• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge barrett, she calls herself an originalist.

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?
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.
 
What exactly is "due process?"

What is "unreasonable" search and seizure?
 
Gun ownership is tied to "a well regulated militia" to protect the state.

Is that clear?
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.
 
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

Hi!

It's differences of opinion that makes horse racing a viable industry. The same's true of politics.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
 
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.

Barrett agreed that laws against interracial marriage are unconstitutional. How do originalists reconcile that with the 10th 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.

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.

What is a "well regulated" militia? And why do gun lovers refrain from referring to it? For instance, it is omitted from the quote on the wall of the NRA's front lobby.
 
What is a "well regulated" militia?
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.

Washington addressed that in his addresses. He addressed the need for citizens to own weapons, to own an adequate store of munitions, to keep those weapons well regulated, and to keep themselves skilled in their use.

Well regulated DID NOT mean organized. The absolute fact is that the 1st Militia Act was not even written until AFTER the passage of the 2nd Amendment and long after the 2nd was written.
 
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.

Hi!

Thank you for taking time to comment. I suspect that we would have to present both of our arguments to a certified, generally-agreed-upon originalist and let that worthy decide. Absent that, we'd just go round and round without resolution.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.
 
Barrett agreed that laws against interracial marriage are unconstitutional. How do originalists reconcile that with the 10th amendment?
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.
 
Last edited:
Meaning she takes the words of the founding fathers literally.

Is she going to declare the air force unconstitutional? Is it unconstitutional?
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.
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.
The second amendment clearly, and unambiguously, proclaims the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
 
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.

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.
 
Combine the air force with the Navy and your argument goes away.

That obviously is not going to happen. Yet originalists accept this. That's the point. They are hypocrites.
 
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 is precisely the definition of originalism.
No it say militia. Which all of the supposed Originalists choose to ignore.
 
Where did originalists get the idea that the modern corporation has freedom of speech?
 
Great quote by Thomas Jefferson:

“but … laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

Originalists side with the barbarous ancestors. And they were, indeed, barbarous compared to today.
 
That isn't the definition of originalism.

The second amendment clearly, and unambiguously, proclaims the right of the people 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.
 
That obviously is not going to happen. Yet originalists accept this. That's the point. They are hypocrites.
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.
 
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.
Is she? Sounds like she was avoiding a rather pathetic attempt at a hypothetical trap that no jurist would or should answer.

Geeez us...dood. The stupidity in your argument gets progressively painful to read and tedious to respond to.

"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."
Do you believe the rights in the 1st amendment are individual rights or or are rights guaranteed to some government approved body? Dont answer...because we both know you believe the Bill of Rights describes the rights of THE PEOPLE and not a collective.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Do you believe that right is an INDIVIDUAL or a right guaranteed to some government approved body? Again....dont bother answering it because we both know you believe the Bill of Rights describes the rights of THE PEOPLE and not a collective.

Which wont stop you from making the absurd claim that the rights of "the people" in the 2nd REALLY mean for government sanctioned bodies and not individuals.

Like I said....tedious.
 
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.
There are secular rights, tax benefits, and freedoms involved with marriage so the federal government has the right to regulate it.

What is your objection to LGBTI marriage equality? Do you also have an equal objection to interracial marriage as decided by the same idea of marriage equality in Loving v. Virginia, or maybe you don't want to admit to being a racist? Conservative states also voted to deny interracial couples the right to marry and the SCOTUS rightfully threw that vote out when they decided Loving'.
 
That is precisely the definition of originalism.
No it say militia. Which all of the supposed Originalists choose to ignore.
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...

I could use a good laugh...
 
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.
Does it say only well regulated militias have the right to keep and bear arms?
 
Back
Top Bottom