Romney and firearms

[RFM]

I want justices on the bench that apply the constitution and dont try to interpret it I don't want the supreme court making laws either. Surely we cam agree on that right?

I'm laughing in my head now. The job of the judicial branch is to interpret...

But yeah, Citizens United was a pretty crap interpretation. Can't have more like that and try and still claim a democratic republic.

[crb]

Dbl post

Edited April 22, 2012 by crb

[crb]

I'm laughing in my head now. The job of the judicial branch is to interpret...

But yeah, Citizens United was a pretty crap interpretation. Can't have more like that and try and still claim a democratic republic.

Really? Where do they get interpreative powers?

Article. III.

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

There is article 3 where does it give them the power to interpret the constitution? Or did you buy into the crap you learned in school? I suppose you believe the general welfare clause gives congress the power to do anything, and isn't limited to the 18 enumerated listed after it.

Edited April 22, 2012 by crb

[RFM]

Civics 101. Boring class, but it helps a person grow into the big boy pants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary

[crb]

Civics 101. Boring class, but it helps a person grow into the big boy pants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary

Where is the Intrepative power in the constitution? Is it so because wikipedia says so?

[crb]

http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar20.html

Did they give the power to themselves? Supreme court precedent sounds like they are essential writing laws. Is that constitutional? keep them big boy pants on now.

[Cheech]

You're so good to me!

I hope you are.t in agreement with me, if so I'm heading to the bunker be side the world is ending.

I want justices on the bench that apply my view of the constitution and interpret it the way I want. Surely we cam agree on that right?

Fixed for clarity since, let's be honest, that's the crux of your whole argument.

[ohiomike]

U.S. Supreme Court

""In 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville described the Supreme Court of the United States and its role in American society: "The peace, the prosperity, and the very existence of the Union are vested in the hands of the justices of the Supreme Court. Without them, the Constitution (narrative) would be a dead letter: the executive appeals to them for assistance against the encroachments of the legislative power; the legislature demands their protection against the assaults of the executive; they defend the Union from the disobedience of the states, the states from the exaggerated claims of the Union; the public interest against private interests, and the conservative spirit of stability against the fickleness of the democracy.".......

...Two characteristics of the court were established in its early years. The first was that the court would not give advisory opinions. Only cases where the court's findings were binding on the parties, were allowed to reach its docket.

The other characteristic is the court's supreme position with regard to constitutionality of legislation. The court's authority was declared in Marbury v. Madison in 1804. ....."

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2574.html

Marbury v. Madison

""Facts-

On his last day in office, President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia under the Organic Act. The Organic Act was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office.

The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John Marshall (who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and author of this opinion), but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adams’s term as president. Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions, claiming that they were invalid because they had not been delivered by the end of Adams’s term.

William Marbury (P) was an intended recipient of an appointment as justice of the peace. Marbury applied directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus to compel Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison (D), to deliver the commissions. The Judiciary Act of 1789 had granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus “…to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.”.....""

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/marbury-madison.html

[RFM]

Where is the Intrepative power in the constitution? Is it so because wikipedia says so?

Nah. I thought pulling out the School House Rock might be too patronizing.

[crb]

Fixed for clarity since, let's be honest, that's the crux of your whole argument.

No I want it applied for what it says not what it cam say. You and I cam both read, there shouldn't be two wildly differing views on the document it says what it says.

[Cheech]

No I want it applied for what it says not what it cam say. You and I cam both read, there shouldn't be two wildly differing views on the document it says what it says.

And yet throughout the entirety of this nation's history, I'd argue throughout the entirety of modern human history, people have had differences of opinion over the same texts/laws/ideas/art/color/time of day/sloths/orangutans/breakfast cereals. This is expressly the reason why the Court system came into being. You can't lock down a law or piece of legislation, delineating exactly what you mean and how you mean it on paper, especially since some things that would be applied to it later can't possibly be imagined while the law is being written. Intent is always open for interpretation. If you would like a system of laws that is rigidly enforced with expressly delineated viewpoints that allow really no room for interpretation, I welcome you to take up a Orthodox religion like Orthodox Judaism, or a more orthodox version of Islam, like Sunni perhaps. I understand that Sharia law is pretty well locked down, as is the Torah after all these thousands of years.

It is because you and I have differing opinions and have a dialogue about them that we can truly understand what the meaning and context of things are. That's why informed discourse and civil, informed debate are so important to the future of the country, and of Western society as a whole. If your opinions and beliefs never get challenged, then you're basically in an echo chamber and never grow as an individual.

[TMCGRAW]

Anyone ever read George Orwell? It's coming people, prepare. .

[CleaveTheGreat]

and yet throughout the entirety of this nation's history, i'd argue throughout the entirety of modern human history, people have had differences of opinion over the same texts/laws/ideas/art/color/time of day/sloths/orangutans/breakfast cereals. This is expressly the reason why the court system came into being. You can't lock down a law or piece of legislation, delineating exactly what you mean and how you mean it on paper, especially since some things that would be applied to it later can't possibly be imagined while the law is being written. Intent is always open for interpretation. If you would like a system of laws that is rigidly enforced with expressly delineated viewpoints that allow really no room for interpretation, i welcome you to take up a orthodox religion like orthodox judaism, or a more orthodox version of islam, like sunni perhaps. I understand that sharia law is pretty well locked down, as is the torah after all these thousands of years.

