said:
Correct, our only disagreement appears to be that you think an effort to divine what was in the minds of the Founders when they created Law makes for sound Constitutional Law and I think it makes for BS. It should be clear that the Legislature should be looking at Court rulings to determine if new laws are required because there are gaps that appear in the Laws we have as time progresses.......a form of Progressivism that is baked into the cake no matter how much some might want to ignore that.
Click to expand...

No the Founders had it in mind that if there was to be a constitutional change that it would be a heavy thing and very difficult thing to do. that the constitution shouldn't be able to be changed on the whim or opinion of a person.
which is what we are facing now and we have lost a ton of freedom over it.

Not only does Originality in Constitutional law give credence to this Karnak the Magnificent routine but instead of guiding the Legislature to consider to act if it needs to do so, it continually efforts to fit square pegs into rounds holes. Again, the entire idea that one judge can divine what was in the minds of the Founders better than another can is hopelessly flawed. What is the basis for the argument that ensues, faith?? What is faith doing in Constitutional Law? It unfortunately also suggests that our Founders were blind and stupid enough to see the square pegs and see the round holes and mystically illusion them away.
Click to expand...

Actually it isn't that hard to see what the constitution says vs what the law is wanting to do. if there is the conflict then the constitution should win by default.

Finally, without question the Congress is the most broken or apparently incapable of acting responsibly part of our democracy.
Click to expand...

It was designed that way on purpose. It was designed to only pass laws on an as needed basis which means there should be few laws passed as possible.
why? to maintain a free people and free society.
 
haymarket said:
What is said to be OBVIOUS to you was not made so OBVIOUS to the Founders when they wrapped the right firmly in the necessity of having a militia to preserve the state.

I would suggest to you that the people are part of the nation and the nation is the sum of the people and you cannot separate one from the other.
Click to expand...
First, that is not how "the People" is used in the constituion, they were also VERY clear when they were refering to the state, because they specifically mentioned "the state" when referring to the militia.

Second, How is it possible to organize a militia of the people, without the right to bare arms? If there are no guns in the peoples hands, it would be impossible...... or do you have to first ask for the states permission first to get the guns? THEN organize a militia? What if they say no?.... completely idiotic
 
"Actually it isn't that hard to see what the constitution says vs what the law is wanting to do. if there is the conflict then the constitution should win by default."

If that is true then it goes to my side of the ledger since my argument is that Originality in Constitutional Law is garbage Constitutional Law. Its BS.

By the way, it does not matter how "needed" a law might be as "need" is a relative terms subject to interpretation. That the Legislature should not pass laws willy nilly is obvious. Passing as few laws as possible should be a result of not passing laws willy nilly. It doe not relieve the Legislature of its obligation to legislate.
 
tres borrachos said:
Ouch.

Wasn't the great cheese state one of the ones that went for Trump in 2016 and pulled him over the electoral finish line?
Click to expand...

It was actually more than just WI.

There was WI,PA, MI.
He also won a series other states

such as

FL , OH, NC
 
haymarket said:
What is said to be OBVIOUS to you was not made so OBVIOUS to the Founders when they wrapped the right firmly in the necessity of having a militia to preserve the state.

I would suggest to you that the people are part of the nation and the nation is the sum of the people and you cannot separate one from the other.
Click to expand...

the right is not wrapped firmly in anything and it was NEVER interpreted as such in ALL of US history until recent modern history where activist judges and liberals wanted it to be so.

the amendment plainly states that since a well organized militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the PEOPLE"s right to bear arms shall not be infringed.. and it says that plainly because back then the militia they are talking about would be made up of CITIZENS who would defend the constitution against ALL those who would destroy it, including the power hungry in our own government , if it came to that.

give me ONE instance in classic US history where if you had told US citizens you were going to ban, confiscate their muskets, rifles, etc... they wouldn't have said, "oops , guess its time to form that militia, cause this is BS"
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
And you make the same errors Scalia did. You invent creatively and using your fertile imagination spinning from gossamer that is not really reality.
Click to expand...

I didn’t invent anything, I gave you the definition of judicial strict scrutiny and pointed out the rights full under it. If you can’t understand that then there is no point in debating.
 
celticwar17 said:
First, that is not how "the People" is used in the constituion, they were also VERY clear when they were refering to the state, because they specifically mentioned "the state" when referring to the militia.

Second, How is it possible to organize a militia of the people, without the right to bare arms? If there are no guns in the peoples hands, it would be impossible...... or do you have to first ask for the states permission first to get the guns? THEN organize a militia? What if they say no?.... completely idiotic
Click to expand...

The right is clearly connected to the militia as a way to secure the state without the cost of a standing army in peacetime. In fact, only a single state constitution referenced the right apart from the larger community application and that was Pennsylvania.
 
Hypothetical said:
the right is not wrapped firmly in anything and it was NEVER interpreted as such in ALL of US history until recent modern history where activist judges and liberals wanted it to be so.

the amendment plainly states that since a well organized militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the PEOPLE"s right to bear arms shall not be infringed.. and it says that plainly because back then the militia they are talking about would be made up of CITIZENS who would defend the constitution against ALL those who would destroy it, including the power hungry in our own government , if it came to that.

give me ONE instance in classic US history where if you had told US citizens you were going to ban, confiscate their muskets, rifles, etc... they wouldn't have said, "oops , guess its time to form that militia, cause this is BS"
Click to expand...

I see no serious effort to deny anyone the right to keep and bear arms as the Amendment says.
 
Crovax said:
I didn’t invent anything, I gave you the definition of judicial strict scrutiny and pointed out the rights full under it. If you can’t understand that then there is no point in debating.
Click to expand...

Here was your post

Quote Originally Posted by Crovax View Post
The right was never that of a militia. The right was always of the people. It is worded poorly just as really the 1st amendment is in current context. But its clear from the founders writings it was always meant to be a personal right to bear arms and not to have a militia.

As for Scalia neglecting " the role of the peoples government in being able to regulate that right", there is no such thing. Rights fall under judicially what is called strict scrutiny which means the govt must have a compelling interest to create the regulation, the regulation must be a narrow as possible to achieve that goal and it must be the least restrictive means possible.
Click to expand...

To pretend that the right exists apart from the context of the necessity of a militia is indeed an invention of the mind that is not borne out by the actual language of the Amendment

There is nothing in the Amendment having any language about "strict scrutiny" so that is an invention also.

There is no language in the Amendment about a "compelling state interest" so that is an invention also.

There is no language in the Amendment saying that the right must be interpreted as narrowly as possible according to your standards so that is an invention also.

And there is no language in the Amendment saying that any regulation must be the least restrictive possible so that is a, invention also.
 
haymarket said:
The right is clearly connected to the militia as a way to secure the state without the cost of a standing army in peacetime. In fact, only a single state constitution referenced the right apart from the larger community application and that was Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

The people do not have the right to Freedom of peaceful assembly? It's just actually the state has the right to assembly?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures? Actually just means the state, Not individual citizens....

lol:lol:
 
celticwar17 said:
The people do not have the right to Freedom of peaceful assembly? It's just actually the state has the right to assembly?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures? Actually just means the state, Not individual citizens....

lol:lol:
Click to expand...

We were discussing the Second Amendment.
 
haymarket said:
We were discussing the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

it's a valid point in that the amendment's have to be treated consistently throughout, otherwise the context of the document as it pertains to deciding the law is worthless... "It's ok to infringe until it's to a right that affects me" is a terrible way to govern.
 
celticwar17 said:
You talking about the second amendment? Individual citizens have the right to bear arms, and always had that right in America. Don't be silly...

I liked Scalia's concept of originalism, it gives a more concrete way of interpreting the constitution without bias.... and if we want to change it, we would need an amendment.

I don't think Scalia was a perfect judge though... I'd have to relearn some of his more controversial positions again before I can comment on that.
Click to expand...

Originalism goes against the concept of self governance and the intent of the founding fathers.
 
Last edited:
celticwar17 said:
100% Bs... but nice try. The founders made an amendment process and a 10th amendment for that very reason. If there is something they could not forsee, you can simply amend the constitution if it is dire enough.
Click to expand...

Adhering to Originalism while embracing an amendment process is paradoxical.
 
tres borrachos said:
Ouch.

Wasn't the great cheese state one of the ones that went for Trump in 2016 and pulled him over the electoral finish line?
Click to expand...

Wisconsin runs only 2nd to Kansas with regards to Koch election meddling and experimentation. And it, along with Kansas, is blowing up in their faces as we all see their ideology fail.
 
poweRob said:
Adhering to Originalism while embracing an amendment process is paradoxical.
Click to expand...

You make no sense lol... So the difference between a Democracy and a Dictatorship is zero? You are paradoxical if you support one over the other? Because both systems can change laws, just one happens to be easier? One has rules and process limited by majority vote, and one can be changed by the whim of a Dictator? They are both the same, and it's paradoxical to support one process over the other?

wow...

you can change the Constitution... just do it properly, within the rules of the constitution itself.
 
celticwar17 said:
You make no sense lol... So the difference between a Democracy and a Dictatorship is zero? You are paradoxical if you support one over the other? Because both systems can change laws, just one happens to be easier? One has rules and process limited by majority vote, and one can be changed by the whim of a Dictator? They are both the same, and it's paradoxical to support one process over the other?

wow...

you can change the Constitution... just do it properly, within the rules of the constitution itself.
Click to expand...

It is paradoxical for a court to ignore the constitution's intentionally designed flexibility and adaptability, to go with the rigidity of originialism to interpret it.
 
poweRob said:
It is paradoxical for a court to ignore the constitution's intentionally designed flexibility and adaptability, to go with the rigidity of originialism to interpret it.
Click to expand...

No... the constitution itself made avenues for it's own flexibility... and that was the amendments process.... You do not need any other process than the amendment process... it is not paradoxical.

Why id the amendment process put in place? So onl a significant majority can change the constitutions, it would have to be something most everyone agrees with.

I really can't believe I am having this conversation really...
 
haymarket said:
I see no serious effort to deny anyone the right to keep and bear arms as the Amendment says.
Click to expand...

banning certain types is infringement. it's ok for us to not challenge certain restrictions (such as fully automatic weapons) out of common sense, but it's still not in the spirit of the Constitution of the United States, and thus (what should be) the law. That doesn't mean we should allow them to pick and choose EVERYTHING when it is clearly a right of ours. IF you want to change that then you need to amend the constitution through the outlined process.
 
celticwar17 said:
No... the constitution itself made avenues for it's own flexibility... and that was the amendments process.... You do not need any other process than the amendment process... it is not paradoxical.

Why id the amendment process put in place? So onl a significant majority can change the constitutions, it would have to be something most everyone agrees with.

I really can't believe I am having this conversation really...
Click to expand...

why was*..

Only*
Constitution*.... awful typos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom