I see nothing wrong with that post. The law may say otherwise today but a future SCOTUS may change its mind. Wouldn’t be the first time and #59 would be more consistent with the text of the constitution.
And if you think all debates in Great Debates should end when someone cites the current law there won’t be much debate.
Here’s post #59:
You are asserting that SCOTUS has said that we can ban all weapons except the guns you could buy in 1791. That’s false. That the law may change at some point in the future based on some future reason will not retroactively make your statement correct. It will always be false no matter what happens in the future because you are predicating the reasoning on a decision at a point in time.
It depends on what the debate is. If one were to assert that based on Roe v. Wade abortions can be banned at any time without restriction, well, that would be false because the current law, and the ruling in Roe doesn’t support that. That wouldn’t be much of a debate. If you want to argue what the law should be, then it’s open season.
It’s not new, but again, there have been many, many more assaults with assault rifles and handguns because it’s just easier to achieve a mass slaughter that way. Maybe a modern, civilized society has a responsibility to make it a little less easy. Furthermore, it seems like members of the legislature and executive branches have a responsibility to respond to the majority of people who want it to be less easy.
They are not assault rifles. AR = ArmaLite Rifle.
London surpassed New York in homicides committed and they restrict handgun ownership.
It surpassed New York in murders for a span of two months that clearly were a statistically flukey low number for New York.
In every preceding year London had far, far fewer murders, and it will have fewer murders in 2018.
Yes. We’re sure. The entire broad category.
I can understand carrying a double-action .357, but M-16’s are just big stupid wastes of steel in the hands of civilians in peacetime.
Unlikely. Unless you’ve all been brainwashed.
Huh?
What is a Demonstartion?
The Demon part is fairly obvious, but is ‘startion’ for starting something, or involving startch?
And was there an actual certified and publicly verified demon there, or someone in a demon costume, an attempt to summon demons or just mean people being called ‘demons’. I guess that wasn’t quite clear from the OP.
It’s a right wing version of an anchor baby.
I don’t agree. It does do away with it. It uses it as a history lesson for why the law exists, but it removes it having any impact as a law itself. But it is a law, and thus must have some function as a law. No other Amendment explains to people why it exists. That cannot be the function.
I think that it does hint on what the actual interpretation is. What was the problem between the Federalists and Antifederalists? State power vs. Federal power. The Bill of Rights were requested by the Antifederalists in order to limit the Federal government.
So the better interpretation of what the Second Amendment does is say that the Federal government will not restrict the right to bear arms (which isn’t the same as owning them, BTW) as long as the States have a well-regulated militia. The States are free to regulate, but the Federal government won’t.
The problem is, we’re in a world where the Constitution is seen not only to limit Federal power, but also State power. While other Amendments easily transfer over, the Second Amendment doesn’t. If it doesn’t remain in its original form, then one part or the other will wind up moot.
The only way to salvage it is to allow it to be what it originally was: a limit on the Federal government and a grant to the States to have their own militias that they can regulate.
Neither the version that makes the militia part moot nor the version that makes the right to bear arms moot are workable. Both ultimately try to make the other part not exist.
The NRA is a bunch of fucking murderers.
SMH.
Because the Constitution is still limiting. It does put forth what is right and just. What it doesn’t do, however, is require a specific interpretation. Hence any interpretation method that can be shown to be sound is valid. And the job of a judges is to choose between them.
As all people are required to do what is moral, ultimately the only criteria possible is that you choose the most moral interpretation. Anything else makes morality secondary to what the law says, and that is morally repugnant. It’s the “just following orders” from Nazis.
That’s not a godwin attempt, it just explaining how I justify my view. I see the law as the guidelines we use to try and do the right thing, i.e., make the world better. It’s why the prosecution and the defense both use the same laws to try and get a different outcome. Sure, there is a trial of fact, but that doesn’t need any human to determine. What does is figuring out how the weight the different interpretations of the law to get the most desirable outcome.
I am a non-literalist Christian. So that heavily influences how I interpret everything. I think literalism (aka textualism) is just a way to try and absolve oneself from moral culpability in interpretation. All interpretations are inherently biased. Our goal is just to bias them in the right direction.
You can’t turn the right to bear arms into “the right to kill people for fun.” But you can use the entirety of the law to come up with policy that leads the right direction.
And, if the court makes a mistake, then that is when I support amending the constitution to stop them. If you specifically say their interpretation is wrong, no valid interpretation can override that. It’s still limiting.
In the same way I am limited by the Bible in what I can do and be a good Christian.
Jesus hated blind devotion to the Law of his day. I share his sentiment for the law of today.
And if the judges disagree with you, then they’re immoral and if they agree with you, they’re moral.
All hail our glorious ruler Emperor Chronos I, Protector of The People.
Your system comes down to just that: what you want, and what you decide is moral, is the only possible correct outcome. Right?
Job descriptions aside, this makes him different from the judiciary in what important way?
Your rebuke would be far more impressive if there was such a thing as an impartial judiciary. Unfortunately when all the banging on the law and the facts is done, we are left with a judiciary where banging on the desk and the number of (SCOTUS) votes too often carries the day. It is built into the design and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Unless you’ve never disagreed with a single decision the judiciary has ever made, based on a moral argument. Unless you’re one of those hyper-enlightened beings who blames the sin and not the sinner.
An enquiring mind would like to know: if the Second Amendment to your Constitution is so central to its value, or even quasi-sacred, on the grounds that ordinary people might need to protect themselves with arms against an over-mighty government - what is it that’s so faulty about the rest of your Constitution that it could make such a government likely (or even possible)?
See post #95. It would not only allow, but encourage judges to ignore the plain text of the document and eliminate the very need of a constitution in the first place.
The constitution says: The government can do X. A judge thinks X is not good and just, so ignore it.
The constitution says the government cannot do Y. A judge thinks Y is good and just, so allow the government to do it.
This assumes the absolute impartiality of judges in interpreting (constitutional) law. Which is not the case, in my experience thus far.
No that’s the Commies you’re thinking of.
No, it doesn’t assume that. While no human system of judicial interpretation is going to be scientifically precise, the system Chronos advocates makes the constitution irrelevant. If a law is determined to be good and just, it stays. If it is not deemed to be good and just, it goes. In that case, why do you need a constitution? In fact, the proposal is that the “good and just” evaluation is to be used on the constitution itself. Justices do not give the constitution any deference at all unless the part in question is deemed “good and just”. If not, it is treated as if it wasn’t there at all. Electoral College? Not good and just, so out it goes!
Now, theoretically, there is nothing to prevent a SCOTUS justice from doing that today, but one would expect that such a justice would be impeached and removed from office. And if a nominee advocated for that system during the confirmation process, he or she would never be confirmed.