Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Justice Antonin Scalia dismisses concept of religious neutrality in US, COTUS

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166

    Justice Antonin Scalia dismisses concept of religious neutrality in US, COTUS

    Supreme CourtJustice Antonin Scalia said Saturday the idea of religious neutrality is not grounded in the country’s constitutional traditions and that God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him. Scalia was speaking at a Catholic high school in the New Orleans suburb of Metairie, Louisiana. Scalia, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 is the court’s longest serving justice. He has consistently been one of the court’s more conservative members.

    He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is “no place” in the country’s constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.

    https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl...ygni55BUgBY4LM 27 Articles ATM

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5312065
    Last edited by Nightmare; 01-02-2016 at 07:05 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Supreme CourtJustice Antonin Scalia said Saturday the idea of religious neutrality is not grounded in the country’s constitutional traditions and that God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him. Scalia was speaking at a Catholic high school in the New Orleans suburb of Metairie, Louisiana. Scalia, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 is the court’s longest serving justice. He has consistently been one of the court’s more conservative members.

    He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is “no place” in the country’s constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.

    https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl...ygni55BUgBY4LM 27 Articles ATM
    Assuming the story is reported correctly (and that is a huge assumption), I should like to hear his rationale. The constitution expressly states there shall be no religious test for office. And, the First Amendment expressly states Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion (nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.)

    So, I would like to hear exactly what he meant or the rationale underlying his declaration.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166
    I looked for a transcript of his Metaire, La, remarks, but found only this, http://www.ontheissues.org/Antonin_Scalia.htm
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Assuming the story is reported correctly (and that is a huge assumption), I should like to hear his rationale. The constitution expressly states there shall be no religious test for office. And, the First Amendment expressly states Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion (nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.)

    So, I would like to hear exactly what he meant or the rationale underlying his declaration.
    The states they themselves had no obligation under the federal constitution to be religiously neutral. The Federal government does have those limitations. Scalia seems to be conflating maybe.

    Virginia was one of the few states who decided to put up the wall between religion and the state.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Scalia feels that self-proclaimed Christians should be more "equal" than those who claim other religions or no religion. After all, in their infinite wisdom, the founders did mention Christianity, Jesus and the Bible in the Constitution./s

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    I didn't find a transcript, but I did find several news reports of the speech that contained various quotes. To wit:


    He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is "no place" in the country's constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.

    "To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?" he said. "To be sure, you can't favor one denomination over another but can't favor religion over non-religion?"

    He also said there is "nothing wrong" with the idea of presidents and others invoking God in speeches. He said God has been good to America because Americans have honored him.

    So he addresses a couple of issues.

    1-Government officials retain their rights under the 1st amendment and prohibition on religious tests to invoke religious or scriptural language in their speech. This includes their official speech. The Bible remains (one of?) the most widely read books in the nation. It is a part of national culture and heritage. Its language and stories are a part of our national language and idioms.

    Only the most militant and constitutionally ignorant would ever suggest otherwise. The very notion that a president or other government officials speaking to the public should not be permitted to invoke the name of God, stories such as the Good Samaritan or the Exodus, moral teachings including loving our neighbors, or ask for prayers, is beyond offensive.

    2-The 1st amendment prevents congress (and via the 14th, the States) from establishing an official religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. No where does it say that government must treat religion and religious conduct on equal terms with purely secular conduct. And indeed, in many important cases, the SCOTUS has held this very point. Use peyote for recreation and (rightly or wrongly) the government will put you in jail. Use it as a part of your recognized American Indian religious worship, and the courts won't let the government punish you. Try to build a pig farm or a bar in a residential area and local zoning can shut down your plans. Local zoning is not permitted to lock out churches. Many business owners are subjected to anti-discrimination laws in their hiring, firing, and providing of services. Churches remain absolutely free (as reiterated in the recent, unanimous Hosanna-Tabor decision) to discriminate as they see fit in the employment of their clergy and largely free in deciding what jobs qualify as ministerial positions. They remain absolutely free to set any condition they like on reception of sacraments, entry to sacred facilities, etc.

