A comparison of two Constitutional rights

[OKTexas]

Agreeing with a wise Latina makes me stupid?

'judges' do not believe what you say they do. as far as what Sotomayor has said...you are an idiot

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, dissented. "[N]othing indicates that the jury's announced decisions were tentative, compromises, or mere steps en route to a final verdict, and the Double Jeopardy Clause demands that ambiguity be resolved in favor of the defendant," Sotomayor wrote.
Pointing to decisions from courts in six states with criminal conviction procedures similar to those in Arkansas, Sotomayor further argued that "the Double Jeopardy Clause requires a trial judge, in an acquittal-first jurisdiction, to honor a defendant's request for a partial verdict before declaring a mistrial on the ground of jury deadlock."
Then she hearkened back to the Founders, who included the double jeopardy clause in response to prosecutorial abuses by the English crown. Sotomayor concluded, "This case demonstrates that the threat to individual freedom from reprosecutions that favor States and unfairly rescue them from weak cases has not waned with time. Only this Court's vigilance has."

Supreme Court Allows Arkansas Second Shot At Murder Trial In Double Jeopardy Dispute

Somebody is an idiot, but it isn't the guy that thinks that judges think the government should get multiple chances to convict someone.

The jury didn't do its job in that case, they should have acquitted instead of stating they were deadlocked. When a mistrial is declared the state gets to continue to pursue the case, I see no problem with the SCOTUS decision.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

Several amendments to the Constitution together state that no citizen 18 or over may be denied the right to vote without due process.

The left vehemently opposes the suggestion that voters show ID to the government in order to vote.


Can someone explain this dichotomy to me?

where in the constitution does it say that reasonable regulation of guns is inappropriate.

That'd be the Second Amendment, which someone who laughably pretends to be a lawyer should know.

"Shall not be infringed"? That phrase ring a bell at all, or did they not teach Constitutional Law in Internet Faux Lawyer classes?

Perhaps you could tell me where - ANYWHERE - in the Constitution it says, "Leftist chickenshit twats get to decide the definition of 'reasonable' for everyone else".

i'd suggest you actually look at heller which specifically leaves room for such regulation.

and the comparison is a false one as there is no problem with 'voter fraud' except in the fevered imagination of the right.. not to mention that your own people made the mistake of saying they wanted it in order to sway election results.

but that's ok, right?

I'd suggest if you want to impress us with what the CONSTITUTION allows and requires, you try actually citing the Constitution for once in your pretend Internet law career. Telling us that "such-and-so court decision says so" really only translates to "OF COURSE the Constitution says nothing of the sort, and we knew we couldn't get people to agree with us, so we just wiped our asses on that thing and did what we pleased."

Are you really so obtuse that you can't figure out that disingenuous "Constitution-without-any-Constitution" arguments like yours are EXACTLY why there's an argument in the first place?

Make an argument that matters to someone other than you, or stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[OKTexas]

Alex Jones is highly reputable. *snort*

Did you notice I relayed what one of your dear leaders former employees said the forum she used to say it is irrelevant. We all know you would prefer to deflect rather than address the issue. Just more proof of your lack of integrity.

You're one of the biggest hacks on the board.

The irresponsible dim-wit from middle America who's on welfare is another reputable source. *snort*

You should do investigative reporting for a leading publication.

More deflection, paint me freaking shocked!!!!!

 

[bobcollum]

You said people are not responsible, how is that expecting it?

Oh, you mean expect them to be responsible, I guessed wrong.

I'd like all people to be responsible, but I have to be realistic.

IS it reasonable to expect people to be unreasonable and irresponsible, or is it paranoid?

I don't think I would say that I necessarily expect it, just that I'm not surprised by it.

It'd be paranoid if there were few instances of irresponsibility, but that's not the case.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

Several amendments to the Constitution together state that no citizen 18 or over may be denied the right to vote without due process.

The left vehemently opposes the suggestion that voters show ID to the government in order to vote.


Can someone explain this dichotomy to me?

where in the constitution does it say that reasonable regulation of guns is inappropriate.

That'd be the Second Amendment, which someone who laughably pretends to be a lawyer should know.

"Shall not be infringed"? That phrase ring a bell at all, or did they not teach Constitutional Law in Internet Faux Lawyer classes?

Perhaps you could tell me where - ANYWHERE - in the Constitution it says, "Leftist chickenshit twats get to decide the definition of 'reasonable' for everyone else".

i'd suggest you actually look at heller which specifically leaves room for such regulation.

and the comparison is a false one as there is no problem with 'voter fraud' except in the fevered imagination of the right.. not to mention that your own people made the mistake of saying they wanted it in order to sway election results.

but that's ok, right?

I'd suggest if you want to impress us with what the CONSTITUTION allows and requires, you try actually citing the Constitution for once in your pretend Internet law career. Telling us that "such-and-so court decision says so" really only translates to "OF COURSE the Constitution says nothing of the sort, and we knew we couldn't get people to agree with us, so we just wiped our asses on that thing and did what we pleased."

Are you really so obtuse that you can't figure out that disingenuous "Constitution-without-any-Constitution" arguments like yours are EXACTLY why there's an argument in the first place?

Make an argument that matters to someone other than you, or stop wasting everyone's time.

VIRGINIA CONVENTION

(June 27, 1788)

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear to arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

 

[bobcollum]

Did you notice I relayed what one of your dear leaders former employees said the forum she used to say it is irrelevant. We all know you would prefer to deflect rather than address the issue. Just more proof of your lack of integrity.

You're one of the biggest hacks on the board.

The irresponsible dim-wit from middle America who's on welfare is another reputable source. *snort*

You should do investigative reporting for a leading publication.

More deflection, paint me freaking shocked!!!!!

What the hell was the point of it anyway?

It's Alex Jones man, I can't take you seriously when he's the source of your opinions. I know what he's all about, believe me.

 

[Contumacious]

Sure dipshit. SCOTUS has said basically government can not infringe on your right to own a firearm, but they can put in roadblocks (background searches).in order to weed out the crazies.

.

1- define crazy
2- can the "crazies" buy firearms in the blackmarket
3- why do you trust the government to weed out the crazies
4- Was it proper for a duly elected government official - Adolf Hitler - to weed out the crazies , ie, the Jews

.

Using Hitler for an argument makes you crazy.

Refusing to use Hitler in an argument makes you crazy.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Again, you’re confusing a fundamental right (voting) with one not considered such (gun ownership).

With rational basis or intermediate review, laws requiring one to pay for a CCW permit are not subject to the same level of review as those which might restrict voting rights, where requiring a citizen to purchase a state document to vote manifest an undue burden to the exercising of that right, where requiring the same of a gun owner does not.

Bull shit. You have to have that state ID to buy a gun, would that not constitute the same undue burden?

No, licensing and fee requirements do not constitute an undue burden:

Generally, Second Amendment challenges by civil plaintiffs have been unsuccessful. In the wake of the Heller decision, for example, the District of Columbia adopted comprehensive firearms laws. In September 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed in part and remanded in part the federal district court’s decision rejecting a Second Amendment challenge to many of those laws, including D.C.’s firearms registration system, ban on assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines, one-handgun-a-month law, and law requiring the reporting of lost or stolen firearms.viii

Federal and state courts have also upheld laws requiring the registration of all firearms,ix requiring an applicant for a license to carry a concealed weapon to show “good cause,” “proper cause,” or “need,” or qualify as a “suitable person,” x requiring an applicant for a handgun possession license to be a state residentxi or pay an administrative fee,xii requiring an applicant for a concealed carry license to be at least twenty-one-years-old,xiii prohibiting the sale of firearms and ammunition to individuals younger than twenty-one-years-old,xiv prohibiting domestic violence misdemeanants from possessing firearms,xv and prohibiting the possession of firearms in places of worship, xvi in common areas of public housing units,xvii and within college campus facilities and at campus events, xviii and regulating gun shows held on public property.xix A Pennsylvania court also recently upheld a state Department of Labor and Industry regulation prohibiting firearms on property owned or leased by the Department, including in vehicles parked on Department property.xx

http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Post-Heller-Summary-9.1.12.pdf

Not talking about any of the licensing fees, I asked about the pesky state ID required to buy a gun, it's the same undue burden required to VOTE, is it not? Come on pull a little intellectual honesty out of your piggy bank, if it's undue burden to exercise one right, it would be an undue burden to exercise any right.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yet you have no problem to force people to pay to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights do you? Hypocrite much?

like forcing people to buy proper ID (by government standards) in order to exercise their most basic right...the vote?

The right to vote is worthless without the right to self defense. Ya can't vote if your dead.

How the Hell are you supposed to get past all those Black Panthers to get to the polls, after all?

 

[OKTexas]

You're one of the biggest hacks on the board.

The irresponsible dim-wit from middle America who's on welfare is another reputable source. *snort*

You should do investigative reporting for a leading publication.

More deflection, paint me freaking shocked!!!!!

What the hell was the point of it anyway?

It's Alex Jones man, I can't take you seriously when he's the source of your opinions. I know what he's all about, believe me.

Go back and read what you thought you were responding to, you might actually figure out the point. Oh hell I'll save you the time, it was about one of Maobamas former campaign employees admitting on Jones show that she aided non-citizens to vote and was so ignorant she wasn't aware she did anything wrong. You might want to go listen to what SHE said, not Jones.

 

[bobcollum]

More deflection, paint me freaking shocked!!!!!

What the hell was the point of it anyway?

It's Alex Jones man, I can't take you seriously when he's the source of your opinions. I know what he's all about, believe me.

Go back and read what you thought you were responding to, you might actually figure out the point. Oh hell I'll save you the time, it was about one of Maobamas former campaign employees admitting on Jones show that she aided non-citizens to vote and was so ignorant she wasn't aware she did anything wrong. You might want to go listen to what SHE said, not Jones.

