• 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!

We have a Second Amendment. Why do we have any security problems in our free States?

danielpalos said:
You are a citizen of your State, usually. That is where you get Due Process, your own, State Constitution. The federal Courts should ensure, faithful execution of your own Constitution, first.
Click to expand...

I am asking you to define procedural due process. Your statement has nothing to so with procedural due process.
 
Tennyson said:
No, I am discussing this post of yours:
Click to expand...

There are no natural or individual rights in our Second Amendment. I thought that was already explained. The People is plural and collective, every time the right wing wants to waste our time quibbling about this issue.
 
danielpalos said:
There are no natural or individual rights in our Second Amendment. I thought that was already explained. The People is plural and collective, every time the right wing wants to waste our time quibbling about this issue.
Click to expand...

I am asking you to define procedural due process in your post and its relevence. You either can or you cannot. It is that simple.
 
danielpalos said:
I merely need to bring it up in open Court.
Click to expand...

Four points:

1. You have no intention in making an argument.

2. You have no intention of defending any of your arbitrary posts.

3. I shoulder most of the blame for engaging someone of your caliber.

4. I am certain that your posts are the product of Google translate.
 
Tennyson said:
Four points:

1. You have no intention in making an argument.

2. You have no intention of defending any of your arbitrary posts.

3. I shoulder most of the blame for engaging someone of your caliber.

4. I am certain that your posts are the product of Google translate.
Click to expand...

you have no valid rebuttal; why do you believe you have a valid point to make?

There are no natural or individual rights in our Second Amendment. I thought that was already explained. The People is plural and collective, every time the right wing wants to waste our time quibbling about this issue.

Definition of people
plural people

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/people?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
 
Tennyson said:
A state gun law is outside the purview of the Constitution and the Supreme Court, which would make the assault rifle ban not comparable to the Tombstone law.
Click to expand...

No, state laws are not outside the Supreme Court: they are challenged all the time. Both bans can be upheld.
 
danielpalos said:
Not in our Second Amendment; you Must defer to State Constitutions and Due Process.
Click to expand...

Transparent dodge there. If it were a collective right, no due process would be needed to void it.
 
jet57 said:
No, state laws are not outside the Supreme Court: they are challenged all the time. Both bans can be upheld.
Click to expand...

I am referring to the first ten amendments and their being outside the purview of any branch of the federal government, especially the Supreme Court. I am not referring to what the Supreme Court has usurped.
 
Tennyson said:
I am referring to the first ten amendments and their being outside the purview of any branch of the federal government, especially the Supreme Court. I am not referring to what the Supreme Court has usurped.
Click to expand...

The court rules on laws involving the bill of rights all the time, so I'm not really sure you're up to speed unless I'm misunderstanding something, or is there more to what you're trying to say?
 
jet57 said:
The court rules on laws involving the bill of rights all the time, so I'm not really sure you're up to speed unless I'm misunderstanding something, or is there more to what you're trying to say?
Click to expand...

I am stating that a federal court's jurisdiction over the first ten amendments was rejected by the First Congress as was a bill of rights.
 
Tennyson said:
I am stating that a federal court's jurisdiction over the first ten amendments was rejected by the First Congress as was a bill of rights.
Click to expand...

Show me what you're talking about please.
 
jet57 said:
Show me what you're talking about please.
Click to expand...

It was Jefferson’s letter to Madison dated March 15, 1789, regarding the Bill of Rights needed to be under the purview of the federal judiciary:

Your thoughts on the subject of the Declaration of rights in the letter of Oct. 17. I have weighed with great satisfaction. Some of them had not occurred to me before but were acknowledged just in the moment they were presented to my mind. In the arguments in favor of a declaration of rights, you omit one which has great weight with me, the legal check which it puts into the hands of the judiciary.​


James Madison introduced a declaration of rights on June 8, 1789, to be inserted into the body of the Constitution. His reason was to give a federal judiciary jurisdiction:

If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights.​

Madison's proposal was rejected, and the declaration of rights were restructured by the First Congress into federalism restrictions. This is why there was no First Amendment lawsuit regarding the Aliens and Sedition Acts. This was the public understanding. Federalist John Marshall even understood this in his opinion in McCullough v Maryland.
 
danielpalos said:
Well regulated militia of the whole people are declared Necessary.
Click to expand...

False, attempts to regulate people as a whole as part of the militia has been rejected as unconstitutional.
 
danielpalos said:
No, it hasn't. The people are the militia under the common law for the common defense. It really is, common sense.
Click to expand...

That does not mean they may be regulated outside of militia service as in under active duty. Your entire premise is completely false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom