Alito's First Ruling Isn't Encouraging (Soutered again?)

Sierra Times ^ | 2/3/2006 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[jwalsh07]

Actually the argument is more than just about weapons. Since the document doesn't explicitly proscribe states from stealing ones property, killing anybody the state pleases and/or jailing them before killing them, those supporting Marshalls view must acknowledge that prior to the 14th Amendment the Constitution of the United States was okey dokey with all that.

Of course viewing the meeaning of the document fro those owning it, namely "the people", that argument is simply farce.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I just lost you.

Come again.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I just lost you.

Come again.

[jwalsh07]

Marshall argued in Barron that the BOR's did not apply to the states. The usual argument from supporters of Barron vis a vis the second amendment is that the second amendment is not an individual right at all since the states presumably have the power, from Marshalls viewpoint in Barron, to abridge the RTKAKA's if they so choose. Likewise, the rights to life, liberty and property, as stated in the fifth amendment, are alienable as well. Absent due process or anything remotely resembling it.

You get it now?

[billbears]

The original intent of the framers is neither here nor there. It is "the peoples" document and it is the original meaning of the Constitution viewed from the perspective of the people that is important.

Oh, good. It's the 'living breathing' document argument. The original meaning changes with the perspective or as the population becomes more ignorant, whichever comes first I suppose. That argument used to come from liberals. Heck I suppose Republicans are close enough for government work eh?

The document states what it states. The words of the Framers giving their views of what they meant are written in plain English.

Now unless you are prepared to sit there and tell me that a guy on the farm in Ole Virginny read the second amendment as meaning that the federal government could not take his guns but his state could, I think you and Marshall are wrong.

Further up the line is the statement from Federalist 45 of exactly what James Madison meant. I suppose you do know who he is don't you? I would gather he would know exactly what the intent of the Constitution was and the limitations on the federal government alone were. If you have a problem with his intent, take it up with him

[jwalsh07]

Oh, good. It's the 'living breathing' document argument. The original meaning changes with the perspective or as the population becomes more ignorant, whichever comes first I suppose.

You suppose wrong. Evidently you're just not smart enough to comprehend original meaning. My condolences.

That argument used to come from liberals. Heck I suppose Republicans are close enough for government work eh?

I prefer RINO's over Marshall statists any time.

It's easy to be nasty, eh?

The document states what it states. The words of the Framers giving their views of what they meant are written in plain English.

Right, so when it says shall not be abridged it doesn't mean shall not be abridged by the federal government but states may abridge away. How you can write this paragraph and cling to Barron is an astonishing bit of hypocrisy. The "Framers" are not mentioned in the document. "The People" are. You and Marshall seem to think "the people" acquiesced to allowing the state to take certain of their properties, lives, guns and liberty. All very constitutional to the Marshallists.

Further up the line is the statement from Federalist 45 of exactly what James Madison meant. I suppose you do know who he is don't you? I would gather he would know exactly what the intent of the Constitution was and the limitations on the federal government alone were. If you have a problem with his intent, take it up with him

I understand your reticence to answer the question and appeal to James Madison. Speaking for yourself is simply disastrous. BTW, James Madison's name never appears in the body of the document either though he does sign it as a representative of those damn people.

[Torie]

Speaking for yourself is simply disastrous.

I am still laughing over that jab of yours. I think I might steal that one for my repertoire. :)

[jwalsh07]

Be my guest.

Still looking for the book. Things tend to show up though in time. I golf with one of the ladies that works there on occasion. If she sees it, I'll get it.

[Torie]

That's odd. It should be sitting in the post office. Eventually, it will head back to its source, and we will start all over. :)

[Luis Gonzalez]

Got it...blonde moment.

[billbears]

I prefer RINO's over Marshall statists any time.

It's sad really. This is what passes for conservatism these days. Marshall statists? He was confirming the Framers' intent! You do know what an originalist is don't you? No, not what Bush throws out as a catchphrase in his nomination speeches. An actual originalist.

Right, so when it says shall not be abridged it doesn't mean shall not be abridged by the federal government but states may abridge away. How you can write this paragraph and cling to Barron is an astonishing bit of hypocrisy. The "Framers" are not mentioned in the document. "The People" are. You and Marshall seem to think "the people" acquiesced to allowing the state to take certain of their properties, lives, guns and liberty. All very constitutional to the Marshallists.

