- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 25,768
- Reaction score
- 23,387
- Location
- PNW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
All the Originalists died 200 years ago.She and every other person who claims to be an "originalist" are bloody liars.
All the Originalists died 200 years ago.She and every other person who claims to be an "originalist" are bloody liars.
Define where marriage is a right listed in the Constitution. Then reconcile your comments with the 10th amendment. That will also help you understand how stupid your comments on the 2nd Amendment are.Marriage is a right, so it cannot be voted on by the citizen's majority. That action is known as the tyranny of the majority and banning is it why we have the Bill of Rights that guarantees that we all have equal rights.
Shall we hold a popular vote in the 2nd amendment?
No...it is not. Were that the case, the 2nd amendment would have stated that the rights of the people to own guns if they are in a militia shall not be infringed. That is not what it states. At all.Gun ownership is tied to "a well regulated militia" to protect the state.
Is that clear?
the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and there is no serious dispute about that. and given the federal government was never given any power to prevent citizens from keeping and bearing arms in Article One, Section 8, the second amendment merely restates the lack of federal power again
Define where marriage is a right listed in the Constitution. Then reconcile your comments with the 10th amendment. That will also help you understand how stupid your comments on the 2nd Amendment are.
No...it is not. Were that the case, the 2nd amendment would have stated that the rights of the people to own guns if they are in a militia shall not be infringed. That is not what it states. At all.
Now...personally...I DO tend to go to the militia portion of the 2nd Amendment. Since we are ALL members of the "the militia" then clearly we all have the right to military weapons that any militiaman today might reasonably be expected to carry. Fully automatic weapons should not require a federal license for citizens to own.
Citizens that keep their weapons "in good working order" and have appropriate munitions to respond to the call of their country in times of need.What is a "well regulated" militia?
Actually the citizen militia is not only currently relevant but codified. The US Code SPECIFICALLY addresses both the organized and unorganized militias. The unorganized militia...armed law abiding citizens are mean to be the nations last line of defense against tyranny.
That being said...you cant posssibly [sic] believe that the Bill of Rights and specifically the 2nd Amendment...a collection of amendments written to protect the rights of "the people" by limiting the power of the government...was actually meant for government institutions. That is actually counterindicated [sic] by the Amendments themselves. CONGRESS has the power to form Armies. The STATES have the power to establish their State militias. And the 10th addresses the rights SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the Constitution...of which the right of the people to keep and bear arms are specifically addressed.
Marriage is nowhere found in the Constitution. Therefore marriage is and should be a states rights issue. I cant speak as to Barretts interpretation...only to the facts.Barrett agreed that laws against interracial marriage are unconstitutional. How do originalists reconcile that with the 10th amendment?
This is 20 pounds of hyperbole bullshit in a 5 pound bag.Meaning she takes the words of the founding fathers literally.
Is she going to declare the air force unconstitutional? Is it unconstitutional?
That isn't the definition of originalism.Meaning she takes the words of the founding fathers literally.
Is she going to declare the air force unconstitutional? Is it unconstitutional?
The second amendment clearly, and unambiguously, proclaims the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Hi!
The Air Force [My old outfit,] comment is a tad far-fetched.
What she might do, if truly an originalist, is take a careful look at the clause in the Second Amendment dealing with guns. It relates, if not cherry-picked, to militias. Citizen militias such as the Concord Minutemen were made obsolete by the formation, years later, of the National Guard. The need for privately-owned arms no longer exists within that context.
Ed.: One might also note that self-defense is not found in the Constitution. Defense is stated as the function of the government, not that of the individual citizen. Any court case which comes down on the side of pro-gun ownership with that as a reason can be described as 'legislating from the bench', a conservative no-no.
Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.
Meaning she takes the words of the founding fathers literally.
Is she going to declare the air force unconstitutional? Is it unconstitutional?
Marriage is nowhere found in the Constitution. Therefore marriage is and should be a states rights issue. I cant speak as to Barretts interpretation...only to the facts.
Discrimination is another matter that I would disagree with some SCOTUS decisions on. PEOPLE have the right to discriminate in their personal practice...yes...that includes a leftist discriminating against a Christian. The Chrisitian then has the right to not shop at that establishment. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT on the other hand does NOT have the right to discriminate...nor do the states in manners where the Constitution secures the rights of the individual...such as the right to keep and bear arms.
Combine the air force with the Navy and your argument goes away.
That is precisely the definition of originalism.That isn't the definition of originalism.
The second amendment clearly, and unambiguously, proclaims the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
That isn't the definition of originalism.
The second amendment clearly, and unambiguously, proclaims the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
These so-called "Originalists" take a standard judicial canon of interpretation and distort it out of all recognition to pursue doctrinaire, reactionary political aims having little, if anything, to do with the Constitution or constitutional interpretation. They are better termed "Selectionists" because they are very Selective in which elements of the Constitution they recognize and ignore all contrary information. They tend to elide those elements that completely contradict their positions, like the phrase "a well-regulated militia", The General Welfare clause, or the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"). Had I questioned Barrett, I would have focused on the import of that Amendment and watched her squirm. Not, of course, that she answered any of the questions put to her honestly.That obviously is not going to happen. Yet originalists accept this. That's the point. They are hypocrites.
Is she? Sounds like she was avoiding a rather pathetic attempt at a hypothetical trap that no jurist would or should answer.Of course you can't speak to Barrett's interpretation. Barrett is being a hypocrite.
Where does the constitution say the the right to keep and bear guns secures the rights of the individual? Nowhere.
Where does it define "due process?"
Where does it define "unreasonable?"
Obviously, the constitution is not as clear as originalists would have us believe.
There are secular rights, tax benefits, and freedoms involved with marriage so the federal government has the right to regulate it.Define where marriage is a right listed in the Constitution. Then reconcile your comments with the 10th amendment. That will also help you understand how stupid your comments on the 2nd Amendment are.
Does it read the right of the people to keep and bear arms only while in a militia? Of course it doesn't. The BOR pertains to individual rights.That is precisely the definition of originalism.
No it say militia. Which all of the supposed Originalists choose to ignore.
PLEASE tell me you actually believe that the Bill of Rights was written to protect the rights of government entities (and in the case of militias, government entitites that were not federally recognized until several years AFTER the 2nd Amenmdnet was written and ratified) and not individuals...That is precisely the definition of originalism.
No it say militia. Which all of the supposed Originalists choose to ignore.
Does it say only well regulated militias have the right to keep and bear arms?Hi! It surely does. It also gives the reason: well-regulated militias.
Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.