OT: Two parties

The sense in American English is actually closer to "put it on the table and shove it aside to be ignored." :-) But I share your gladness that all was figured out in the end.

Reply to
Doug Miller
Loading thread data ...

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]

formatting link

Reply to
Doug Miller

It is true that there can be honest differences in what some esoteric 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.

I am aware that they finally agreed on the plain language as it 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.

Of course the laws have to be applied to changed situations, but 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.

Reply to
dhall987

See my response to J. Clarke.

I hope it isn't related to anything serious.

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

Reply to
dhall987

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.

Reply to
J. Clarke

dhall987 wrote in news:8ou8m5hkpavbmlhake43unoqolsbnejio8 @4ax.com:

Nothing serious, just painful now because of the surgery. Look up hydrocele. That wasn't painful, just became too bothersome in many respects.

Reply to
Han

snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in news:hk1kv5$c1t$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

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.

Reply to
Han

So freedom of the press only applies to people who own printing presses, not the new fangled radio and TV? We need a constitutional amendment to extend it to each new media that comes along?

Whether that is true or not is clearly a matter of interpretation.

-- Doug

Reply to
Douglas Johnson

Would be nice if "freedom of the press" did not automatically equate to "freedom of the junk mailers and spammers" though. I do wonder if the founders, having been deluged with junk mail, would have phrased things differently.

Reply to
J. Clarke

"J. Clarke" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news3.newsguy.com:

So, what do you think of the SC decision to let companies fund reelction campaigns more fully (=free "peech" for corporations). I do value your opinion!

Reply to
Han

"Han" wrote in message news:Xns9D118E08EAF8Aikkezelf@207.246.207.159...

You didn't ask me but I feel compelled to comment. Disregarding the intention of the framers and, in fact, disregarding the interpretations of the Supreme Court, the effect of the ruling is to disenfranchise the average voter. I wouldn't disagree with the ruling if it could be demonstrated that the money we're talking about came from individuals in the corporations involved, whether it's the members of the board of directors, the executives, or the rest of the employees, but the funds will most certainly come from the bottom line of the corporation. Some have pointed out that the media are allowed the same latitude but I think they overlook a couple of salient points. In the case of a book, for example, the opinion expressed in the book is that of the author and not necessarily that of the publisher. That the publisher may agree with the author is coincidental. The same logic applies to news media. An editorial is the opinion of the editor and/or his staff. The "news" should be required to be factual or subject to retraction. (or legal action). The same reasoning should be applied to unions. They should be disallowed to spend money for political purposes unless the funds come directly from the individual members *and* the *individual* members agree with the expenditure. Addressing the issue of PACS and organizations with a common cause, (NRA for example) the fact that *all* the members agree as to the purpose of the PAC or particular organization, I'm OK with that. But YMMV.

Max

Reply to
Max

Top-posted for brevity (contrary to my instincts).

I LIKE your reasoning Max!! Can we make that a law? Please?

Han

"Max" wrote in news:000e0e7c$0$2287$ snipped-for-privacy@news.astraweb.com:

Reply to
Han

"Han" wrote

( a bit of opinionated babble)

I'm working on it, Han. {:-)

Max

Reply to
Max

"Max" wrote in news:00e1c9f0$0$23809$c3e8da3 @news.astraweb.com:

Great!!

Reply to
Han

Given the fact that McCain/Feingold and other laws have been passed that ban political speech (i.e., the exact speech the founders were seeking to protect) and other rulings have protected junk mail, spam, and offensive material. It's very likely the founders would have specifically included clauses delineating the protection for freedom of political speech by all people of the US, not just a protected press class that happened to own presses and other media distribution capabilities. That, or just slapped silly some of the people claiming otherwise.

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

You do realize that you and maybe a few of your friends who feel strongly about some subject also qualify as one of those "corporations", right? ... Up to the recent SCOTUS decision, if you had an incumbent congresscritter or other candidate running that held a view opposite that subject you were prohibited by law, as a felony, from pooling your resources with those other friends to take out ads 90 days before the election to point out that fact? This SCOTUS decision wasn't just about HP being able to endorse Barbara Boxer or any other Fortune 500 company from supporting candidates. It was also about stopping the suppression of real peoples' voices because they were prohibited from pooling their resources to make their views known. We all don't have the wealth of a Michael Bloomberg or George Soros to fund our own advertising, most of us need to pool our resources with those of like mind.

>
Reply to
Mark & Juanita

I'm for it! But the SC decision does not allow corporations to fund campaigns - the change merely allows corporations to speak out for or against a candidate. They are still prohibited from contributing directly to a candidate or coordinating their expenditures.

Allowing a corporation to spend money on behalf of a candidate does not mean the corporation can use the money to buy votes! It means the corporation can expend funds to get more information - true or false - in the hands of the voters. More information is usually good.

We spend more in this country on potato chips than campaigning. I say the more money spent, the better.

Reply to
HeyBub

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:

formatting link
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.

Reply to
HeyBub

Mark & Juanita wrote in news:c_SdnZruFY-dnvvWnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@supernews.com:

Yes, I do realize that. I am therefore of rather ambivalent ind as to whether this decision is bad or not.

I just regret that money is so overpowering reason in electioneering. The issues also have become very complicated what with the laws of unintended consequences, and earmarks etcetera. I thought I was fairly well-informed but am not so sure anymore.

Reply to
Han

"HeyBub" wrote in news:5KOdnTzoF4c7kfvWnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

But, but, there are 3 things in electioneering, facts, well-founded opinions (on all sides of the issues), and falsehoods. To me it is getting more and more difficult to separate them.

Reply to
Han

HomeOwnersHub website 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.