Oh yes, the people. I believe there was a specific reason why 'the people' was used in the document. Of course, I've never seen the Preamble used as an argument. Well, except for liberals using 'general welfare' to condone government programs. By that standard, the Framers really would want us to have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Forget their words, we're going to focus on one phrase in an introductory paragraph. Of course how in the hell could you ever read anything if you don't know what the intent of the author or authors was.

But when you have nothing else to hang on to, when you ignore the words of the Madison and the rest, most of the arguments in the Constitutional Convention (that would give you further insight as to the original intent), and can't provide a SCOTUS case that would support your views, I really can't help you anymore

I understand your reticence to answer the question and appeal to James Madison. Speaking for yourself is simply disastrous. BTW, James Madison's name never appears in the body of the document either though he does sign it as a representative of those damn people.

That's the spirit!! To hell with the Federalist Papers as well!! Why, those pamphlets as a whole were just used to convince the citizens of the respective states why they should want the Constitution. Those words could have no bearing on the intent of the Framers. We say what it is today!! To hell with originalists. As long as they support Republican views right?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The original meaning changes with the perspective or as the population becomes more ignorant."

As I said, an elitist.

P.S. Speaking of the general population of The United States as a whole, where we more educated during the time of the Revolutionary War, or are we more educated today?

"The document states what it states. The words of the Framers giving their views of what they meant are written in plain English."

You just don't see how absolutely funny that is, do you?

The Constitution (the actual governing document) should not be taken literally, but the later writings of the people who actually made the Constitution The Supreme Law of the Land should be taken literally, and we should govern according to their musings, not according to the Constitution.

This idea of not taking the Constitution literally, and instead taking the musings of its writers literally when discussing how the Constitution should be interpreted makes you a Constitutionalist?

You are to Constitutional scholars what Inspector Clouseau is to detectives.

[Torie]

Do you acknowledge that reading the text of the Constitution first, is a useful starting point, before we get busy with finding ways to read the text to mean something other than what normal grammatical construction suggests it means? I am not a hard core, militant textualist, but the burden of proof is on those who seek to slice and dice the words, and suffuse them with esoteric meanings, emanating from elsewhere. to get out from under it.

And then of course there is stare decisis, which I do not dismiss ala Justice Thomas as per se irrelevant when it comes to new Constitutional case holdings, and to be disregarded, but I suspect you are in the Thomas camp on that one aren't you?

[Luis Gonzalez]

And then of course there is stare decisis, which I do not dismiss ala Justice Thomas as per se irrelevant when it comes to new Constitutional case holdings, and to be disregarded""

Do you get a lot of chicks talking like that?

[Torie]

No. :)

[tpaine]

billbears argues against Article VI and the 14th:

the intent of the 14th Amendment was not meant to include the Bill of Rights, else it would have done so for the 2nd Amendment from the beginning. -

Article VI makes it clear, "from the beginning" that the BOR's is part of the Law of the Land, bill.. --- In order to give a State the power to prohibit, your position necessitates ignoring the basic principle our Republic was founded upon, -- individual liberty.

States are prohibited certain 'powers' by the Constitution; "-- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"

This "simple" truth cannot be denied, billbears. -- You are reduced to arguing ~for~ gun control in order to support your prohibition theory.

I'm arguing that neither fed, - nor state or local governments ever were granted the power to prohibit arms.

You're arguing they were. -- That's "statism" bill..
You just can't admit it, can you?

Sigh, again I would refer you as well to the Barron case of 1833 as an example.

Bad example. Marshalls erroneous opinion in Barron was in effect nullified by ratification of the 14th.

The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States.

It prohibited States from having certain powers, as is obvious in Art IV, VI, and the 10th & 14th Amendments.

Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated.

States powers are limited by our supreme Law of the Land, "-- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"

Do I believe the states should have in their separate Constitutions the right to bear arms? Yes. However, from Madison's own words, do I know the States had the right to 'powers' that would 'extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people'? Without a doubt.

Wiggle as you must, -- but you are still claiming that States & local legislators can prohibit arms.

As that was the original intent of the Framers. It's not statism if I am willing to accept the words of the Framers and their intent.

You are willing to accept gun prohibitions as a legitimate power of state & local government. Admit it.

Do I agree with the limitations inherent in the Constitution? To protect the separate and sovereign states from the federal government, yes. Do I understand those same limitations may have caused issues within the states? Yes, which is why the Framers also intended us to be focused on the state legislatures instead of Washington DC

The framers intended that we live in states with a republican form of government, with laws that protected our individual liberties. Your idea that 'majority rule' could prohibit & infringe on our basic rights is ludicrous.