The American Constitution

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Let me make a riduculus{SP?} continuation of some of your ideas. Why not make everyone clones of one another? Regulate their thoughts, their dress, the food they eat, where they live, how they act, how they raise their children. Yes, everyone would get along, but everyone would be the SAME. Also who gets to dictate all of these rules? Does this sound really bizzare and far fetched? We are already on this path - all in the name of "Making a better society" and to "Protect people". I do not need nor want someone else to tell me what is safe for me to do or is in my own best intrest. You just described Socialism in a nutshell [img]smile.gif[/img]

[John D Harris]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
There has been no instance where this has been found to be indicative of a difference in the Amendments. All parts of the Constitution prohibit the action of government as a whole. You're trying to find meaning in the fact that some parts of the constitution are written in the active voice and some are written in the passive voice. While active voice is usually sylistically better, and while it is true that lawyers talk in the passive voice all too often (as this paragraph indicates), you nevertheless cite a distinction without a difference. It is preposterous to suggest that one could argue before the Supreme Court, "Hey, this Congress shall make no law, and we're not congress, we're the NSA, part of the executive branch, so we can write regulations to limit freedom of speech and religion." Likewise, the converse is equally silly.

I agree there has never been an intreptation of the Constitution that shows any differance. The examples & logic you stated, is what I beleive that the Founding Father intended, but it's not what they wrote. I think the current position on the 1st amendment, was their intended position, supported by the Federalist papers and other writings of the F.F.

I don't know if this argument is circular or what. I think you are saying that the fact that because strict constructionalism and loose constructionalism (and I think I know what you mean by those) come out the same way regarding this amendment, that alone does not *disprove* the existence of strict constructionalism. Fair enough. I'm simply stating that if you are having to say "it should have said..." or "what they meant was..." then you are leaving strict constructionalism-land and entering loose constructionalism-land.

Now you see the paradox, us "strick constructionalist" are in, a typo can really mess up our day It's the old choaking on a nat, and swallowing a camel.

Furthermore, the Court really is limited when interpreting laws. Not to be to Cliffs NOtes about the law, I point out that the general order of importance of factors when interpreting a law is:
1. Plain words of the statute.
2. What the legislature said about the statute.
3. Other things such as public policy and common law jurisprudence.

See what I mean? In our gov'l system, the legis. makes the law.

As it should be, but not always the case ie: 2000 Florida election, I remember hearing the State rep that wrote the law say something completely different then what the Florida Supreme Court ruled, as did the vast majority of the reps that passed the law. The U.S. Supreme Court overuled, and demanded the Florida Supreme Court give an account of why they deviated from the writen law.

I won't get into agencies (executive-made law) here, as that is a different topic, and would require lots and lots of explanation. If you have a rankle with that as well, let me know and I'll point you to some good books.
Let's not go there, I think it's a necessary EVIL

[ 10-24-2002, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[VulcanRider]

Originally posted by Donut: Is your Government really that scary John? Or can you foresee an American Government who would turn into a dictatorship? If they did would your 'militia' be 'organised' enough to defeat them?

I think I got that quote right -- the original quotes went about 4 deep...
I hope I'm not rehashing something already posted -- I read the 1st & last pages of the thread but skipped the middle 4...

When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution & Bill of Rights, they had just recently finished revolting against a government they felt was unjust, unrepresentative, even tyrannical. That colored their thinking just a wee tad. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure the general population always has that ability -- to rebel against an unjust government. Does anybody here know the last time Americans took up arms against their own government this way? Colonial times? The Civil War? Spanish-American War era? WWI? Try a little bit more recent, like AFTER World War II. 1946 to be exact. Residents of Athens Tennessee had begged the FBI to come & monitor local elections for years. They were tired of their corrupt local government. WWII veterans tried to legally change it by running their own independant candidates. The incumbents used "special deputies" to intimidate voters, beating GI poll-watchers, and actually shot one African-American man for trying to vote (he lived). Then they grabbed the ballot boxes & holed up in the jail for an "impartial" count. The vets scavenged what weapons they could and forced the issue. They restored lawful government by force, the only means possible. The founders knew how important that ability was, and wrote the 2nd to guarantee it.

"An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions."

Read more about it:
http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm

It would be wonderful if we could depend on always having an open, honest, and fair government. But power corrupts, yada yada.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by VulcanRider: quote: Originally posted by Donut: Is your Government really that scary John? Or can you foresee an American Government who would turn into a dictatorship? If they did would your 'militia' be 'organised' enough to defeat them?

I think I got that quote right -- the original quotes went about 4 deep...
I hope I'm not rehashing something already posted -- I read the 1st & last pages of the thread but skipped the middle 4...

When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution & Bill of Rights, they had just recently finished revolting against a government they felt was unjust, unrepresentative, even tyrannical. That colored their thinking just a wee tad. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure the general population always has that ability -- to rebel against an unjust government. Does anybody here know the last time Americans took up arms against their own government this way? Colonial times? The Civil War? Spanish-American War era? WWI? Try a little bit more recent, like AFTER World War II. 1946 to be exact. Residents of Athens Tennessee had begged the FBI to come & monitor local elections for years. They were tired of their corrupt local government. WWII veterans tried to legally change it by running their own independant candidates. The incumbents used "special deputies" to intimidate voters, beating GI poll-watchers, and actually shot one African-American man for trying to vote (he lived). Then they grabbed the ballot boxes & holed up in the jail for an "impartial" count. The vets scavenged what weapons they could and forced the issue. They restored lawful government by force, the only means possible. The founders knew how important that ability was, and wrote the 2nd to guarantee it.

"An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions."

Read more about it:
http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm

It would be wonderful if we could depend on always having an open, honest, and fair government. But power corrupts, yada yada.[/QUOTE]The defense rests

[Yorick]

Originally posted by VulcanRider: When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution & Bill of Rights, they had just recently finished revolting against a government they felt was unjust, unrepresentative, even tyrannical. That colored their thinking just a wee tad. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure the general population always has that ability -- to rebel against an unjust government.

A populace does not need guns to rebel against an unjust government. I mentioned Ghandi's India vs the British Empire and I'll do it again.

I'll also mention the fall of South Africas apartheid, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the peaceful revolution in the Philipines only last year or so. There's also the eventual downfall of the Golkar party in Indonesia that went without violent overthrow.

When you choose violence and destruction as a means to achieving an end, you get death, misery and destruction.

Americans do not need guns to rebel against a government. It could be argued that they didn't need to take up arms against the British either.... oh, now that's some heresy.

But seriously, what if they didn't? What if they'd found a way around the problem and achieved independence without fighting a war?

It's tantalising.

Instead we have a country that was conquered through violence, achieved independence through violence, fought itself violently, has a problem with violence in it's society, glorifies violence in the arts, sees an instrument of violence as the guarantee of freedom, and is pursuing violent activities abroad.

Can we not see a thread here? Can we not see a foundational problem that taintingly permeates throughout the otherwise beautiful fabric of America?

[ 10-24-2002, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: J.J. What makes you think I'm not against cars? Killers of the environment. Air destroyers. SUVs are the most hideous, unnecessary enviro-vandal on the earth. And yes, they kill people, isolate people from each other by creating monsterously large suburban areas, and breed seat hugging, unhealthy lifestyles. Drive through food, drive through banks in America, and in Oz, drive through liquor stores! That's one reason why I like public-transit-heavy, walker-friendly New York City But are we really going to be able to turn society on it's head until oil runs out? Hardly. We can ban the gun though, enforce drink driving and speed laws and make cars that automatically stick to a computer determined road speed limit right?

I agree with you about the SUVs and the people that tend to drive them, but some of your other suggestions are way too Orwellian for me. I do not want to live in 1984. Let me make a riduculus{SP?} continuation of some of your ideas. Why not make everyone clones of one another? Regulate their thoughts, their dress, the food they eat, where they live, how they act, how they raise their children. Yes, everyone would get along, but everyone would be the SAME. Also who gets to dictate all of these rules? Does this sound really bizzare and far fetched? We are already on this path - all in the name of "Making a better society" and to "Protect people". I do not need nor want someone else to tell me what is safe for me to do or is in my own best intrest.

You may not like the way things are today, and try to make things better for everyone. That is truely noble. But some of the suggestions you make to reach your Utopia are paths that lead to my Hell.[/QUOTE]I don't understand how you reached that conclusion at all.

This is what I suggested.

1.Ban the gun. Plenty of nations have already. Australia and Holland are hardly hell. Possessing marijuana is also not a crime in either of these two "restrictive hells".Unlike your "free America"

2.Enforce drink driving laws. Repressive Australia had a low limit of .05, half that of the free US. Random breath testing is far more prevalent in Oz, than in the free USA. But in the free US you can't get into a club unless you're 21 (because of the link between youths and drunk driving). Unlike most of the rest of the world which allows 18 year olds in. Such freedom of choice for young Americans. Imagine that. Sounds like Socialism in a nutshell.

3.Enforce speed laws and computer determined car limits. Why make a car that can go 200kms p/hr if the national limit is 110kms p/hr? We have cruise control in cars. Singapore puts alrms in their taxis that ring if the speed limit is breached. (Which they all ignore... ) What is so stupid about putting a computer in your car, that won't let it go over the legal limit? How is that hellish?

4.My problem with the car culture How did humanity survive without the car before it was invented? Did they all live in hell? Did they all not have free choice? The car is not the be all and end all of human achievement.

In any case the hovercraft is arguably better for starters, but that's not my point and has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

[ 10-24-2002, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: This is what I suggested. 1.Ban the gun. Plenty of nations have already. Australia and Holland are hardly hell. Possessing marijuana is also not a crime in either of these two "restrictive hells".Unlike your "free America" 2.Enforce drink driving laws. Repressive Australia had a low limit of .05, half that of the free US. Random breath testing is far more prevalent in Oz, than in the free USA. But in the free US you can't get into a club unless you're 21 (because of the link between youths and drunk driving). Unlike most of the rest of the world which allows 18 year olds in. Such freedom of choice for young Americans. Imagine that. Sounds like Socialism in a nutshell. 3.Enforce speed laws and computer determined car limits. Why make a car that can go 200kms p/hr if the national limit is 110kms p/hr? We have cruise control in cars. Singapore puts alrms in their taxis that ring if the speed limit is breached. (Which they all ignore... ) What is so stupid about putting a computer in your car, that won't let it go over the legal limit? How is that hellish? 4.My problem with the car culture How did humanity survive without the car before it was invented? Did they all live in hell? Did they all not have free choice? The car is not the be all and end all of human achievement. In any case the hovercraft is arguably better for starters, but that's not my point and has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Reasonable and conscientious proposals, though we Americans would have to undergo massive evolution of mind to peacefully rid ourselves of guns.

You oughta get citizenship here and run for office, so I can vote for you, assuming that you would also legalize merry-wanna as #1 implies.

BTW Yorick: I'm still open to do coffee sometime if Boston is still on your travel calender. Though with my retail career and the holy-daze shopping season 'round the corner, My free-time grows shorter every passing day.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Night Stalker: Let me make a riduculus{SP?} continuation of some of your ideas. Why not make everyone clones of one another? Regulate their thoughts, their dress, the food they eat, where they live, how they act, how they raise their children. Yes, everyone would get along, but everyone would be the SAME. Also who gets to dictate all of these rules? Does this sound really bizzare and far fetched? We are already on this path - all in the name of "Making a better society" and to "Protect people". I do not need nor want someone else to tell me what is safe for me to do or is in my own best intrest. You just described Socialism in a nutshell [img]smile.gif[/img]

[/QUOTE]MagiK, MagiK, MagiK...

I think you just proved to everyone here you have about the same understanding of Socialism as I do of PhD level Quantam Physics. Theres only so far a smiley will get you mate.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Reasonable and conscientious proposals, though we Americans would have to undergo massive evolution of mind to peacefully rid ourselves of guns. You oughta get citizenship here and run for office, so I can vote for you, assuming that you would also legalize merry-wanna as #1 implies. BTW Yorick: I'm still open to do coffee sometime if Boston is still on your travel calender. Though with my retail career and the holy-daze shopping season 'round the corner, My free-time grows shorter every passing day.

You know what... I might be up there this weekend. I'll PM you my phone number. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Donut]

Originally posted by John D Harris: The defense rests

You shouldn't give in so easily John D