Correct. An "opinion" is a belief with nothing to back it up, not the
"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).
...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...
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.
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
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.
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
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").
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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]
email@example.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.
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:
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.
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 ...
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.