Allow me to refer you to the post where I question the credibility of some random welfare leech from middle America.

If she said something you didn't want to accept as true, would you still believe her?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, you’re confusing a fundamental right (voting) with one not considered such (gun ownership).

Right, the libturd does not consider gun ownership a fundamental right.......perhaps because our Republican founders gave us that right precisely to protect ourselves from the big liberal government that liberals would inevitably impose upon us!!

No, state and Federal courts do not consider it a fundamental right – it has nothing to do with ‘liberals.’

You and other rightwing nitwits need to get over this idiotic propensity of killing the messenger.

 

[OKTexas]

What the hell was the point of it anyway?

It's Alex Jones man, I can't take you seriously when he's the source of your opinions. I know what he's all about, believe me.

Go back and read what you thought you were responding to, you might actually figure out the point. Oh hell I'll save you the time, it was about one of Maobamas former campaign employees admitting on Jones show that she aided non-citizens to vote and was so ignorant she wasn't aware she did anything wrong. You might want to go listen to what SHE said, not Jones.

Allow me to refer you to the post where I question the credibility of some random welfare leech from middle America.

If she said something you didn't want to accept as true, would you still believe her?

Welfare leach, your dear leader paid her $11.00 an hour. Are you saying your dear leader exploited poor, under educated, people to commit his crimes for him. Paint me shocked again.

 

[Ernie S.]

If the state ensures everyone that wants one has an ID, at no cost to them, then most have no problem with voter id.

But that isn't what the right wants, what they want is akin to a poll tax.

Also, if you can vote you should be able to drink. A lot of stupid laws on the books.

You fucking retard.

The state doesn't finance my gun collection. Why should it provide your ID for free?

 

[bobcollum]

Go back and read what you thought you were responding to, you might actually figure out the point. Oh hell I'll save you the time, it was about one of Maobamas former campaign employees admitting on Jones show that she aided non-citizens to vote and was so ignorant she wasn't aware she did anything wrong. You might want to go listen to what SHE said, not Jones.

Allow me to refer you to the post where I question the credibility of some random welfare leech from middle America.

If she said something you didn't want to accept as true, would you still believe her?

Welfare leach, your dear leader paid her $11.00 an hour. Are you saying your dear leader exploited poor, under educated, people to commit his crimes for him. Paint me shocked again.

Dang are you predictably stupid.

I've only stated probably five or six hundred times on this board that I've never voted for Obama.

And you're still taking the word of someone you'd otherwise completely dismiss, if not for her claiming something that you want to hear.

You probably sleep great at night.

 

[Contumacious]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

District of Columbia v Heller was an awful decision and not the law of the land.

In that case SCOTUS reduced a right to a privilege.

IT IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

Several amendments to the Constitution together state that no citizen 18 or over may be denied the right to vote without due process.

The left vehemently opposes the suggestion that voters show ID to the government in order to vote.


Can someone explain this dichotomy to me?

Actually, it's more like they want to make sure the person who is purchasing the gun isn't a prior felon or insane.

And yes, you CAN lose your right to vote if you commit a felony.

 

[OKTexas]

Allow me to refer you to the post where I question the credibility of some random welfare leech from middle America.

If she said something you didn't want to accept as true, would you still believe her?

Welfare leach, your dear leader paid her $11.00 an hour. Are you saying your dear leader exploited poor, under educated, people to commit his crimes for him. Paint me shocked again.

Dang are you predictably stupid.

I've only stated probably five or six hundred times on this board that I've never voted for Obama.

And you're still taking the word of someone you'd otherwise completely dismiss, if not for her claiming something that you want to hear.

You probably sleep great at night.

Unlike you, I actually took the time to listen to her, I don't think she was smart enought to lie. I believe she did exactly what she said.

 

[Ernie S.]

Again, you’re confusing a fundamental right (voting) with one not considered such (gun ownership).

Right, the libturd does not consider gun ownership a fundamental right.......perhaps because our Republican founders gave us that right precisely to protect ourselves from the big liberal government that liberals would inevitably impose upon us!!

No, state and Federal courts do not consider it a fundamental right – it has nothing to do with ‘liberals.’

You and other rightwing nitwits need to get over this idiotic propensity of killing the messenger.

Perhaps you can link to a SCOTUS decision confirming that?
Barring that, I think that the framers sought to protect the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment to the Constitution means they thought it was pretty damned important.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yet you have no problem to force people to pay to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights do you? Hypocrite much?

like forcing people to buy proper ID (by government standards) in order to exercise their most basic right...the vote?

Dims have filed lawsuits against voter ID even when the state provides it for free.

Who do you think you're fooling?

If voting is "our most basic right" (which I could swear they told us was abortion on demand), how come it's not actually guaranteed for anything in the Constitution? That worthy document only says everyone has to have the exact same right to vote, not that they have to have a right to vote on anything.