It is because you and i have differing opinions and have a dialogue about them that we can truly understand what the meaning and context of things are. That's why informed discourse and civil, informed debate are so important to the future of the country, and of western society as a whole. If your opinions and beliefs never get challenged, then you're basically in an echo chamber and never grow as an individual.

This

[SpeedTriple44444]

Lets face it: If you're not a liberal, you've already lost this election. There is no candidate that I want to vote for.

[crb]

And yet throughout the entirety of this nation's history, I'd argue throughout the entirety of modern human history, people have had differences of opinion over the same texts/laws/ideas/art/color/time of day/sloths/orangutans/breakfast cereals. This is expressly the reason why the Court system came into being. You can't lock down a law or piece of legislation, delineating exactly what you mean and how you mean it on paper, especially since some things that would be applied to it later can't possibly be imagined while the law is being written. Intent is always open for interpretation. If you would like a system of laws that is rigidly enforced with expressly delineated viewpoints that allow really no room for interpretation, I welcome you to take up a Orthodox religion like Orthodox Judaism, or a more orthodox version of Islam, like Sunni perhaps. I understand that Sharia law is pretty well locked down, as is the Torah after all these thousands of years.

It is because you and I have differing opinions and have a dialogue about them that we can truly understand what the meaning and context of things are. That's why informed discourse and civil, informed debate are so important to the future of the country, and of Western society as a whole. If your opinions and beliefs never get challenged, then you're basically in an echo chamber and never grow as an individual.

I understand your points. My biggest problem comes in when a person wants to argue to different extremes of the constitution at least be consistent. For instance you have leftist that will argue the 2nd amendment only protects the types of weapons available at the time of the signing, but in the same breath will say all speech is protected. You can't have it both ways which is it? If you believe in the "general welfare clause" then the federal government isn't limited at all. They simply have to say well its for the general welfare. Is the government supposed to be limited or not? I belive it is. Do you?

[mello dude]

I wouldnt be freaking over Romney and gun laws. He is a typical political wind sock and will say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear to get elected. - Trouble is, I have no idea what he stands for.

Edited April 23, 2012 by mello dude

[Steve Butters]

i think this guy is voting for obama

[Cheech]

I understand your points. My biggest problem comes in when a person wants to argue to different extremes of the constitution at least be consistent. For instance you have leftist that will argue the 2nd amendment only protects the types of weapons available at the time of the signing, but in the same breath will say all speech is protected. You can't have it both ways which is it? If you believe in the "general welfare clause" then the federal government isn't limited at all. They simply have to say well its for the general welare. Is the government supposed to be limited or not? I belive it is. Do you?

All speech isn't protected. You can't verbally threaten the President, you can't yell FIRE! in a theater, you can't intentionally threaten another person, etc. As for the Second (why always with the Second? You realize there are a bunch more amendments, right?), I think the NRA is doing a bang-up job enforcing those rights, so much so that it's up to us dirty hippies to ensure that the rights that the NRA is trampling on to ensure that the Second is upheld are equally as protected. You know, the other 26 amendments.

Sorry, had a rant there. So you want to know if I think that govt should be limited. I tossed this around a bit, and my answer is that I think government's function should be to tend to the needs of its people. When you turn on your faucet and water comes out, that's government. When you have wired high-speed Internet access out in the boonies, that's government (mandated telco's to run lines out there). Streetlights, fire departments, medics, public defenders, judges, sanitation workers, bus drivers, building codes, air traffic controllers, a protective military, research scientists, I can go on and on. Government should ensure the protection of it's people from all threats, both foreign and domestic, while ensuring that the most fundamental of needs are met like the right to be healthy, the right to personal defense, the right of free speech/press/association and all that. I'm going to stop here since I don't want to turn this into a "what would you do with a new Constitution" since I feel like we've already been down that road before.

[Cheech]

i think this guy is voting for obama

At an extra $81 for vanity plates, he must really like big government since he's giving a lot more to it than he's required to.

[Disclaimer]

You two should take your arguments off the interwebz... Only fascist, communist, Marxist, socialist liberal gov't lovers would use the 'net... DARPA circa 1960.

I suggest you two meet up somewhere to discuss it in person, but I dunno how you could do that. I suppose you could communicate via FedEx or some other non-internet, non-telco private messenger carrier... But even FedEx drives on socialist, Marxist, communist roads. They may even use those fascist, liberal GPS satellites the socialists put into space. Hmmm, quite the pickle.

[crb]

Now that I have caused a bunch of hate and discontent I think I will go back to the real firearm threads! :D:eek:

On a side note obviously I am still not on the no firearms list surprisingly with all my anti Obama posts!

You may now go back to your regularly scheduled center of the road/leftist discussion. Please don't this radical conservo constitution reading flag waving gun toting patriot stir you up.

P.s. Good to see you trolling again Justin from whothefuckcaresville!

[Uncle Punk]

P.s. Good to see you trolling again Justin from whothefuckcaresville!

I couldn't have said it better myself. Crawl back under your liberal troll rock and take the rest of your ignorant uneducated liberal friends with you. It will be the safest place for you because out here in the open you guys just keep getting punched in the face with the truth.

[chevysoldier]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF4CWCXirZ8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[John]

I wouldnt be freaking over Romney and gun laws. He is a typical political wind sock and will say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear to get elected. - Trouble is, I have no idea what he stands for.

yup. he is the pro at pandering.

[CoolWhip]

I'm really sick of the lesser of two evils vote. Why don't the conservatives select a CONSERVATIVE to run instead of a Progressive?