Funny / Strange how one minute he accuses us of doing nothing, then he advocates doing nothing / not putting Criminals in Prison because of the expense ? What is your solution then ???? ( asking Vegas Giants )
Wait. Lets finish with your plan. It is a common theme here. How much more in taxes are you willing to pay to enact this plan? I am not saying it is a bad plan. I am asking the question.
I did and you refuse to acknowledge or answer the question. Put and keep the Guilty in Prison. Make Prisoners work for their upkeep. Again, what is your solution ???
Galileo, I hate this new system which so limits my space that I had to drop the first part of what you said from the quotes. Here is my response to it... I personally scoff at Rakove’s assertion that if the rights are listed in Amendments rather than “interwoven” within the original Articles that they are somehow less a part of the Constitution or less enforceable. The Amendment language itself, found in the original document, does not draw this “second class citizen” distinction between something in the original document verses something that is appended to it. No case has ever suggested it, nor has any case said the Bill of Rights was not a list of enforceable rights. It is, after all, referred to as the “Bill of Rights” rather than the “Bill of parchment barriers” or “Bill of policy goals” or “Bill of unenforceable yet somehow, supposedly, guiding principles.” Perhaps his “principle” vs. “right” discussion may be about a distinction without a difference. But your citations lead to the conclusion he is arguing the Bill of Rights was an unenforceable set of platitudes, and the judicial branch has therefore conducted the most successful and bloodless coup in the history of mankind by assuming such a terrible power of enforcement of ideas the founders felt were worth stating but not worth protecting. In any event, Madison’s own words on this subject prove the falsehood of any claim the Bill of Rights was intended only to be a statement of principles that was unenforceable by our courts. When he addressed the House on his proposal for a Bill of Rights, he said the following about its enforcement: “It has been said, that it is unnecessary to load the constitution with this provision, because it was not found effectual in the constitution of the particular states. It is true, there are a few particular states in which some of the most valuable articles have not, at one time or other, been violated; but does it not follow but they may have, to a certain degree, a salutary effect against the abuse of power. If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights. Beside this security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be inforced; because the state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people's liberty. I conclude from this view of the subject, that it will be proper in itself, and highly politic, for the tranquility of the public mind, and the stability of the government, that we should offer something, in the form I have proposed, to be incorporated in the system of government, as a declaration of the rights of the people.” James Madison, speech of June 8, 1879. Found in Papers 12:196—209. (bold emphasis added by me). And so your citations to Rakove really present themselves to me in this fashion: Rakove is, to achieve his aim of erasing the individual RKBA, willing to water down the protections afforded by every amendment in the Bill of Rights, and he is so focused on this goal he chooses to ignore the clear evidence of the very words uttered by the author himself. I admit that I have not read everything Rakove has ever said on the subject, but assuming you are not quoting him out of context then he no longer has any credibility with me. Then—as Rakove will not accept the Amendment recognizes and protects an individual RKBA outside militia service, his position is the Amendment does absolutely nothing, and is powerless to resist the absolute authority of Congress over all things militia related (except those powers, like the appointment of officers, already reserved to the states in Article I section . And so, to Rakove, the words “the right of the people” are superfluous, and they do not connote, recognize, or still less do anything to protect any right from governmental domination—whether the words are used in the 1st, 2nd. or 4th amendments. I feel less secure in my papers, houses, and effects already…. This goes directly back to the question I have asked. If the Amendment is about the militia only, and it does nothing to protect anything—militia oriented or otherwise—from the control of Congress, then how can it be referred to as a “right of the people”? Seriously now, if you believe your citations of Rakove, then the Amendment’s recognition of the existence of the “right of the people” to keep and bear arms has as much enforceability as if the amendment had declared the existence of the tooth fairy—or rather less, since at least young children are still willing to put their teeth under a pillow in the hope it will turn into money come morning. Is this your answer to my question—that you believe in Rakove, and Rakove says the words are meaningless and unenforceable platitudes? An excellent question, but entirely irrelevant for the purpose intended, which I perceive is a suggestion that since cases enforcing the Bill of Rights did not regularly appear until the 20th century the Courts were never intended to assume the power to call them enforceable rights. But to answer your question, and provide an example, the case of Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) was the first free speech case of significance. And, even assuming you will not, like Rakove, ignore Madison’s stated views on the enforceability of his Bill of Rights in what Madison called the “impenetrable bulwark of liberty” that is our judiciary, let me draw your attention to that part of the Constitution that limits the power of the judiciary to decide a “case or controversy.” The Courts do not go in search of violations to fight. A litigant must bring the case to the Court. And, although it took over 100 years for people to begin this process with some of the rights (and, admittedly, the dedicated involvement of the ACLU to look for these cases to fight), our courts always understood these are individual rights enforceable in our courts: The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (Art. V) does not prevent a second trial if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion, United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 163 U. S. 627, nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment, Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, and cases cited. Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-282 (1897) (bold emphasis added) Rakove apparently missed the Court telling everyone “the law is perfectly well settled” that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are enforceable rights in our courts. And what are we to make of this exception listed for the RKBA: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.”? Surely this is an understanding of an individual right outside of militia service—unless we are to go through the looking glass to chase the argument that somehow it mattered for militia service whether you carried you weapons concealed or not on active duty. Does Rakove acknowledge any of this? Are you prepared to acknowledge it? Yes. Offered for public consumption as an explanation of all the rights in the Bill of Rights. Read by Madison, and if you are not willing to endorse his acceptance of them then you must at least admit he did not contradict them (and neither did anyone else, it would seem). Interestingly enough, I went back through Heller and found where the majority criticized Justice Stevens for doing exactly what you are doing now: JUSTICE STEVENS places great weight on James Madison's inclusion of a conscientious-objector clause in his original draft of the Second Amendment: “but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” Creating the Bill of Rights 12 (H. Veit, K. Bowling, & C. Bickford eds. 1991) (hereinafter Veit). He argues that this clause establishes that the drafters of the Second Amendment intended “bear Arms” to refer only [Page 590] to military service. See post, at 660-661. It is always perilous to derive the meaning of an adopted provision from another provision deleted in the drafting process.12 District Of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 589-590 (200 And, even more interesting, they next quote your man Rakove against your attempt to divine the meaning of the amendment from your earlier citation to Gerry’s similar comment about the religious exemption clause (which Stevens also cut and pasted into his opinion): (footnote 12) JUSTICE STEVENS finds support for his legislative history inference from the recorded views of one Antifederalist member of the House. Post, at 660, n. 25. “The claim that the best or most representative reading of the [language of the] amendments would conform to the understanding and concerns of [the Antifederalists] is . . . highly problematic.” Rakove, The Second Amendment: The Highest Stage of Originalism, in Bogus 74, 81. District Of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 636 (200 And yet the overwhelming use of the words “bear arms” at the time referred to bearing arms in contexts that were either entirely private or a mixture of private and military use. Only when the words “bear arms” were followed by the word “against” (as in “bear arms against your country” or “bear arms against the tyrant”) do they take on a distinctive military-only connotation. Heller describes this far better than I ever could. Finally, if the wording of the amendment is the best evidence, then why do you continue to avoid the phrase as written? It is not “bear arms” but “keep and bear arms.” The word “keep” has no military connotation whatsoever—unless we are referring to a medieval European stronghold.
Again that is not a plan. There is a reason no state in the union....even the most conservative GOP state.....does this. It can't be done. Prisons are expensive. That is just a fact
Then perhaps the united states should simply begin executing repeat offenders, rather than housing them time and time again. Fewer repeat offenders means fewer inmates to house as the offend at their leisure. Fewer inmates amounts to fewer taxes, and a surplus of resources.
I don't know if I concur with giving the government the power to kill people though I believe that if an illegal commits a serious felony, is deported and comes back and causes another serious felony, I don't have any problem with him getting wasted But I prefer that armed victims kill as many violent attackers as possible
If prisons are so expensive we should not pass anymore laws, and stop enforcing the ones that are currently on the books. You can't have it both ways. You can't complain about prison costs and at the same time advocate for more laws that put people in prison. Common sense.
Laws by definition are designed to establish a framework for punishment of those that break said law. Who you trying to kidd? What current gun control law carries no penalty? Especially for repeat offenders. If a gun law carries not threat of jail time, then where is the deterrence? Illegal possession of a firearm? No jail time? Illegal use of a firearm? No jail time? You can't have it both ways.
The first step is justice system reform, and the left will put up a fight. Politics as usual is the hurdle.
