And it looks like your statements about Stingers were wrong. They are not “arms” the “people” can “bear” under any conventional definitions of the terms, but only under extremely narrow and specific conditions that heavily involve the federal government’s approval.
And your irrelevant comment about law licenses doesn’t make you less wrong.
You see,** Bryan**, the Constitution is the rock solid foundation of our government. You can’t just go around making up rights and claiming they are in the Constitution simply because they ought to be! Of course, not every jot and tittle could ever have been considered, so even though no exceptions are permitted, there is room for interpretation, so long as that interpretation accords with expert opinion.
We are blessed with just such expertise! It behooves us to regard this good fortune with respectful gratitude.
It’s not irrelevant. It’s analogous.
And you weren’t wrong about the Stingers, you were just massively incorrect.
Looking forward to the invention of the “pocket phaser”.
I was correct. What statement of mine was incorrect?
Ah, it’s been so long since I’ve read a group of posts from Bricker. It’s comforting that the semantic nitpicking, the smug lecturing tone on irrelevant legal issues, and the ability to weasel around his use of words, while condemning others for doing the same are all still intact.
Seriously? And I seem to recall you’ve had the temerity to call ME dishonest.
Or maybe that was Starving Artist.
Anyway, this most recent evasion of yours increases my doubt that Congress ever actually considered the phrase “people to bear arms” in deciding that man-portable weapons specifically were protected. Frankly, it sounded unlikely on its face.
I don’t see the words “shall not be infringed” in the entitlement of counsel.
Nor do I see the words “of his choice” either.
Those words are in one of those penumbra things.
True.
But it says the accused “shall have,” the assistance of counsel. What would the addition of the words, “…and this right shall not be infringed,” add to the command?
Do you believe that if it said, “…and this right shall super duper not be infringed,” it would be even more effective?
Well, I’m not a lawyer. I’m under the assumption that “shall not be infringed” actually means “shall not be infringed”. Because the words “shall not be infringed” aren’t there, I would assume that the right to assistance of counsel could, in fact, be infringed. Perhaps to require that counsel to have a license or something.
But I’m not a lawyer.
I though narrow tailoring by definition required MORE verbiage, and indeed MORE SPECIFIC verbiage than, uh, “wide” tailoring. Suddenly Bricker’s all parsimonious with the wording? How many minutes is THAT gonna last?
Thought experiment:
The Fifth Amendment is proposed for a vote back in 1789. Someone says it should read:
Your great great great grandfather steps up. “I’m not a lawyer,” he says. “But shouldn’t we add ‘…shall not be infringed,’ in there somewhere?” He looks around the room. “After all, without those words, people might think these rights could be infringed.”
Thoughts?
My thought is that it would be kind of hard to have both “without just compensation” AND “shall not be infringed”
And the Sixth starts with “In ALL criminal prosecutions…” and says the accused SHALL have the assistance of counsel but you apparently felt that this this still left room for infringement.
I did. But you, however, added “accused is entitled to counsel of his choice” in one of your rebuttals. When in fact, I don’t see the words “of his choice” in there. So requiring the counsel to be licensed does not go against the Amendment.
And yes, it does leave room for “infringement” since it doesn’t say “The accused right to counsel shall not be infringed”
Further, in my non-lawyerly opinion, “shall not be infringed” must mean something, or else why have it included in the 2nd? If every amendment included an implicit “shall not be infringed”, then having it explicitly stated seems superfluous to me.
Fair enough. “Of his choice,” is judicially explained, not textual. I shouldn’t have included it in the example.
It means something in the Second, which lacks other sweeping like “ALL” or “SHALL.”
The 19th Amendment has “shall not be … abridged”. So does the 26th.
I contend that the presence of “shall not be abridged” means something more than the presence of a simple “ALL” or “SHALL”
Go ahead. It’s probably good exercise.