bucfan64 307 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Two points that seem to be missed by many. The first principle is that the federal government has no constitutional say whatsoever in the size or quantity of weapons maintained by the people -- because that very government is the most dangerous person in the room. The Second Amendment has one purpose: to ensure that "we the people" can withstand a tyrannical government, for perhaps the first time in history. The writings of James Madison (Federalist #46), among others, make that abundantly clear. Since the fashion these days is to pass legislation without reading it, everyone can play. Given the Second Amendment, you can know this without even reading the new laws: whatever they pass or decree at the federal level will be unconstitutional. Why? Because the federal government is specifically forbidden by that Amendment from even addressing the question. The second principle comes to our rescue: the powers not delegated to the federal government are retained by the states and the people. (Sound familiar? The Tenth Amendment.) So the question really has to be addressed by the states, which can afford and manage any size weapons they choose. When we get beyond home and personal defense weapons, the question is not whether your neighbor will have a tank, but whether your state will. Just some thoughts! How big of a gun, or how large of a magazine can be answered with one simple phrase. BIG ENOUGH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsons 178 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 http://quinnell.us/sspb/?p=14048 The Constitution Is NOT the Bible Posted on 2 April 2012 by Kenneth Quinnell One of the first refuges of those who support bad policies is the appeal to the United States Constitution, arguing that the Constitution supports their position or that some policy they hate is unconstitutional. Such people often use the nonsensical constitutional principle of “originialism” as sufficient evidence that a policy is valid. Something along the lines of “Well, the founding fathers never expected…” followed by the person’s preferred position stance. Most of the people who make this claims 1) haven’t read the Constitution, 20 haven’t read any of the important parts of constitutional law or scholarship of the 200+ years since the document was written and 3) haven’t read any of the founding fathers’ writings about these topics. As far as that last one is concerned, who cares what the founding fathers said? It’s not relevant for three reasons: 1. The law is not what they said, it’s only what they passed 2. They are dead and didn’t live through any of the outgrowth of their original ideas or any of the changes to the way the world works that came after them 3. A lot of what they thought and was wrong or immoral That last one is really the key. The founding fathers are somehow thought of as immortal men who were perfect in every way. They weren’t. They owned slaves. They treated women and children as property. They killed Native Americans in significant numbers. They thought that only the wealthy — landowners — should have the right to vote. They were not saints. They weren’t authors of the Bible and, most importantly for the present, the document they left behind to govern us — the Constitution — is NOT the Bible. Reverence for it is misplaced. While it has great symbolic value, it was also a very flawed document. That’s why it has been formally changed 27 times (including some changes that explicitly rejected what the founding fathers said) and informally changes constantly. There is not one sentence or clause of the whole document that is perfect and there is no logic in sticking with something just because that something is what we’ve always done. The simple fact is the Constitution is a guide and it is a living and unfinished document. You can argue all you want that these things aren’t true, but you can’t find a single one of the founding fathers that ever argued that what you are saying is true. Nor is such a thing possible. Because language changes, because the world changes, because facts change, the Constitution itself has to evolve over time. Particularly as filled with compromise and vagueness as our Constitution is, it’s not possible to have one concrete meaning for almost anything in the text. Nor does the document say it should. It’s filled with loopholes and vague, open-ended phrases that allow for lots and lots of leeway. Nowhere does the document limit the federal government’s power to deal with most issues. And those who argue that it does these things can never legitimately cite what part of the document agrees with them. Instead, they point to something that not only doesn’t agree with them, it frequently doesn’t even address the topic they suggest. And people who don’t want society to do the right thing will often hide behind their flawed, if not downright dishonest, interpretation of the Constitution. To that I say that defense doesn’t matter to me. I deal with what is right and wrong, not what is legal or illegal. If the government and/or the Constitution say something immoral, then I’m not going to agree with them nor am I going to defer to their point of view or say that I have to because “it’s the law.” If the country is trying to help a group of people out of poverty and you don’t like it and argue that it’s unconstitutional, what you’re really saying is that you don’t want to help those people, because almost nothing is unconstitutional in terms of creating government programs. It has to be something that causes more harm than it does good for it to be something that should be opposed in such a way. Programs that “originalists” oppose never fit that pattern. Even if their argument was valid, though, if the Constitution is the only thing in the way of us doing the right thing, then we have a duty to our country and to humanity to not let that Constitution — a flawed document written by flawed human beings — stop that right thing from happening. Unless the Constitution explicitly says the government can’t do something, then it can do that thing up to and until it is determined that the Constitution says otherwise. Explicitly. Powers are implied. Limitations aren’t. They’re specifically listed. If the Constitution says something is explicitly forbidden and we determine that what we’re trying to do is the right thing to do, then we have the duty to change the Constitution that explicitly says such a thing to make it say otherwise. The Constitution changes. It should change. The only time the Constitution should limit a change is when that change is for the worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frontierman95 10 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 http://quinnell.us/sspb/?p=14048 Even if their argument was valid, though, if the Constitution is the only thing in the way of us doing the right thing, then we have a duty to our country and to humanity to not let that Constitution — a flawed document written by flawed human beings — stop that right thing from happening. Unless the Constitution explicitly says the government can’t do something, then it can do that thing up to and until it is determined that the Constitution says otherwise. So Anarchy? Anything written by legislators would thus be a flawed document as is the article you reference as is my response to that article. Unless you are a Jamie Foxx and believe that Obama is your lord and savior. And the Constitution does say government can't do this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsons 178 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 So Anarchy? Anything written by legislators would thus be a flawed document as is the article you reference as is my response to that article. Unless you are a Jamie Foxx and believe that Obama is your lord and savior. And the Constitution does say government can't do this. I am far from an Obama fan and am definitely not an anarchist...but I am in complete agreement with the message of this article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsons 178 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) And the Constitution does say government can't do this. Can't do what? Re-read the last paragraph if you think I am advocating anarchy. Edited January 17, 2013 by parsons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frontierman95 10 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Can't do what? Can't take away guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsons 178 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I posted this once in the other thread http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-04/washington-d-c-assault-weapons-ban-constitutional-appeals-court-rules.html Washington, D.C. Assault Weapons Ban Constitutional, Appeals Court Rules By Tom Schoenberg - Oct 4, 2011 2:22 PM ET Washington, D.C.’s ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines doesn’t violate the constitutional rights of residents in the U.S. capital, a federal appeals court ruled. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today also upheld registration requirements for handguns put in place after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2008 ended the city’s almost total ban on firearms. The three-judge panel ordered a lower court to further review other aspects of Washington’s gun control law, such as its limits on multiple purchases. “The District has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi- automatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime,” Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote in the 2-1 ruling. The challenge to the restrictions was brought by Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the 2008 Supreme Court case, who argued that the District of Columbia’s gun laws are so burdensome as to violate the Constitution’s right to bear arms. The rules are inconsistent with high court rulings, including Heller’s earlier case, he said in court papers. Fingerprinted and Photographed Under the statute, residents who want to keep guns at home must be fingerprinted and photographed by the police, provide a work history and describe their intended use of the weapon. Firearms have to be registered every three years. Guns defined by the city as assault weapons are banned. Judge Brett Kavanaugh dissented, saying he would have thrown out the ban on assault weapons and the registration requirements. “This case concerns semi-automatic rifles,” Kavanaugh wrote. “It would strain logic and common sense to conclude that the Second Amendment protects semi-automatic handguns but does not protect semi-automatic rifles.” Ginsburg said the court only looked at semi-automatic rifles qualifying as an assault weapon under the law because Heller and the other plaintiffs didn’t attempt to register a semi-automatic pistol or shotgun. Heller’s lawyer, Stephen Halbrook, told the three-judge panel during arguments in November that district’s gun regulations are “the most radically restrictive” in the country. Halbrook didn’t immediately respond to a telephone message seeking comment on today’s ruling. Work History Washington also requires residents who want to keep a gun at home to provide a five-year work history and state their intended use of the weapon. Applicants must allow police to run ballistic tests on each gun they register. Magazines that hold more than 10 bullets are banned. The solicitor general for the District of Columbia, Todd Kim, said during oral argument that the city has the authority to keep tabs on who owns guns within its borders and to keep out certain types of weapons. Kim had no immediate comment on the ruling. The appeal panel approved what it called basic requirements for handguns, such as providing the city with name, age, occupation, date of sale and residence. Ginsburg said any registration requirements related to “long guns” and “novel” requirements for handguns, such as those requiring re- registration of handguns every three years and requiring the gun owner be fingerprinted and photographed, were sent back to the lower court judge for additional review. Heller filed the current challenge in July 2008, just 12 days after Washington lawmakers passed emergency legislation to comply with the high court ruling in his earlier case. A federal trial judge dismissed the new case in March 2010 after finding that the city’s regulations were an appropriate balance between public safety and an individual’s right to own a gun. The case is Heller v. District of Columbia, 10-07036, U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit (Washington). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 307 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) http://quinnell.us/sspb/?p=14048l One of the first refuges of those who support bad policies is the appeal to the United States Constitution, arguing that the Constitution supports their position or that some policy they hate is unconstitutional. . So, the SUPREME law of the land has no merit and should not be adhered to by the citizenry or the Federal Govt.? Such people often use the nonsensical constitutional principle of “originialism” as sufficient evidence that a policy is valid. Something along the lines of “Well, the founding fathers never expected…” followed by the person’s preferred position stance. Most of the people who make this claims 1) haven’t read the Constitution, 20 haven’t read any of the important parts of constitutional law or scholarship of the 200+ years since the document was written and 3) haven’t read any of the founding fathers’ writings about these topics.. I have read, studied and re-read the Founders. The Constitution is NOT a living document! It can be changed through the amendment process, but it is not a living changing document. What was meant and intended within the Constitution is clearly layed out in the Federalist Papers and other prominent writings. Only Indoctrination of the worse kind would convince someone that something does not mean what it says! .As far as that last one is concerned, who cares what the founding fathers said? It’s not relevant for three reasons: 1. The law is not what they said, it’s only what they passed 2. They are dead and didn’t live through any of the outgrowth of their original ideas or any of the changes to the way the world works that came after them 3. A lot of what they thought and was wrong or immoral. Why argue #1? The author has already stated that we should not "appeal to the Constitution," yet he now attempts to argue that the verbage that was "passed" is all that matters?!?! Talk about confused! #2 Using this rationale no laws should be implemented, respected, appealed to or otherwise acknowledged if those who made the law become dead. This is asinine and a demonstration of gross ignorance. 3. So, just because something is wrong or immoral we should not adhere to the principled laws and systems that they helped implement, in spite of their imperfect nature. But, we should respect the laws and dictates of todays politicians, since they are after all a perfect picture of morality and compassion?!?! .That last one is really the key. The founding fathers are somehow thought of as immortal men who were perfect in every way. They weren’t. They owned slaves. They treated women and children as property. They killed Native Americans in significant numbers. They thought that only the wealthy — landowners — should have the right to vote. They were not saints. They weren’t authors of the Bible and, most importantly for the present, the document they left behind to govern us — the Constitution — is NOT the Bible. . Sounds like this dude actually wants a Theocracy, which is not what America's Founders intended nor wanted. .Reverence for it is misplaced. While it has great symbolic value, it was also a very flawed document. That’s why it has been formally changed 27 times (including some changes that explicitly rejected what the founding fathers said) and informally changes constantly. There is not one sentence or clause of the whole document that is perfect and there is no logic in sticking with something just because that something is what we’ve always done. . Reverence for a principled standard is "MISPLACED?" The Constitution is not perfect, because man is not perfect, the Constitution being amended has nothing to do with it's imperfection, but everything to do with the genius of it's construction. When and where it comes short or fails, it can be "changed." Through a process, I might add, not on the whims of opinion, which is suggested here. Just because this guy thinks it is only "symbolic," does not make it symbolic, it is still the Law of The Land! .Because language changes, because the world changes, because facts change, the Constitution itself has to evolve over time. Particularly as filled with compromise and vagueness as our Constitution is, it’s not possible to have one concrete meaning for almost anything in the text. Nor does the document say it should. It’s filled with loopholes and vague, open-ended phrases that allow for lots and lots of leeway. Nowhere does the document limit the federal government’s power to deal with most issues.. FACTS CHANGE? So, in essence, this guy is saying truth is not absolute. This is common among Marxist, Atheist and Secular Humanist. Which explains his rationale and disdain for the Constitution. .And those who argue that it does these things can never legitimately cite what part of the document agrees with them. Instead, they point to