    The first amendment is about far more than just beliefs. Even the Soviets didn't ban private thoughts in their darkest gulags. They couldn't. Whisper a thought, or act on it however and the most horrible of penalties could be brought to bear. The 1st amendment protects religious conduct and speech. It does so above and beyond the protections provided for secular speech and conduct.

    The 1st amendment does for religious beliefs, speech, and conduct, what the 2nd amendment should do for guns.

    If the library of congress wants to ban food, drink, and smoking/vaping so as to protect their collections from damage, it can do so under a simple, rational basis test. Backpacks, pets, and any number of other items of personal property can be rightfully excluded if desired. But it should not be permitted to disarm us. Being in DC, we are legally (though unconstitutionally) obliged to be unarmed to visit the Library of Congress. But we shouldn't have to be.

    The 2nd amendment should provide protections for firearms that may not necessarily be available for run-of-the-mill personal property.

    The 4th amendment provides protections for our homes not provided in far more public places.

    The 5th amendment provides protections against self-incrimination not provided for incriminating others.

    And so on and so forth.

    The 1st amendment provides protections for religiously motivated conduct that it doesn't provide for purely secular conduct. Christian conduct must be given equal protection to Jewish and Hindu conduct. But all may, indeed must, be given greater protection than would be provided for purely secular conduct that is otherwise similar in nature. Laws and court decisions offer many examples.

    Justice Scalia is right on the money with his remarks, insofar as I've found them quoted.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    1st amendment doesn't carve out special treatment for religious conduct. That is utter balderdash.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    It certainly does not prohibit special treatment for religion either. Now, if one "religion" is favored by the government over another "religion," then the protection is (should be) triggered.

    http://www.heritage.org/constitution...nt-of-religion

    Unfortunately the term religion is now synonymous (interchangeable) with the Christian and the Christian religion. Thus Christians are fair game (to be exempt from 1A protections) to those who view "religion" (Christians) in contempt.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    It certainly does not prohibit special treatment for religion either. Now, if one "religion" is favored by the government over another "religion," then the protection is (should be) triggered.

    http://www.heritage.org/constitution...nt-of-religion

    Unfortunately the term religion is now synonymous (interchangeable) with the Christian and the Christian religion. Thus Christians are fair game (to be exempt from 1A protections) to those who view "religion" (Christians) in contempt.
    States had state religion.
    The amendment was to protect states to engage in what ever religion they chose.
    It did not carve out special treatment to conduct by the feds. It in fact makes sure a negative impact regarding it by the feds.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    States had state religion.
    The amendment was to protect states to engage in what ever religion they chose.
    It did not carve out special treatment to conduct by the feds. It in fact makes sure a negative impact regarding it by the feds.
    I agree...yet there is original intent, state vs. feds, and what the reality is today...federal overreach (bogus 14A incorporation by SCOTUS) and citizens (ACLU) who take advantage of this federal overreach.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    1st amendment doesn't carve out special treatment for religious conduct. That is utter balderdash.
    That has all the intellectual and constitutional understanding of saying, "2nd amendment doesn't carve out special treatment for ownership or possession of firearms."

    What does the 1st amendment protect relative to religion if not providing special treatment for religious conduct?

    Let me remind you of the part that anti-religious bigots have trouble remembering: "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]"

    Your explanation, backed up by constitutional language and SCOTUS rules is awaited.

    Until then, I call balderdash on your balderdash.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    States had state religion.
    The amendment was to protect states to engage in what ever religion they chose.
    It did not carve out special treatment to conduct by the feds. It in fact makes sure a negative impact regarding it by the feds.
    Nice story, but demonstrable false from the black letter language and various SCOTUS and other court rulings.

    "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]"

    Congress is (and now via 14 amd incorporation, so too are States) prohibited from interfering with the "free exercise of religion". The "free exercise of religion" includes religiously motivated conduct.

    The SCOTUS ruled unanimously in the recent Hosana-Tabor decision that churches must be exempted from anti-discrimination laws that apply to secular employers.

    Congress has included an exemption for the sacramental use of Peyote by American Indians as part of their religious rites. The Utah Supreme Court held in 2004 that State laws could not prosecute religious use of peyote as such prohibition violates the constitutional rights of American Indian Church members.

    Congress passed the RLUIPA in 2000 to protect the rights of churches against local zoning (as well as to protect the rights of jailed/imprisoned persons to worship). The key elements of the law have been upheld; (the law does not apply to eminent domain).

    Congress and States cannot favor one religion over another. But they most certainly can favor religious activity over non-religious activity as held in the Employment Division v Smith SCOTUS ruling.

    Again, I will welcome your best arguments to support your claim that government cannot favor religion over non-religion.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Shall not be infringed does not carve out anything special....hahahahahaha.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Shall not be infringed does not carve out anything special....hahahahahaha.
    And "A well regulated militia" is to be ignored.

  15. #15
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,887
    sidebar:
    i truly find it fascinating and absolutely amazing the august members of the nation's leading and foremost OPEN CARRY FIREARM informational site spend so much energy bantering about the minutiae virtues of one religion w/o articulating one unemotional, unbiased, subjective shred of evidence to support their premises one way or the other.

    this promotes firearm activities across the nation...how?

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 01-07-2016 at 11:14 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    And "A well regulated militia" is to be ignored.
    No it shouldn't.
    You have already tried this tack and have been explained on how wrong you are with the direction you take with it.

    Militia=people bearing arms
    Regulated=well trained, made regular
    The right of the people to Keep and bear has no dependency on the above.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166

    Only for the willfully argumentative ignoring previous comment and content.

    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    sidebar: i truly find it fascinating and absolutely amazing the august members of the nation's leading and foremost OPEN CARRY FIREARM informational site spend so much energy bantering about the minutiae virtues of one religion w/o articulating one unemotional, unbiased, subjective shred of evidence to support their premises one way or the other. this promotes firearm activities across the nation...how?ipse
    My Christian faith justifies my use of deadly force in self-defense and defense of others. Pascal's Wager is a topic in objective decision theory, decision under uncertainty and expected utility, and is my principal premise to my faith.

    Theory Dec. (2010) 69:417–438
    DOI 10.1007/s11238-009-9164-0
    Ambiguity, pessimism, and rational religious choice
    Tigran Melkonyan · Mark Pingle
    Published online: 8 July 2009
    © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

    Free, no registration required

    http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/ping...s%20Choice.pdf
    Last edited by Nightmare; 01-07-2016 at 11:31 AM. Reason: Emphasis for the hard of reading,
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    No it shouldn't.
    You have already tried this tack and have been explained on how wrong you are with the direction you take with it.

    Militia=people bearing arms
    Regulated=well trained, made regular
    The right of the people to Keep and bear has no dependency on the above.
    I just don't believe the founders would have put that statement there, at the beginning, unless it had bearing on the statements that followed. Why doesn't the well trained part of the amendment carry any weight? I think we all know folks that have no business owning much less carrying a firearm due to their lack of training. Is the well regulated militia really necessary to the security of a free state? Is that what those nuts in Oregon are doing?

    Constitutionally it is the duty of the states (governor or Legislature) to appoint the Militia officers and include or exempt persons from serving and disciplining and training such: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    What state appointed, disciplined and trained the militia (people bearing arms) who are occupying the bird sanctuary in Oregon?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166

    From 'Ambiguity, pessimism, and rational religious choice', idem.

