• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The Reason To Focus On The Idea

Phoenixphire

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
396
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
imported post

I am frustrated with this discussion.

I think it is because one view point is of a black and white perspective, and the other is one of shades of grey.

I have been attacked, with comments that I must be saying the words in the Constitution don't mean anything until nine judges say it does. Really? You think that because I don't think that every person should not have unlimited access to any weapon, that I think the Constitution is pointless?

It is not a black and white scenario. Nothing in this world is black and white. There are degrees of severity, degrees of risk.

Stating that I must hate the Constitution, because I respect the fact that the Constitution itself declares that the Supreme Court must decide how the Constitution applies to actual Cases and Controversies that arise, is silly.

I could imply the same, that you must be evil, as you don't respect the authority of the Supreme Court, those people appointed by elected officials, as dictated in THE CONSTITUTION. I could state that since you think the Constitution is so flawed as to provide the Supreme Court with the authority to decide how the Constitution applies to real events, you should lobby to change it.

But I don't make these points, simply because they are silly. I don't think that because you don't like the idea of "9 people controlling the rights of the people", that you are evil. I just disagree that that is the case. The Supreme Court can only declare laws unconstitutional, they can not make new ones... So, every law that has infringed on our rights is only partially the responsibility of the Court. The Legislatures and Congress that created them, and the Governors and President that signed them are at fault as well.

And, I agree that there are many laws currently in place that unduly restrict the right to bear arms. But, this was not the object of the original discussion. The point was that some were saying that ANY restriction, at ANY time, on ANY form of armament was unconstitutional. That was the point on which I disagreed. The premise of my argument was that the text of the Constitution is not a LITERAL TEXT. It is a Constitution, not a law. It lies out IDEAS, not STATUES. That is what no one here seems to understand. The Constitution is designed to be INTERPRETED and APPLIED. Statues are literal text. They are SPECIFIC in nature. When you apply a STATUTORY reading to a CONSTITUTIONAL text, you end up with arguments like this, where people want to declare that there is an ABSOLUTE being declared by the text, when there isn't, but rather a fundamental, core idea. An IDEA that needs to be applied to a real world. And the best thing is: Our Constitution delineates how it should be done. By appointed justices, on a Supreme Court of the land.

That is why you are wrong when you state that the Constitution is a statutory text, a black and white "it-means-what-it-says". It simply isn't. It is a constitutional text, by its very design in need of interpretation and application.

The other point I want to make is that one should not think in black and white. This is not a absolute world. We have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree burns. We have 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder, as well as degrees manslaughter. We have rare, medium rare, medium, done, and well done steaks. We have white, yellow, red, brown, and black people. This world is full of degrees of severity and differentiation.

Until you see that restricting access to a sidearm is not equal to restricting access to anti-aircraft missiles, you will continue to be one of the ones pointlessly doing this: :banghead:
 

asforme

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
839
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:
I could state that since you think the Constitution is so flawed as to provide the Supreme Court with the authority to decide how the Constitution applies to real events, you should lobby to change it.
The Constitution does not give that or any authority to the Supreme Court. They gave that authority to themselves in Maybury v. Madison. I don't think our founding fathers were so foolish as to simply replace a king with a judge but in essence allow them the same authority.

We the people are to enforce the meaning of the Constitution when our government fails to do so, and our power comes from the Second Amendment.
 

LeagueOf1291

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
328
Location
Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
imported post

The distinction we should be discussing is between a search for an objective meaning of the 2A and a free-wheeling, changing-with-the-times meaning.

There is in fact an objective way to determine the implicit limitations of the scope of the 2A, and that is by determining what the writers meant by it when it was written. This is what the majority did in Heller.

What the writers meant by "shall not be infringed" is determined by the context in which it was written, as the majority did, and not by the current state of our culture, as the minority would have us do.

When the writers drafted the 2A, it was the practice at the time to deny felons and insane persons the right to keep and bear arms within jurisdictions that had already guaranteed a right to keep and bear arms. Therefore there's nothing inconsistent about concluding that "shall not be infringed" is limited by those exceptions.

What is inconsistent, what we must not do, is bring new limitations to bear on a text that was not meant, by the writers, to be burdened with them. That's where the process of amendment comes in. If we find that a constitutional provision as written no longer serves its purposes because the times have changed, we can't just rewrite the text in the courts -- we have to amend it by the constitutional process for changing the text.
 

DopaVash

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
313
Location
Graham, Texas
imported post

The whole point Pheonix, is that you're using the same language as the Brady Bunch and almost all of the Gun Grabbers. I now tend to agree with the others in that if give an inch, another inch is all they're gonna want until they get that one, then they only want 2 more. Slippery slope? Damned straight.

Personally I see the whole Yelling 'Fire' in a crowded place argument to be non-applicable. This is illegal because you're infringing on the rights of those around you by that action, but simply owning a stinger missle, etc, you're not hurting anyone. The potential is there, sure, but the same can be said of owning a firearm. You COULD go shoot up a school, but that's not the firearm's fault, not the fault of the peaceable gun-owner. Walking around with a gun in your belt doesn't hurt anyone, owning a tactical nuclear weapon doesn't either, untill you use them for misdeeds.

As everyone else has said, the typical BG isn't going to get his hands on one of these because the cost is far too high, and it's not like he could steal it because the people in charge of such things have them protected very well.
 

JosephMingle

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
110
Location
Yorktown VA
imported post

LeagueOf1291 wrote:
[...]
The federal government was never meant to have jurisdiction over how much my toilet flushes, what kind of washing machine I use, or whether I can sell raw milk.
[...]
Don't forget the light bulbs...
 

Kivuli

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
208
Location
North Carolina
imported post

I didn't mean to imply I thought you were an anti, Phoenix. My point was to show my disgust for ACTUAL gun grabbers, in that justifying regulating lesser arms by using the argument "People will be parking M1A1 Abrams' in their driveways and buying nukes at convenience stores and setting up patriot batteries on their roofs! It'll be chaos in the streets!" is folly at its best. Joe Schmo can't afford those things.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

asforme wrote:
Phoenixphire wrote:
I could state that since you think the Constitution is so flawed as to provide the Supreme Court with the authority to decide how the Constitution applies to real events, you should lobby to change it.
The Constitution does not give that or any authority to the Supreme Court. They gave that authority to themselves in Maybury v. Madison. I don't think our founding fathers were so foolish as to simply replace a king with a judge but in essence allow them the same authority.

Aclose reading of Article III shows that door was left wide open. I would say, based on Article III, they had the power available for the taking. Its just that it wasn't untilMarbury v Madison they decided to use it.

I not saying they should have the power. I'm saying the Framers left the door open for it to be seized.

My question is whether the door was left open purposely.
 

like_the_roman

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
293
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:
I have been attacked, with comments that I must be saying the words in the Constitution don't mean anything until nine judges say it does. Really? You think that because I don't think that every person should not have unlimited access to any weapon, that I think the Constitution is pointless?

No, the Constitution becomes pointless when you need to have nine elite people decide what each word and clause means. The Constitution is so simply written that for it to need any interpretation would only end up distorting it beyond what our forebears had intended (and that has already happened.)

Everyone on this board knows that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. But four people on the Supreme Court did not understand or want to acknowledge that. What if Kerry was elected over Bush, Alito and Roberts never made it to the court, and the Heller decision went the other way? Would the Supreme Court's interpretation still be correct? Based on what you said, it sounds like you'd be fine with disarmament so long as the Supreme Court said so.

It is not a black and white scenario. Nothing in this world is black and white. There are degrees of severity, degrees of risk.

Either we are free or we are not. There is no such thing as a "little bit of freedom" just like there is no such thing as "a little bit pregnant."

Stating that I must hate the Constitution, because I respect the fact that the Constitution itself declares that the Supreme Court must decide how the Constitution applies to actual Cases and Controversies that arise, is silly.

I never said you hated the Constitution. I said you were unreliable. You're misreading me, either intentionally or accidentally.

I could imply the same, that you must be evil, as you don't respect the authority of the Supreme Court, those people appointed by elected officials, as dictated in THE CONSTITUTION. I could state that since you think the Constitution is so flawed as to provide the Supreme Court with the authority to decide how the Constitution applies to real events, you should lobby to change it.

If the Supreme Court actually followed the Constitution instead of altering it, I'd have no problem with it. But the Supreme Court frequently over steps its bounds and gets things wrong. For example:

The Supreme Court was never given the power of judicial review of the in the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall decided to claim that power in Marbury v. Madison and it has never been questioned since.

But I don't make these points, simply because they are silly. I don't think that because you don't like the idea of "9 people controlling the rights of the people", that you are evil. I just disagree that that is the case. The Supreme Court can only declare laws unconstitutional, they can not make new ones... So, every law that has infringed on our rights is only partially the responsibility of the Court. The Legislatures and Congress that created them, and the Governors and President that signed them are at fault as well.

Another example: the Supreme Court has frequently engaged in law-making (judicial activism). Ever hear the phrase "separation of church and state?" It doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution, but that didn't prevent the Supreme Court from using it as justification to stamp out nearly all traces of religion in schools.

The premise of my argument was that the text of the Constitution is not a LITERAL TEXT. It is a Constitution, not a law. It lies out IDEAS, not STATUES. That is what no one here seems to understand. The Constitution is designed to be INTERPRETED and APPLIED. Statues are literal text. They are SPECIFIC in nature. When you apply a STATUTORY reading to a CONSTITUTIONAL text, you end up with arguments like this, where people want to declare that there is an ABSOLUTE being declared by the text, when there isn't, but rather a fundamental, core idea. An IDEA that needs to be applied to a real world. And the best thing is: Our Constitution delineates how it should be done. By appointed justices, on a Supreme Court of the land.

That is why you are wrong when you state that the Constitution is a statutory text, a black and white "it-means-what-it-says". It simply isn't. It is a constitutional text, by its very design in need of interpretation and application.

Then you fall strictly into the Ginsburg/Breyer/Souter/Stevens camp. Scalia and company used the "literal text" to make sure the gun ban was overturned.

"Words mean what they mean." - Antonin Scalia
"The Constitution is not a living organism." - Antonin Scalia

The other point I want to make is that one should not think in black and white. This is not a absolute world. We have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree burns. We have 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder, as well as degrees manslaughter. We have rare, medium rare, medium, done, and well done steaks. We have white, yellow, red, brown, and black people. This world is full of degrees of severity and differentiation.

Off topic. This has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

Until you see that restricting access to a sidearm is not equal to restricting access to anti-aircraft missiles, you will continue to be one of the ones pointlessly doing this: :banghead:

And until you see that the words of the Constitution actually mean something, you're views are no different than Sarah Brady or Chuck Schumer.

I suggest you read Kevin R.C. Gutzman's 'Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution' to understand how the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the Constitution without the consent of the states and Congress using the "Constitution as idea" myth (that you obviously support) to do so.

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-I...0932009?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215035316&sr=1-1
 

bobernet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
333
Location
Henderson, Nevada, USA
imported post

A close reading of Article III shows that door was left wide open. I would say, based on Article III, they had the power available for the taking. Its just that it wasn't until Marbury v Madison they decided to use it. I not saying they should have the power. I'm saying the Framers left the door open for it to be seized. My question is whether the door was left open purposely.

Boston T. Party (Ken Royce) has an interesting book with the premise that the Constitution is intentionally vague to allow for a Federal power grab. He makes a historical case that it is no accident where we are today.

The book is called Hologram of Liberty.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

bobernet wrote:
A close reading of Article III shows that door was left wide open. I would say, based on Article III, they had the power available for the taking. Its just that it wasn't until Marbury v Madison they decided to use it. I not saying they should have the power. I'm saying the Framers left the door open for it to be seized. My question is whether the door was left open purposely.

Boston T. Party (Ken Royce) has an interesting book with the premise that the Constitution is intentionally vague to allow for a Federal power grab. He makes a historical case that it is no accident where we are today.

The book is called Hologram of Liberty.

Yes. Interesting book. Lots of eye-opening ideas in there. I don't agree with every single thing he says, but he gets his point across.
 

unreconstructed1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
695
Location
Tennessee, ,
imported post

stinger missiles and suitcase nukes....

first of all, the most important thing to remember is that the constitution was never intended to apply to the states themselves. The Constitution was originally intended to be thechains upon which teh federal government was to be restrained, nothing less. Was the constitution meant to be a rigid set of standards? yes. The limitations set in place by the constitution weren't applied to the states until the supposed ratification of the 14th ammendment. that is why virtually every state contains within it's own constitution a nearly identical copy of the bill of rights. Beforethat time, it was believed that teh States were a more accurate representative of the people, and teh Fed was intended to be a unified representative of the States.Another point to remember is that the Federal government technically cannot take upon itself any power not EXPRESSLY delegated to it by the constitution. while I will not goo into that aspect much farther, it is worth remembering.

Should there be restrictions in place forbidding peole from obtaining Stingers and suitcase nukes? yes, of course there should. should those prohibitions be federal? no. the Federal government has no LEGAL authority in the matter. prohibitions of that type should be on the State level. this is how thefounders originally intended the execution of law to be. and it would work better if it was still done in that way.

of course the founders probably never imagined that there would be so many peole who were so absolutely willing to give up the tools necessary to maintain their liberty, they probably thought people were smarter than that...
 

asforme

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
839
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
imported post

I sometimes wonder how this country would have evolved if we didn't have the bill of rights.

The constitution limits what the federal government CAN do, and authorizes it to do nothing else. How is it then that we need to say what the federal government can't do? It seems that a list of what the feds can't do would only serve to embolden them to try to do anything not prohibited.

I know this was a discussion before the acceptance of the Bill of rights, and I wonder what would have happened if it had gone the other way.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

asforme wrote:
The constitution limits what the federal government CAN do, and authorizes it to do nothing else. How is it then that we need to say what the federal government can't do? It seems that a list of what the feds can't do would only serve to embolden them to try to do anything not prohibited.

I know this was a discussion before the acceptance of the Bill of rights, and I wonder what would have happened if it had gone the other way.


Part of the problem is that the Constitution isn't explicit on certain points. While it was sold as the federal gov't only having the powerexpressly granted--meaning a limited government--the Constitution itself doesn'texpressly say that. Its a little like taking a salesman's word, it was sold as such, but it does not say that in writing.

I've read that another little trick pulled over the years is the courts have ruled that the government has implied powers, that is to say, it has any power implied or necessary to fulfillan expressly granted power. BUT, limitations are only counted if they are expressly made, meaning no implied limitations. Thus, powers are express and implied, but limitationsare only those expressed.

And guess who gets to decide which are the implied and which are the expressed. The same federal government supposedly being restricted. We've seen how well thatadhered tothe sales pitch.

I read this in Hologram of Liberty by Boston T. Party (Ken Royce). Hopefully I'verepresentedit straight.

You can get this astounding book at http://www.gunlaws.com

I really recommend reading it. Its short and inexpensive.
 

LeagueOf1291

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
328
Location
Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
<snip>

Part of the problem is that the Constitution isn't explicit on certain points.  While it was sold as the federal gov't only having the power expressly granted--meaning a limited government--the Constitution itself doesn't expressly say that. 

<snip>

It actually does explicitly limit the powers of the federal government. Read Article I Section 8, and then the Tenth Amendment.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

LeagueOf1291 wrote:
Citizen wrote:
Part of the problem is that the Constitution isn't explicit on certain points. While it was sold as the federal gov't only having the powerexpressly granted--meaning a limited government--the Constitution itself doesn'texpressly say that.
It actually does explicitly limit the powers of the federal government. Read Article I Section 8, and then the Tenth Amendment.

I think we're differing on unstated nuance.

I've reviewed Article I in light of your post. It grants various powers, and has some express limitations: no expost facto laws, no taxes or duties on state exports, no preference to one [sea] port via regulation, etc.

Article I clearly has no phrase saying Congress shall have these powers, only these powers, and no other powers including implied powers.

The 10th Amendment is a little better in saying powers not granted are reserved, but again it leaves the door open to impliedpowers.

To give effect to the sales pitch that the fed is a limited government both Article I and 10A would/should have language closing the implied powerdoors. "Those powers expressly granted, only those expressly granted, none implied."
 
Top