something that not only doesn’t agree with them, it frequently doesn’t even address the topic they suggest. And people who don’t want society to do the right thing will often hide behind their flawed, if not downright dishonest, interpretation of the Constitution.. Since when did OBEYING THE LAW OF THE LAND, mean that a person "does not want society to do the right thing?" Apparently, this nut job doesn't mind breaking the rules, if he doesn't agree with them, which in reality is not doing the right thing within a society, obeying the law! Utter ridiculousness! .To that I say that defense doesn’t matter to me. I deal with what is right and wrong, not what is legal or illegal. If the government and/or the Constitution say something immoral, then I’m not going to agree with them nor am I going to defer to their point of view or say that I have to because “it’s the law.” If the country is trying to help a group of people out of poverty and you don’t like it and argue that it’s unconstitutional, what you’re really saying is that you don’t want to help those people, because almost nothing is unconstitutional in terms of creating government programs. It has to be something that causes more harm than it does good for it to be something that should be opposed in such a way. Programs that “originalists” oppose never fit that pattern.. So, if I am opposed to a welfare state, and taking (stealing) from others, then I am not compassionate about those less fortunate! I get it, this is typical liberal B.S. Lets turn the page on this one, how about this? Lets reframe the argument by saying "Liberals that want to continually give out welfare checks in the name of compassion are really waging a war on the poor because they are telling them that they are incapable of taking care of themselves, they are telling Poor people that they are stupid and are incapable of good decisions." We should start making this argument and slowly watch as those in poverty begin to defend their ability to take care of themselves, this would but them on the defensive and they would ultimately start attacking the liberal B.S. machine that constantly labels everyone. .Even if their argument was valid, though, if the Constitution is the only thing in the way of us doing the right thing, then we have a duty to our country and to humanity to not let that Constitution — a flawed document written by flawed human beings — stop that right thing from happening.. What is the "right thing?" Who determines the "right thing?" Is not the "right thing," the will of the people? Which is presented to us in the form of laws? (laws may be flawed, but they represent the choice of the people, at least in a free society that is) . Unless the Constitution explicitly says the government can’t do something, then it can do that thing up to and until it is determined that the Constitution says otherwise. . Uh, 10th Amendment! Edited January 17, 2013 by bucfan64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frontierman95 10 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Federal Court, not the Supreme Court. Which, to me, means that a Fed court in Louisiana is going to rule different than one in Oregon so it only applies to those areas and not the whole country. If that is the case, then be prepared when you can only read certain newspapers (like the proposed idea of equal radio time between conservative and liberal shows) or you can only practice major denominations of religion. To me that is what makes a difference between a right and a law. Voting & driving are privileges that can be revoked. The rights granted in the Constitution supersede government and therefore can't be taken away. Just like unreasonable searches and seizures apply to everyone regardless of age, race, gender, or citizenship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frontierman95 10 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/17/on_guns_an_abuse_of_power_116710.html On Guns, an Abuse of Power By David Harsanyi - January 17, 2013 When Barack Obama implored Americans to "do the right thing" on gun restriction during a news conference this week, the "right thing" should have been obvious to everyone. Absolute moral authority -- it's the only way to go. If you fail to see the picture as clearly as the president, you may be an extremist or, more than likely, you're too feeble-minded to withstand the Jedi mind tricks employed by gun merchants or radio talk show hosts or the National Rifle Association or all those folks "ginning up fear" on the issue, according to a president who trots out 7-year-olds to shield him from debate. Now, the 23 executive orders President Barack Obama signed that are aimed at "reducing gun violence" could be considered, at worst, cynically political or, at best, completely useless. But the way Obama treats the process, children, the debate, the Constitution and the American people is another story. Sen. Rand Paul recently remarked that "someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress -- that's someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch." That may be a bit hyperbolic, but it is also a bit true. "There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America," lectured Obama, "who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting or sport or protection or collection." (Or -- as it must have slipped the president's mind -- the right to put a gun in a case labeled "open in case of tyranny.") The president went on to profess that he believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. If this were true for Obama, who was once a constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago, why would he attempt to restrict a right that is explicitly laid out in the Bill of Rights (even if it were eminently sensible) without putting it through the republican wringer -- the deliberation, the