    "While people may come to their religious convictions in a variety of ways, applying Pascalian logic is one way. Interestingly, one anecdotal illustration appears in the life of John von Neuman. Unfortunately, in the summer of 1955, he was diagnosed with advanced, incurable cancer. By the time the disease had confined him to bed, von Neumann had converted to Catholicism. About this conversion, Jorden ... comments, “As might be expected of the inventor of the minimax principle, von Neumann was reported to have said, perhaps in part jovially, that Pascal had a point: If there is a chance that God exist, and that damnation is the lot of the unbeliever, then it is reasonable to believe.”

    I am the smartest in this thread, and I am not smarter than John von Neuman!
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Shall not be infringed does not carve out anything special....hahahahahaha.
    The very recognition and constitutional enumeration of an individual right to own and carry arms carves out special treatment for firearms compared to most run-of-the-mill personal property. Among men of honesty and learning, the enumeration removes all grounds for debate about whether such a claimed right actually exists or under what conditions it might be controlled by government. Gun grabbers, of course, prove themselves to be either constitutionally and historically ignorant, or dishonest.

    Now, if you'd like to mount a mature, serious, civil defense of your claim that the 1st amd doesn't provide any special protections for religious conduct compared to purely secular conduct, I'd be interested. Word games and bumper stickers do not interest me.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  21. #21
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,887
    nightmare, thanks for reference and i am glad, apparently based on the article, you chose Christianity and your point in the schema of life?

    quote: A weakness of the current model is that it does not provide much insight as to why Christianity would be adopted over Islam, or vice versa, because it is not clear how these two religions would differ within our model. unquote

    oh, of interest is the comments by the authors regarding:

    quote

    Finally, we note that our theory of religious choice neither help us determine whether God actually exists nor help us determine whether any particular religion is true.

    If we can choose our religion independently, our theory cannot tell us whether we are choosing a God of our creation, or choosing a God that has created us. Our theory is consistent with the idea that people create God and religion, and suggests such creations will be more popular if when they recognize how people make choices under varying degrees of ambiguity. unquote.

    one apparent flaw noticed in their article centers on their concept: quote...lead a decision maker to “convert” from one religion to another. unquote. presumes one started with a religion in the first place.

    http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/ping...s%20Choice.pdf

    again thanks for sharing your perception.

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 01-07-2016 at 08:02 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166
    The paper is on the rational adoption of faith contra atheism, and not of one faith or another. Christianity and Islam were iconic of the most popular of faiths representing about half of the worlds population. Don't tar another's work with your brush.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,887
    night...sorry to disappoint, but 'my brush' didn't misrepresent the authors' work whatsoever as their own statistical analyses led them to the quotes in their article that i pointed out...

    if you are distressed on portions of the article might wish to assure it says what you believe or perceive it says.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    And "A well regulated militia" is to be ignored.
    Quite the contrary....

    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    I just don't believe the founders would have put that statement there, at the beginning, unless it had bearing on the statements that followed. Why doesn't the well trained part of the amendment carry any weight?
    It does carry weight. A great deal. I think the statement was put in there to explain why an individual RKBA is so vital. I suspect the other rights in the Bill of Rights were viewed as being self-evident, especially given the history of British abuse of the "rights of Englishmen". An individual right to bear arms, however, might be viewed with suspicion by many and is obviously one of the first rights a government on its way to tyranny might want to eliminate; and so the framers provided an introductory explanation to provide greater weight. (Not the founders or Founding Fathers, that would be the group who adopted the DoI, waged the Revolutionary War, and set up the Articles of Confederation. There is much overlap between the Founding Fathers and the Framers of our Constitution. But the differences are notable and important, including Jefferson who wasn't in the country while the AoF were being replaced with the Constitution.)

    Of course, as with so many things, modern liberals (ie progressives) have turned things on their head and claim the introductory clause intended to provide additional weight, actually acts to limit or eliminate the clearly stated right in the operative clause. I view this as part of the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy of calling good evil and calling evil good in the last days.

