But I'm fer it!
Posted on 04/07/2003 9:51:43 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
SPECIAL CONGRESSIONAL ALERT!
RECKLESS LAWSUIT PREEMPTION SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY VOTE!
H.R. 1036, the NRA-backed reckless lawsuit preemption legislation, has been scheduled for a vote this Wednesday, April 9 by the full U.S. House of Representatives. This critical reform seeks to put an end to the efforts of anti-gun extremists to drive law-abiding gun manufacturers into bankruptcy with their tactic of filing endless predatory lawsuits that have no merit. H.R 1036 currently has 251 cosponsors, more than a majority of U.S. Representatives, so the chance of it passing is strong. However, we can expect anti-gun lawmakers to do everything possible to derail this legislation, including offering amendments that would attempt to weaken or gut this measure.
Please be sure to call your U.S. Representative TODAY and urge him to support H.R. 1036 in its current form, and to oppose any amendments that would weaken or gut this critical legislative reform. If you need contact information for your U.S. Representative, please use our "Write Your Representatives" tool.
Remember to contact your U.S. Representative TODAY!
Citizens do have the right to keep and bear arms per the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
In the case of this legislation, the third finding of the Congress is that the industry in question is "heavily regulated." The finding, in and of itself, does not support that "heavily regulated" status.
The realities of the current situation, to which our attention should be focused, is that progress is made most often made incrementally, and very rarely in one fell swoop.
I for one would much rather support, and have the support of, an organization that knows how to play in the realities of the day rather than spin it's wheels and accomplish nothing in an attempt to get it all at once.
What the heck does a mere opinion accomplish when written into the law?
It is actually common. The findings provide an understanding of the "legislative intent" of a law. The clearer that intent, the less wiggle room there is for judicial interpretation of the law.
I knew that and was expecting this. "Intent" is also in the Congressional Record, where the debate does more to define intent than such a section ever could. It doesn't have to be in the law and shouldn't.
I care not a whit what is usual or customary among the gang of posturing amateurs we call Congress. Laws should be simple, changes should be rare and few. The easy way to accomplish that is to stay within the confines of the Constitution. Were that the case they might even read the drafts before they vote.
Not exactly.
The NRA is endorsing illegal legislation once again, just like their "enforce existing gun laws" campaign.
Unless you think the legislation to end frivilous lawsuits against the arms industries are illegal, you are mistaken in your conclusion. Findings, in the context of Congressional action are just that - reasons for the "law" part of the bill to clarify legislative intent. The "law" part is ending the frivilous lawsuits. Is that illegal?
On the issue "enforcing existing gun laws" I just have one comment: You can't stop a train on a dime. Step one is to stop any new laws from being put on the books. Step two is reduce the number of laws infringing on peoples rights. Step three is to finish the job so that peoples rights are upheld, and criminals are appropriately punished.
It is the reality of the situation, and as far as betting on success, I'll take reality over a pipe dream any day.
Do they just not get it?
I think a more appropriate question would be do you just not get it? I agree, unduing close to 100 years of illegal restriction of peoples rights in the blink of an eye would be ideal. Problem is, it just isn't realistic.
You seem willing to sacrifice the goal to push a deadline, is that true?
Or are they a "gun control" advocacy group?
I find it very hard to believe that someone with so obvious RKBA views would even make such a statement, even if in jest.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?
The understand all of it, they just chose to act according to the realities of the situation at hand because they know that is what will get results. It may not be the immediate gratification you are looking for, but it is probably a lot more sucessful in accomplishing our mutual goals.
I would have to disagree with your assessment that the record of the debate maintained in the Congressional Record does more to define intent than the findings portion of a bill.
As an example consider that you and I are members of Congress. You and everybody except me agree that a certain bill is appropriate and support it. You are going to win, the vote of course, but we both have our chance on the floor to make our positions known. That debate is archived in the Congressional Record.
Your bill becomes law and is implemented. Somebody sues. The Congressional record is checked - should our debate which was archived and pitted only you and I be considered to relay legislative intent?
Or, should more weight be given to the findings contained in a bill that passed with only one dissenting vote?
In my opinion, the findings of a bill that meets a sucessful vote, whether all against one, or one over the majority needed, are the important part.
The comments of one should be irrelevant to the interpretation of a law that has passed a vote.
I disagree. Contrary arguments frame the intent and context of the debate and illustrate the determining points of choice. I'll remember your opinion next time the SCOTUS cites the Federalist Papers or Farrand's notes on interpreting the Constitution. Really, opinion has no place in the law. It's only because legislators so far exceed their Constitutionally limited powers that such complexity as supposedly necessitates findings becomes commonplace.
Consider that markets could entirely replace many of our regulatory agencies, all too many of which are unconstitutional in their scope and authority.
But I'm fer it!
I see your point. Unfortunately, in these days, where politicians have largely replaced statesmen, the outcome of votes are largely determined prior to floor debate. Floor debate has been replaced with grandstanding for the cameras in hopes of getting some face time on the 10:00 news.
The determining points are more likely political in nature than substantive, and all that ends up in the Congressional Record are multiple regurgitations of prepared talking points...
I'll remember your opinion next time the SCOTUS cites the Federalist Papers or Farrand's notes on interpreting the Constitution.
Comparing the Federalist Papers to the "findings" contained in this bill is like comparing apples to an el camino. The Federalist Papers were essays written by key framers of the Constitution, not an official Congressional Record. Farrand's notes come closer to that description.
As a comparison for our current debate, I would consider Farrand's notes to be an example of an early Congressional Record, and the Federalist Papers to be an early example of the "findings" we are discussing (though that is more of a stretch since they were not attached as in this case).
When the SCOTUS makes decisions I want them to look at both, not just Farrand's notes, which is what your point seems to imply to me.
Really, opinion has no place in the law.
It may be superfelous, but they serve to provide legislative intent which is so commonly dismissed in some of the more liberal courts assiting the ability of higher courts to throw out their legislatiion from the bench interpretations. In addition, the findings are not the actionable part of the law.
Unfortunately, in these days, where politicians have largely replaced statesmen, the outcome of votes are largely determined prior to floor debate. Floor debate has been replaced with grandstanding for the cameras in hopes of getting some face time on the 10:00 news.
This comment in fact addresses my key substantive point, and it goes back to my comment about how operant Constitutional constraint automatically limits the number of bills, increases their criticality, and improves the quality of debate. We would thus get a different kind of legislator: statesman instead of deal-maker. Hence my effort to eliminate socialized risk management to reduce the scope of civic enterprise.
WRT Farrand, I doubt more than a dozen FReepers even know what it is, much less have read it (the web-site is wonderful). I had lucky opportunity to read it under the tutelege of William Allen while in engineering school. It was a life-changing experience.
When the SCOTUS makes decisions I want them to look at both, not just Farrand's notes, which is what your point seems to imply to me.
So do I! Yours was a selective reading of my point perhaps, but the Federalist was in effect part of the public debate prior to a secondary vote of approval and inherent to the ratification process, a vote of the States. Although that second public debate was necessarily more open than the Convention, it was clearly part of the ratification debate, as were what are now called the Anti-Federalist Papers, especially important to analyzing the Bill of Rights.
Isn't this fun?
I have two strikes against me, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, which seems to be qualification enough for some...
Off topic, do you ever wonder what this nation might be like if the real lawyers out there spent as much time digging into the Constitution and supporting documentation as you obviously have?
This comment in fact addresses my key substantive point, and it goes back to my comment about how operant Constitutional constraint automatically limits the number of bills, increases their criticality, and improves the quality of debate. We would thus get a different kind of legislator: statesman instead of deal-maker.
I agree with the theory, and agree with working back to that standard. For the here and now though I have to support what is going to get results. Maybe it is a trade off that condones the current system, but that is probably another discussion entirely.
WRT Farrand, I doubt more than a dozen FReepers even know what it is, much less have read it (the web-site is wonderful). I had lucky opportunity to read it under the tutelege of William Allen while in engineering school. It was a life-changing experience.
I wouldn't claim to be an expert by any stretch - I just seem to have the ability to retain critical, yet seldom used information - my wife calls it useless knowledge - I disagree - but of course I am usually wrong.
As odd as it may sound, to some, I find the Constitution, it's development, and the associated history fascinating. Some people spend spare time reading novels in front of a fire, I like reading this stuff, associated court opinions, etc. I might be weird, but it works for me. Plus, when I get a chance to debate these kind of topics with someone else who spent time learning about it I get a chance to test my knowledge, interpretations and understanding.
So do I!
I am getting the impression that our difference of opinion lies not in the base understanding of how our government should work...
Isn't this fun?
Absolutely!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.