OT: Two parties

Page 3 of 9  
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Correct. An "opinion" is a belief with nothing to back it up, not the reverse.

"Killing" is not, per se, a sin. In fact killing is mandated in the Old Testament. For example: "If a man lie with a man as he would with a woman, he shall be put to death." It's "murder" that's prohibited. The presence of "kill" in the Decalogue is another of Martin Luther's mistakes when he translated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into German.
Doesn't matter anyway. The 613 commandments in the Hebrew Scriptures are only binding on the Jews. Gentiles are free to do pretty much as they please (except for the Noachite laws of course).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

It may. If that is the case the correct solution is to amend it, not ignore it. It contains a clearly defined procedure for such amendment, which procedure has been applied a number of times.

There is no amendment procedure in the Old Testament.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If the Constitution is so clear and immutable (excepting for a moment the amendment route), why do we need a USSC?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

To interpret laws. You and congress are quite alike. They want the Constitution to mean what *they* want it to mean. SCotUS is *supposed* to be a check on such nonsense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Doesn't that mean that the Supreme Court interpretes howto apply the Constitution? Maybe the medications I am taking after my surgery mae me think wrong, but that was I meant (too).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

To slap down the politicians when they have overstepped their bounds of course.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...and for those that agree with you the Constitution provides not one, but two methods by which it can be changed by the will of the people and the states. NOT by the whims of a few or even by the majority vote of 9 appointed judges. There are a number of changes that I would like to see, but somehow I just don't want them bad enough to get the ball rolling...
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Maybe it's my medications, but I don't see what you mean, Dave. The People have made amendments to the Constitution, sometimes revoking previous amendments. The Supreme Court has used English, logic and opinion to interpret those in the context of laws, however poorly written. So, IMNSHO, it is all interpretation, and it isn't surprising that that might change over time.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess that it is a mindset.
If I hired an interpreter (say a french one) to assist in understanding some document written in a foreign language (in this case french), I would expect that they would actually interprete, not just make stuff up. I would expect that the meaning that they ascribe to the document would, to the best of their ability, be based on what the writers of that document intended, not what my employee wanted them to say. Even if the words changed a bit in meaning over time, I would expect them to do their best to tell me what it meant when written (again not what he or she wants it to mean). When they tell we that a sentence means something other than what the writers actually wrote, then they are simple frauds. When (or if) the Supreme Court says that the Constitution or any amendment thereto says something other than what it clearly actually says or what the writers (and approvers) of that document or any amendment thereto clearly intended, then they go from being "justices" to being dictators.
Again, there are many changes that I would like to see to the Constitution (such as rational controls on ownership and use of certain arms), but I truly believe that until it is changed in the manners set forth then it should stand as written and intended (like when the 2nd amendment pretty clearly says that we can keep and bear such arms).
Folks like to say that there is a "consensus" that certain parts of the Constitution means something different today than it did 200 years ago, but if that were true then the consensus would be expressed in the manners set up for amending the document. The writers simply put together a process to ensure that a reasonable consensus was actually reached before changes were made. Otherwise it is simple abuse by any transient majority that comes along (ask any african-american or hispanic-american that you know just how well that concept works).
I hope that the meds wear off and that all is well with you.
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dhall987 wrote:

The problem is that others may disagree with you on "what it clearly says" and the Founders did not write a users' manual explaining what they "clearly intended".

You are aware are you not that the Supreme Court, which for most of the 20th century managed to avoid taking a position on the second amendment, when finally backed into a corner and forced to rule, pretty much agreed with you on that point?

I've never seen an assertion of such "consensus". But the law does have to deal with situations that the founders could not possibly have envisioned (like "is cable television interstate commerce").

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

J. Clarke "got it". Thanks Dave for the wishes. Yes, the meds are being reduced, and they will wear off.
Interpretation/explanation are alwys good. Language evolves as do customs. Which reminds me of the story of the Allied Generals planning D-Day. In my words: There was a proposal and the Brits wanted to table it, which the Americans furiously (my word) opposed. Turns out that to table a proposal in British English means to put it on the table and discuss it, while in American English it means to put it on the table and shove it aside for later. I am really glad they figured it out since I was to be born in the fall of 1944 in German-occupied Holland.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

shove it aside to be ignored." :-) But I share your gladness that all was figured out in the end.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As stated in the response to J. Clarke, the meaning behind the various parts of the Constitution were extremely well documented in the various debates in each of the 13 states during the approval process. Each Amendment was similarly extensively debated by each of the states voting on their ratifications.
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nothing serious, just painful now because of the surgery. Look up hydrocele. That wasn't painful, just became too bothersome in many respects.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 01:47:37 -0500, "J. Clarke"

details mean. However, there was a sort of "users manual" written at the time. The Constitution was extensively and rigorously debated by 13 states' people and governments during the approval process. These debates are very well documented. One such set of documents is the extensive Federalist Papers, but there are plenty more.

applies to hand guns. However, the document statess "arms" and does not limit that term to hand guns or long gun or any other subset of "arms". The times clearly were such that wealthy people owned extensive sets of rms for defending themselves and their communities from outside forces (including over bearing governments). They had private ownership of cannon, mortars, and all other weapons of war. The Revolution was fought extensively with privately owned heavy weapons used by private or community militias. The debates on approval pretty clearly show that the intent was to be able to keep and bear all such weapons, especially by citizens living on the frontiers who needed to protect themselves from native americans and others.
I am pretty sure the recent Supreme Court ruling would not keep me from going to jail if I tried to keep and bear a few 105 MM howitzers or severla 50 Cal Brownings.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone to own such stuff. However, if the Constitution had been properly interpreted to allow such all along, we would have dramatically changed the 2nd amendment a long time ago.

should be done as originally intended, not simply as a loophole. The Interstate Commerce clause is one of the most abused portions of the Constitution. A clause designed to allow for unimpeded commerce across boarders, stop each state from imposing import duties or creating laws that made it impossible to sell Virginia products in New York has been abused to give the federal government almost unimpeded control of just about anything. It is similar to the clause that gave the feds control over "navigable waterways" being used to allow the EPA to control some mud puddle in my front yard because the water in it might reach a navigable river in the next 5 years. We all know what was intended and what the writers actually said, but we don't give a shit because we want the feds to control "wetlands" because city treehuggers don't trust rural states to protect the wetlands.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dhall987 wrote:

And when a case is argued before the Supreme Court counsel on both sides will avail themselves of those documents. However the Federalist Papers are not nearly as comprehensive as you seem to believe.

The agreed that it was an individual right. They have not ruled that it does or does not apply to any particular type of arm.

Nice rhetoric. What does it have to do with any action taken by the Supreme Court?

If you did, the Federal charge would be tax evasion. It is not unlawful, under Federal law anyway, to keep or bear them but you are required to pay a tax on the purchase. Whether the Sullivan Law or other state laws that might prohibit their ownership is an open question--no such case has gone before the Supreme Court except for one in the 1930s where the Court ruled very narrowly.

Or not as the case may be.

If it's "wetlands" it's the Corps of Engineers that controls it, not the EPA. And the Supreme Court has ruled that there must be some significant connection to a navigable waterway.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I believe he's referring to the fact that the Constitution provides two mechanisms by which it can be amended: amendments can be proposed either by Congress, or by a convention of the States. [Article V]
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in

I defer to the experts for the minutiae (however important) of the ways of really official changes to be made. I do believe that jurisprudence is a way that changes in interpretation can be made. Ultimately that would be indeed the whim of the 9 judges. Of course subject to laws by Congress, whether that is a good thing or not.
IANAL, but a biochemist of sorts. The one thing I have not really seen in this country is a legal procedure used in Holland. To really test out a new (and important) law, they would carry out a test case to see whether all the legal angles were addressed in the law as written. This would obviate having to wait for a real case to make the test. I don't know whether that would work here, but might save harm to an individual or corporation by setting the example.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Sounds like an interesting concept. Here, laws are presumed constitutional until a case challenging them percolates up the courts. This often verifies the refrain: "Bad cases make bad law." Often the court has to choose between letting loose some heinous scumbag or upholding the law. Sometimes the contort themselves into knots to avoid releasing the goblin.
In the "Heller" case last year and the "McDonald v Chicago" case this year, the lawyers went to great effort to recruit righteous folk to be the plaintiffs. Here's an example report from just today:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/ct-news-chicago-gun-ban-20100129,0,3152673.story
Obviously in McDonald the lawyers were trying to find plaintiffs such that the court would have no reason to avoid blame by ruling in their favor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't know anymore what is good. If everyone is running around with concealed weapons, what prevents large scale shootouts?
Here in the NY area an off-duty cop was killed by uniformed cops because he ran after a guy who had robbed someone (I believe), and met uniformed cops who were coming to a report of a man with a gun. The uniformed cops didn't hear him (or something like that) when he identified himself (or not, I don't remember). Of course skin color may have played a role ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.