checks and balances, all of it? The president, who has often said he will work around Congress, also justifies his executive bender by telling us that Americans are clamoring for more limits on gun ownership. So what? These rights -- in what Piers Morgan might call that "little book" -- were written down to protect the citizenry from not only executive overreach but also vagaries of public opinion. Didn't Alexander Hamilton and James Madison warn us against the dangerous "passions" of the mob? It is amazing how many times this president uses majoritarian arguments to rationalize executive overreach. And really, speaking of ginning up fear: "If there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try," the president said, deploying perhaps the biggest platitude in the history of nannyism. Not a single one of the items Obama intends to implement -- legislative or executive -- would have stopped Adam Lanza's killing spree or, most likely, any of the others. Using fear and a tragedy to further ideological goals was by no means invented by Obama, but few people have used it with such skill. Now, when the Supreme Court solidified the right to an abortion via Roe v. Wade (now a constitutional right, unlike owning a gun in Chicago) and solidified the individual mandate found in Obamacare (now a constitutional right, unlike, say, the right of Catholics to be free of economic coercion), they became immovable legal precedents that may never be toyed with -- ever. Well, even if you believe in banning "assault" weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, doesn't the Bill of Rights deserve at least that much deference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsons 178 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 So, the SUPREME law of the land has no merit and should not be adhered to by the citizenry or the Federal Govt.? . Did you not even read the last paragraph? He’s not advocating anarchy. The constitution should stay in place as the supreme law of the land, but if there are practical changes necessary to benefit society as a whole the constitution should be amended to enable that change. You say as much yourself……. The Constitution is not perfect, because man is not perfect, the Constitution being amended has nothing to do with it's imperfection, but everything to do with the genius of it's construction. When and where it comes short or fails, it can be "changed." Through a process…….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 307 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Yes, I read the last paragraph and I also read the first paragraph in which the author indicates that the Constitution is merely a symbolic item. Since, he himself cannot remain consistent, I must by default rationalize that he added the latter comments about the "law of the land," in order to sound more PC. and this is all you could come up with? Point proven! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 307 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) A Living Constitution? The “living document” concept is a 20th Century invention of progressives and constructionists that places in jeopardy the very core of American values. Justice Scalia commented in a speech in 2005, “The Constitution is not a living organism… it is a legal document, and like all legal documents, it says some things and doesn’t say others.” The Founding Fathers of this country did not consider their words to be a living, breathing document, but rather a set of universal and timeless truths that would allow free men and free women to attain economic, spiritual, and intellectual attainment well beyond the accepted norm of the time. The Framers made explicit that Congress and the States alone have the power to amend the Constitution. Justices exist to interpret the Constitution, not to enforce societal changes The Constitution is not ALWAYS CHANGING, but it has a system built into it which allows it TO BE CHANGED! Big difference! When we blur the lines between law and opinion we disrespect the law and the system which brought it about. This loose interpretation of the Constitution that suggests that it is some "symbolic" relic that is outdated and is only good for suggestion, is disrespectful to the law of the land and the people whom it represents. The Constitution is NOT a living document, but with the mindset and approach of the indoctrinated in this country, it could very well be a dying document! Edited January 17, 2013 by bucfan64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsons 178 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Yes, I read the last paragraph and I also read the first paragraph in which the author indicates that the Constitution is merely a symbolic item.! You didn't read it well then. He says "while it has great symbolic value, it was also a very flawed document. That’s why it has been formally changed 27 times (including some changes that explicitly rejected what the founding fathers said) and informally changes constantly." He did not imply that it is merely a symbolic item, but somehow you draw that conclusion. Obviously it is still used as the "rulebook" for governing. Point proven! As clear as mud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsons 178 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 A Living Constitution? I find no purpose in arguing semantics. Living or not, the Constitution has been amended in the past and it can be in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 307 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) I find no purpose in arguing semantics. Living or not, the Constitution has been amended in the past and it can be in the future. The author of the piece, is suggesting that the Constitution is nothing more than a hindrance to progress, or "doing what is right." You have proven my point, the very reason that the amendment process is permitted and was created was in order to correct the flaws of the document, which therefore suggests the original intent of the Constitution was that it be strictly interpreted. Otherwise, why go through the amendment process, if it means whatever the heck any judge or generation wants it to mean? The author of the Constitution "hit piece," believes in Judicial Activism, it is rather clear from his statements. Judicial activism is wholly un-American and a threat to our very sovereignty. The two sole considerations for court interpretation have long been the wording of the Constitution itself and the intent of the Founding Fathers. In no other set of laws do we interpret beyond the wording of particular statutes. Yet increasingly, court opinions cite foreign statutes and international law as a basis for interpretation. We have in power a group of people who, though sworn to protect it, look at our Constitution as being subordinate to laws created by international governing bodies or personal interpretive opinions. Consider this: Taken from Joseph Corrado just like beauty, implication is in the eye of the beholder, who does the inferencing. The letter of the law does not change with the subjective implications inferred from it by an individual, nor by society, unless the laws are changed through the democratic-republican processes. Implications are relative, never objective, and uninhibitedly open to all possibilities, based on the analysis of the inference, and not on the document actually changing, and not on the signification of the document actually changing. “I am like Einstein” may imply I am an immigrant, may imply that I am a physicist, may imply that I am smart, or may imply that I have grey hair. However, what will always remain the same is the fact that I told you that “I am like Einstein,” regardless of what implications the reader produces from that. Thus, as it relates to the Constitution, the articles and amendments of the Constitution do not, themselves, hold implications, nor do their authors dictate implications into them; implications of the Constitution are up for anyone, anywhere, to have any opinion on. These opinions, however, do not change what the Constitution says. Edited January 17, 2013 by bucfan64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker 82 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I just want to throw this into the discussion. We hold the US Constitution to be sacrosanct and endow the founders with superhuman wisdom. Yet we do not hold state Constitutions and their authors in the same esteem. Why? Virginia has had 7 Constitutions since 1776, with the last being approved in 1971. It seems in the last decade that a new amendment is approved by the voters every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsons 178 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 And the Constitution does say government can't do this. No point in debating you. We'll just wait and see what the courts decide.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I just want to throw this into the discussion. We hold the US Constitution to be sacrosanct and endow the founders with superhuman wisdom. Yet we do not hold state Constitutions and their authors in the same esteem. Why? Virginia has had 7 Constitutions since 1776, with the last being approved in 1971. It seems in the last decade that a new amendment is approved by the voters every year. Partly, because it's so easy to amend or repeal/reenact the VA Constitution in comparison to the U.S. Constitution. Partly, because it's the document from which all powers flow, including the states'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frontierman95 10 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 No point in debating you. We'll just wait and see what the courts decide.... And why is that? Until the Supreme Court hears it, I see court decisions as regional viewpoints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsons 178 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 And why is that?. How many years of study in constitutional law did you say you have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frontierman95 10 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Sorry. Forgot we were d$&@ measuring our degrees on here. I will say this: I do have more than a few hours studying it. And if I'm not qualified to voice my viewpoint of what's best for the country on a message board than a community organizer is not qualified to make foreign policy & economic decisions for the entire country. Just trying, like everyone else on this board. To argue what my stance on the Constitution is. Just call this the modern day Jefferson vs Hamilton debate. And my view also is there is nothing to be gained from letting one person make such decisions no matter what animal they call themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsons 178 Report Share Posted January 19, 2013 (edited) Sorry. Forgot we were d$&@ measuring our degrees on here. I will say this: I do have more than a few hours studying it. And if I'm not qualified to voice my viewpoint of what's best for the country on a message board than a community organizer is not qualified to make foreign policy & economic decisions for the entire country. Just trying, like everyone else on this board. To argue what my stance on the Constitution is. Just call this the modern day Jefferson vs Hamilton debate. And my view also is there is nothing to be gained from letting one person make such decisions no matter what animal they call themselves. Your stance on the Constitution does not matter. Neither does mine for that matter. The Judicial branch of our government will make that call... Edited January 19, 2013 by parsons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.