Thread: Ron Paul DROPS OUT

Originally Posted by kenrichaed

This is a great example of the Supreme Courts job. The 2nd amendment states that your right shall not be infringed upon. This has been interpreted to mean that the government cannot order you to never own firearms. You'll notice that the founders, who were very specific with their language, did not include, "the right to bear any and all arms."

Doesn't limit those arms either.

The Supreme Court has rightly decided that the intent of the founders was for people to have access to firearms but that it could be regulated. You cannot place landmines in your front yard to keep the squirrel population down but you have the right to own pistols and rifles.

Where does it say they can regulate.

Had the founders not meant to leave this up to interpretation they would have been more specific. As it is, they simply stated that the government can never take away your entire access to weapons.

So, without the phrase that makes it unlimited, it must mean there is a limit? No, that is pure hogwash and misreading of the constitution. Our constitution limits the government, NOT the people.

Where does it say they can regulate.

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.

This means that any case coming into their court will be determined by them. Laws, regulations or anything.

So, without the phrase that makes it unlimited, it must mean there is a limit? No, that is pure hogwash and misreading of the constitution. Our constitution limits the government, NOT the people.

Contrary to popular belief the Constitution was not written to limit the Government. It was written to give the Federal Government more power because the Articles of Confederation had all the power within the States. This was not working and we needed a central government with more power. The restrictions with the Bill of Rights was added later and were not part of the original Constitution.

Originally Posted by kenrichaed

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.

This means that any case coming into their court will be determined by them. Laws, regulations or anything.



Contrary to popular belief the Constitution was not written to limit the Government. It was written to give the Federal Government more power because the Articles of Confederation had all the power within the States. This was not working and we needed a central government with more power. The restrictions with the Bill of Rights was added later and were not part of the original Constitution.

Well, thanks for showing where you stand finally. You just won't be able to convince the statist that larger government is wrong and always has been, so no sense in trying. You aren't for the constitution, you are for the dictatorship Obama wants. Have a nice day.

Originally Posted by Wildjoker5

Well, thanks for showing where you stand finally. You just won't be able to convince the statist that larger government is wrong and always has been, so no sense in trying. You aren't for the constitution, you are for the dictatorship Obama wants. Have a nice day.

I am totally for the Constitution and everything i've explained is exactly how it works.

I notice that you fail to debate any of my points so I guess that means you surrender to superior logic.

I win!

Originally Posted by Wildjoker5

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Whether there is language in the Constitution is frequently the subject of differing opinions.

That is the point. Our language has not evolved that much in 200 years to make what is written in the constitution to mean something different than how we read it today. To make that case is to try to garner more power that can't be questioned.

Of course. Language hasn't evolved but the Constitution is full of generalizations and vague wording that people disagree as to meaning.

You just illustrated a case in point with the second amendment. You just cited part of it, and when I pointed out you had not spelled out what the second amendment says, you claimed that the rest was just "semantics" as if the founders added all that verbiage solely to impress us with their writing style.

The fact you have an opinion as to what the language means doesn't mean that your opinion is "correct". Folks have different opinions as to what the language means. The Supremes interpret the language and make the legally binding decision.

Originally Posted by kenrichaed

I am totally for the Constitution and everything i've explained is exactly how it works.

I notice that you fail to debate any of my points so I guess that means you surrender to superior logic.

I win!

4th graders delcare they win too. It's about as impressive to me when folks here do it. Maybe it impresses others.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

4th graders delcare they win too. It's about as impressive to me when folks here do it. Maybe it impresses others.

I've already impressed you with my knowledge of the Constitution. The "I win" statement is just icing on the cake

If you've more arguments to bring the table then we can debate those.

Originally Posted by Wildjoker5

Sorry, forgot you are the semantics police.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There you go. You may ignore half the amendment as "semantics," but in my opinion it was put there for a reason and is crucial for understanding what the 2A means.

And so, when you march into court demanding you have a constitutional right to be armed with you Stinger missle and claiming the feds unconstitutionally threw you in jail for possessing it, the Supreme Court has to review and interpret the definitions of the constitution against the law under which you were jailed.

It has to decide what "arms" mean, and possess means, and whether the right spelled out in the amendment was something created to arm a militia, or to provide arms for individuals without regard to whether there is a militia. It has to decide whether the language "shall not be infringed" means it is an absolute right, and whether Congress intended social undesirables like convicts, incompetents, and (back then) blacks should have this uninfringeable right. To decide that, the Supremes look at that language, which is often ambiguous and unclear in light of changing circumstances, as well as the intent of the folks who wrote the law.

And in doing so, they often make decisions that will differ with your opinion or mine. And conservatives are "activist" just as much as liberals in this regard. The Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald are some of the most astounding examples of "judicial activism" and interpretation on record.

So interpretation of the definitions in the Constitution is exactly what is required of the Supreme Court when it decides whether laws are unconsitutional. There is no other way the Court could do it.

Originally Posted by Wildjoker5

Well, thanks for showing where you stand finally. You just won't be able to convince the statist that larger government is wrong and always has been, so no sense in trying. You aren't for the constitution, you are for the dictatorship Obama wants. Have a nice day.

In other words, if people don't agree with *your* interpretation of the Constitution, they "aren't for" the constitution.

Because only you know what the Constitution means.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

our opinions are, individually, irrelevant.

The are only irrelevant in the the sense that they have no direct influence on the workings of the state, just like everything else we do. They are not ethically irrelevant.

Since you two seem to be objecting to the Supreme Court being the arbiter of whether acts of Congress or the Executive are constitutional, who do you think should have that power? Or do you think that Congress should be able to pass any law it wants without review, of the President take any action he wants, without review?

I don't want anyone to have any political power. But my issue with "judicial review" is not that it grants the Supreme Court the power to overturn Congressional legislation. 99% of legislation is bad and unjust, so the more people with a veto power over it, the merrier. My problem is opposite: the idea that if the Supreme Court does not overturn the legislation, it's constitutional and the debate is over.