    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    I think we all know folks that have no business owning much less carrying a firearm due to their lack of training.
    How many persons do you actually know who shouldn't carry a gun who do? I find most everyone who carries a gun does so within the limits of their personal training and ability.

    I do know a lot of folks that have no business writing letters to the editor, or even presuming to "report" on news due to their lack of training and ability with the English language, logic, honesty, and even being able to recognize much less overcome their own biases and bigotries. What limits on their individual rights to freedom of the press will you accept?

    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Is the well regulated militia really necessary to the security of a free state?
    Is the current press doing its job perfectly and if not should we just ignore the 1st amd?

    Is division of power among three branches a good thing when "congress refuses to act" in accordance with Presidential will? Or should we just have an all powerful executive? Be aware, that whatever answer you give relative to Obama, must also apply to Trump, Cruz, etc if elected.

    If you want to question fundamental assertions and framework of our government, there is no need to address the original intent of the 2nd amendment. Let's just cut to the chase and in an appropriate thread, discuss what individual rights you think should be recognized, vs how much power you want to give government. Are you intellectually honest enough to recognize


    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Is that what those nuts in Oregon are doing?
    I've expressed quite clearly on this very thread my disagreement with the folks in Oregon who have repeatedly said they do not consider themselves a militia.

    Can you please point me to where you've expressed your parallel concerns about what Occupy Wall Street did? Or perhaps what rioters in Ferguson or Maryland did?

    If not, is it just the presence of arms that causes your obvious inconsistency? Or merely the political slant of those engaging in the conduct?


    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Constitutionally it is the duty of the states (governor or Legislature) to appoint the Militia officers and include or exempt persons from serving and disciplining and training such: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    What state appointed, disciplined and trained the militia (people bearing arms) who are occupying the bird sanctuary in Oregon?
    First of all, a well regulated militia requires private ownership of arms. But private ownership of arms does not require a well regulated militia.

    Some basic logic there you might want to consider.

    And even if private ownership of firearms did somehow rely on having a well regulated militia, can an individual right be eliminated simply because government refuses to perform its duties?

    Put into other terms, would our right to vote, to have a voice in government be so easily eliminated as some level of government just declining to print ballots?

    But most importantly, the individual right to own and carry arms does NOT depend on government officials organizing or training a militia. So says the SCOTUS in Heller:
    Held:

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

    (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

    If you are going to tell me that a majority of the court got this fundamentally wrong, are you prepared to accept me saying the same thing regarding any number of rulings you hold as gospel truth?

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Kudos to you utbagpiper for a well stated and civil response. A couple of points:
    "How many persons do you actually know who shouldn't carry a gun who do?"
    A lot actually. They are in the news constantly. NDs , kids getting hold of their parents guns, misplaced weapons and crazy folks shooting up various locales.
    Trying to equate the danger to the public of unqualified people possessing firearms with unqualified people posting opinion pieces is a stretch.

    "Is the current press doing its job perfectly and if not should we just ignore the 1st amd?"
    The question was about the 2nd, not the first. What would you have the "militia" do, in regards to the security of the US, that the US military and LEOs aren't doing now.

    "Can you please point me to where you've expressed your parallel concerns about what Occupy Wall Street did? Or perhaps what rioters in Ferguson or Maryland did?"
    Occupy wasn't an armed occupation. Ferguson and Maryland were civil rights protests by groups that were residents of the area where the protests took place. As far as the response to those incidents, can you speculate what the response of the Bundyville Militia would have been if the local police rolled in with MRAPs and teargas.

    "First of all, a well regulated militia requires private ownership of arms."
    Does the National Guard require private ownership of arms? I contend that today's National Guard (citizen soldiers) is fulfilling the role that the militia did during the framers time.

    I am glad to see that you believe that the SCOTUS should be the final arbiter of what is and isn't Constitutional.

    Sorry if I derailed.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •