The UN

[wrightme]

Not totally FUD...

this has been around in one form or another for a year.

Please dont clutter the forum by replying to this thread, let it die.
unless you just gotta say something!

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5979

The Chairman of the meeting, Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan, released a 14-point outline of a possible arms trade treaty. Several other supporting position papers were also published. The inclusion of civilian firearms remains one of the controversial aspects of the proposed treaty. Countries such as Mexico and the Netherlands want civilian firearms included in the treaty. Other countries, such as New Zealand, want those types of arms excluded from the treaty. In a move that disappointed anti-gun groups, Moritan’s treaty outline includes a category for “Exclusions,” and the supporting position paper lists an exclusion covering civilian firearms. Still, we must remain vigilant on this and series of other threatening issues.

And I do not quote the entire article only to keep my post size low.

Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683

 

[gogodawgs]

LOL. I love ya to, but it is. I just don't agree with your strict Constitutionalist views. Social consensus on what is an is not just and moral changes. If there was no intention of the Constitution being interpretive than we would not have the Supreme Court to interpret what the Constitution means to say. If the Constitution was unchangable we would not have the ability to amend the Constitution.

Article I Section IX gives them that power to suspend, temporarily, during a time of unrest (whatever that might be interpreted to mean). People believe that the Constitution is this iron clad thing that can not be used to justify oppression, it can be. Heck, it consider the negro man 3/5 of a person--right there should tell you where the Constitution stood right off the bat. There were no interpretive, at the time, equal rights or women. The list goes on, and proves that the Constitution is interpretive.

First, no where in Article III does it give the Supreme Court the ability to determine the Constitutionality of any law. However, via Marbury v Madison that has been precedent for over 200 years and because all the parties involved were of the founding generation it is accepted that they do in fact interpret laws as to their constitutionality.


Second, the purpose of the 3/5 clause was not to say a negro is 3/5ths of a person, rather it was to limit the amount of representation the South had in the new government.

Finally, the Constitution is a document to be interpreted. It is not a document that anyone can 'breathe' into it the meaning they desire. There is a process that this society accepts that gives us final meaning on laws passed by legislators. The words of the Constitution do not change over time (unless by amendment) only our views of the world. Therefore, society is a living breathing entity the Constitution has fixed words.

I want to know, what exactly is unConstitutional? The Constitution is a living breathing document. That may not have been the intent, but I believe it is. So tell me what exactly is not Constitutional.

Food for thought...
If the Constitution is a living document then it can be a dead document.

 

[1245A Defender]

Food for thought...
If the Constitution is a living document then it can be a dead document.

thank you gogodawgs, nick!
you explain facts in clear and concise phrases that leave no doubt!

 

[Bob Warden]

So back to the actual topic...

The proposed UN treaty would have no effect whatsoever on 2nd Amendment rights in the U.S. See attached, and please, someone put a fork in this thread and call it done! :banghead:

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

someone put a fork in this thread and call it done! :banghead:

*FORK* I wish we had a "fork" icon.

 

[Ruby]

Don't worry, be happy!

I think there is an awful lot of unnecessary fear mongering around this topic. We can postulate from now till the cows come home with "what if" this and "what if" that happens. We are tilting at windmills. There have been a lot of victories for gun rights this year, we should be celebrating those as well as all our other rights. We have the right to come on a forum and discuss nearly anything we want, other people in other countries are not so lucky. Does that mean we can relax and no longer be vigilant? Of course not! We ALL, not just gun owners, need to be very vigilant about what's going on in our government, always. But I refuse to live my life in fear of what MIGHT happen in the future. Every minute you spend worrying about something that hasn't happened yet or something that MIGHT happen in the future is time lost from your lifetime. We need to be alert and informed, but fearful, not so much. The liklihood of something like this being adopted by our government is not very great. Obama does not have unlimited power; there are things he cannot do without the approval of Congress. I don't like his politics, but then again that's just me. Congress is not about to commit political suicide in an off year election. We think the other side (the anti's) are extreme and a lot of them are; I think some of us go to the extreme as well in predicting all these worst case scenarios. I am all for being prepared; that is not the same as being paranoid. So be prepared, stay alert, but enjoy your life, it's the only one you have! There was a lot of the same kind of stuff going on when GWB was in office, so it's not just the Democrats. There are Democrats that are for gun rights and Republicans that are against them. The greatest benefit I see from the last 2 presidents and their adminstrations is that there are more Americans than ever that have become involved in politics than ever before and that's a good thing. We all need to stay involved and informed and cuss and discuss but worry? Not so much!

 

[Bob Warden]

*FORK* I wish we had a "fork" icon.

How about:
---E

 

[END_THE_FED]

I want to know, what exactly is unConstitutional? The Constitution is a living breathing document. That may not have been the intent, but I believe it is. So tell me what exactly is not Constitutional.

Its actually pretty simple
If the Federal government exercises a power that was not delegated to it by the constitution then that is unconstitutional.
10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

but that of course is only if the words in a contract (and that's basically what the constitution is) mean the same thing today as they did back when it was written.

If as you say, a contract can be a "living breathing" document then it has no clear meaning, and if that's the case then nothing is unconstitutional.



On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed-
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823


That is not to say that the constitution is perfect and that it does not need to be changed from time to time.
If only the Framers were wise enough to foresee this fact they could have built some sort of option into the constitution to rectify this problem...........oh wait they did its called the amendment process.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev

 

[END_THE_FED]

LOL. I love ya to, but it is. I just don't agree with your strict Constitutionalist views. Social consensus on what is an is not just and moral changes. If there was no intention of the Constitution being interpretive than we would not have the Supreme Court to interpret what the Constitution means to say. If the Constitution was unchangable we would not have the ability to amend the Constitution.

Article I Section IX gives them that power to suspend, temporarily, during a time of unrest (whatever that might be interpreted to mean). People believe that the Constitution is this iron clad thing that can not be used to justify oppression, it can be. Heck, it consider the negro man 3/5 of a person--right there should tell you where the Constitution stood right off the bat. There were no interpretive, at the time, equal rights or women. The list goes on, and proves that the Constitution is interpretive.

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

It does not say the constitution can be suspended it says that "habeas corpus" can be suspended. it also uses the term "privilege" not "right" as rights can only be suspended by "due process of law".

If you did some research on the 3/5 compromise you may be surprised to learn what it was really about. It does not say that "Negros" are 3/5 a person.:banghead:
it says slaves only count as 3/5 for the purpose of congressional representation.
The "slave states" wanted slaves to count as a whole person so they would get as much representation in congress as possible and make it harder to abolish slavery.
The "anti slave" states argued that slaves should not count at all.

 

[END_THE_FED]

.

 

[END_THE_FED]

Food for thought...
If the Constitution is a living document then it can be a dead document.

I never heard that line before but I like it so I'm stealing it.

 

[Bersa.380]

I want to know, what exactly is unConstitutional? The Constitution is a living breathing document. That may not have been the intent, but I believe it is. So tell me what exactly is not Constitutional.

This place called the USA is for the people by the people .... NOT for the people by Sylvia Plath, this type of thought that the Consitition is a living breathing document is a major problem in America today ! !

Quit compilcating things, all you are asking for is trouble if you want to change the "Bill of Rights" .. .. .. The men that wrote the Consitiution over 200 years-ago were light-years ahead of any political thinker of today.

I think you like to light fires and watch things burn .. .. ..

 

[devildoc5]

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

It does not say the constitution can be suspended it says that "habeas corpus" can be suspended. it also uses the term "privilege" not "right" as rights can only be suspended by "due process of law".

If you did some research on the 3/5 compromise you may be surprised to learn what it was really about. It does not say that "Negros" are 3/5 a person.:banghead:
it says slaves only count as 3/5 for the purpose of congressional representation.
The "slave states" wanted slaves to count as a whole person so they would get as much representation in congress as possible and make it harder to abolish slavery.
The "anti slave" states argued that slaves should not count at all.

Ok perhaps I am confused here but it seems to me like the quote I bolded above is stating that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in "bad times"

I was under the impression that a writ of habeas corpus was a petition to be RELEASED from custody (detainment) that was sent to the courts and the courts determined if the writ had merit?

If this is correct then why would anyone be so upset about the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus?

Yeah it is a very good and important check and balance to the system, however if (as we have been hypothetically speaking) there is no rule of law (cops stretched thin national guard or standing army called in, bad stuff going on all willie nillie) what makes anyone think the court system is going to work?

I guess I am trying to clarify that AFAIK the writ of habeas corpus is a petition to be released AFTER one has already been detained or imprisoned illegally. How would this petition be beneficial when police arent even working right, let alone the state and federal governments? The courts are somehow going to still be working?

IANAL but perhaps someone can clarify this point for me. I am going on close to sleep deprivation right now so maybe I am not thinking entirely too straight. Then again that is normal for me (the not thinking straight thing)

 

[sudden valley gunner]

First, no where in Article III does it give the Supreme Court the ability to determine the Constitutionality of any law. However, via Marbury v Madison that has been precedent for over 200 years and because all the parties involved were of the founding generation it is accepted that they do in fact interpret laws as to their constitutionality.


Second, the purpose of the 3/5 clause was not to say a negro is 3/5ths of a person, rather it was to limit the amount of representation the South had in the new government.

Finally, the Constitution is a document to be interpreted. It is not a document that anyone can 'breathe' into it the meaning they desire. There is a process that this society accepts that gives us final meaning on laws passed by legislators. The words of the Constitution do not change over time (unless by amendment) only our views of the world. Therefore, society is a living breathing entity the Constitution has fixed words.




Food for thought...
If the Constitution is a living document then it can be a dead document.

I disagree with how most "living breathing" folks say about interpretation. They believe you can basically change the meaning by interpretation, not interpret how it applies to situations. It is not meant to be "interpreted" but laws are held up to the constitution to see if they hold constitutional muster.

Yes the constitution can be changed or modified with some strict guidelines, but this doesn't make it a living breathing document in that you than can change the meaning of the amendments over time to fit popular or party politics both Democrats and Republicans have horrible track records of doing this though.

And I am glad that many prior wrongs and views (discrimination) have been declared unconstitutional and certain amendments have been added. My view points or more in line with libertarian thinking too, I believe in strong individuality and individual rights.

 

[Bob Warden]

---E

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

It does not say the constitution can be suspended it says that "habeas corpus" can be suspended. it also uses the term "privilege" not "right" as rights can only be suspended by "due process of law".

It is stating that the Writ Of Habeas Corpus is a privilege and that it can be suspended under certain circumstances. The Constitution is a reaffirmation of God given rights, it is the Writ Of Habeas Corpus, it is the bill Of Rights. Yes, the Constitution and your Constitutional rights can be suspended. Write Of Habeas Corpus is an "undeniable right," but because of Article I Section XI, those rights can be suspended, temporarily. You really need to read what the meaning of Writ Of Habeas Corpus means. What is interesting about Writ Of Habeas Corpus being called a privilege in Article I Section IX is that Writ Of Habeas Corpus are actually meant to be undeniable rights. The Bill Of Rights is an affirmation of undeniable rights, but by Article I Section IX are deemed to actually be privileges.

This place called the USA is for the people by the people .... NOT for the people by Sylvia Plath, this type of thought that the Consitition is a living breathing document is a major problem in America today ! !

Quit compilcating things, all you are asking for is trouble if you want to change the "Bill of Rights" .. .. .. The men that wrote the Consitiution over 200 years-ago were light-years ahead of any political thinker of today.

I think you like to light fires and watch things burn .. .. ..

I never said that I interpret the Constitution for all of us.

If the writers of the Constitution actually meant for the Constitution to not be interpretive then they would have written the Constitution, then went line for line with a detailed explanation of the scope of interpretation that was to take place.

I do not like creating fires. I simply respond with my personal view on a subject and the fire starts itself. The fact is, both sides of the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution.

Have you read(e) the Constitution in its entirety? You should, if you haven't.

The Constitution is an interesting document that has interpretation written all over it.

Sometimes I feel that people do not want to believe the Constitution is interpretive because they fear they have no control. The fact is, we have no control, and must accept that. There are multi-millionaires running this country, and have been for many generations. Both sides are cut from the same cloth and are not subject to the same piece of paper that we are. Seriously, this country is ran by people that are part of the top 3% of the country...they have money and by that, access and power.

Karl Marx is right about one thing, Capitalism fails=Socialism fails=Communism--then back around again. I hate to say it, but he hit the nail on the head. Socialism in has been in America for a number of generations now, we are entrenched in it. Although, we will be a different type of Socialist state IMO. Such an "evil" man. Let us hope that those in power in the future are much more humane than Stalin, Hitler and Mao.

 

[amlevin]

The men that wrote the Consitiution over 200 years-ago were light-years ahead of any political thinker of today.

They had less to think about and more to think with.

 

[amlevin]

---E

Bob-


Are you hollering "Fork It", "Fork Off", of "what the "Fork" will it take to make this thread come to an end?

 

[devildoc5]

It is stating that the Writ Of Habeas Corpus is a privilege and that it can be suspended under certain circumstances. The Constitution is a reaffirmation of God given rights, it is the Writ Of Habeas Corpus, it is the bill Of Rights. Yes, the Constitution and your Constitutional rights can be suspended. Write Of Habeas Corpus is an "undeniable right," but because of Article I Section XI, those rights can be suspended, temporarily. You really need to read what the meaning of Writ Of Habeas Corpus means.



I never said that I interpret the Constitution.

If the writers of the Constitution actually meant for the Constitution to not be interpretive then they would have written the Constitution, then went line for line with a detailed explanation of the scope of interpretation that was to take place.

I do not like creating fires. I simply respond with my personal view on a subject and the fire starts itself. The fact is, both sides of the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution.

Have you read(e) the Constitution in its entirety? You should, if you haven't.

The Constitution is an interesting document that has interpretation written all over it.

Sometimes I feel that people do not want to believe the Constitution is not interpretive because they fear they have no control. The fact is, we have no control, and must accept that. There are multi-millionaires running this country, and have been for many generations. Both sides are cut from the same cloth and are not subject to the same piece of paper that we are. Seriously, this country is ran by people that are part of the top 3% of the country...they have money and by that, access and power.

Karl Marx is right about one thing, Capitalism fails=Socialism fails=Communism--then back around again. I hate to say it, but he hit the nail on the head. Socialism in has been in America for a number of generations now, we are entrenched in it. Although, we will be a different type of Socialist state IMO. Such an "evil" man. Let us hope that those in power in the future are much more humane than Stalin, Hitler and Mao.

Not sure I follow what you are saying here Sylvia (could be the fact I am still a little confused but IDK anymore...)

unless I am mistaken you are saying that it is a God given right to petition the courts to be released from jail?

That is my understanding of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. is that it is a legal piece of paperwork, or sometimes legal process.

: a formal written document; specifically : a legal instrument in epistolary form issued under seal in the name of the English monarch b : an order or mandatory process in writing issued in the name of the sovereign or of a court or judicial officer commanding the person to whom it is directed to perform or refrain from performing an act specified therein

Snip from website: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/writ


Not trying to argue with you here btw, just trying to get some clarification.


Are you saying it is a God given right for people to get an order or mandatory process in writing issued by a court?


Again this brings me back to my previous post as to why the Writ of Habeas Corpus is so important when we are talking about without rule of law type situations? If the cops aren't controlling the streets what makes us think the courts will be open and functional?

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Again this brings me back to my previous post as to why the Writ of Habeas Corpus is so important when we are talking about without rule of law type situations? If the cops aren't controlling the streets what makes us think the courts will be open and functional?

You can have your Constitutional rights denied of you, meaning, you will not be able to petition the court if an unConstitutional act has occurred--false imprisonment, firearm confiscation, etc.