Consistency In Interpretations of the US Constitution

Discussion in 'US Constitution' started by Dante, May 7, 2012.

  1. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Consistency In Interpretations of the US Constitution

    After being in a thread concerning the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution it occurred to me we should have a thread where we can go to call people out on their principles on how the US Constitution should be interpreted. We have all seen situations where it appears people have a cafeteria style set of principles when it comes to politics, ideology, principles, and constitutional rights.

    :cool:

    all from one thread we have: Dante | wolfstrike | rightwinger | JoeB131 | C_Clayton_Jones | Neotrotsky | strollingbones | sallow | George Costanza | freedombecki | WinterBorn | editec | kondarv | OODA_loop | asaratis | The Rabbi | peach174 | peach | jillian | USMCSergeant | Triton | JakeStarkey | Contumacious | Katzndogz | M14 Shooter | bigrebnc1775 | The T | Avatar |
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2012
  2. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054



    - JoeB supports rightwinger's view here


    in the same thread linked above Neotrotsky acts as if IT supports the view that the 2nd addresses self defense. IT blah - blah - blahs - If wrong, IT can correct things.

    strollingbones mentions the SCOTUS ruling blah - blah - blah

    sallow and George Costanza side with rightwinger

    --------------------------------------


    adds nothing

    ---------------------------------------------------

     
    Last edited: May 7, 2012
  3. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    disappointingly editec just blah - blah - blahs -- too bad.
    kondarv adds nothing too
    OODA_loop adds nothing too


    peach and jillian agree with rightwinger and sallow
    :eusa_shifty:


    Triton adds more of nothing as does JakeStarkey

    Katzndogz contributes something - to more of nothing

    ------

    can somebody explain things to red?

    ---
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2012
  4. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    this one deserves it's own area as T will deny what it is he is saying...

     
  5. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    this should be looked at in the context of the philosophical arguments of some of the USA's founding fathers.

    natural law and natural rights
     
  6. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    and then we had an extremely long thread on this....
     
  7. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Wondering how it all turned out
     
  8. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    still wondering...
     
  9. DGS49
    Offline

    DGS49 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    3,961
    Thanks Received:
    789
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings:
    +2,246
    (1) It is correct to infer from the Founding Documents (mainly the Dec of Ind and the Constitution of 1789 that the Founders considered all rights to come from the "Creator," and the purpose of government is to provide an environment in which those God-given rights can be exercised.

    The most basic rights are things like the right to own (real and personal) property and to transfer it to others, the right to travel freely, the right to be free from assaults and injury from others, and the right of privacy, narrowly defined.

    Government facilitates those rights by, for example, apprehending and punishing those who steal your property, or who harm you physically.

    (2) The Second Amendment, looking at it logically, is a nullity and has no further use or effect.

    To illustrate, let's say my Rich Uncle tells me on the occasion of my Bar Mitzvah that since I will need a lot of money to obtain a good college education, he will give me $50 thousand on my 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st birthdays to pay for college. Turns out I get a full ride at the college of my choice for playing on the varsity Jai Alia team. Am I still entitled to the $200 thou?

    No. The premise on which the promise was based has not come about. I don't need that money because my education has been paid for by other means.

    The 2nd Amendment presumes that future public emergencies will require the mobilization of "militias" to counter those emergencies. But that is no longer the case. We have the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, as well as the National Guard - which some might say is the modern-day equivalent of the "militias" mentioned in the Amendment. Putting it in the language of the Founders, "a well-regulated militia IS NO LONGER necessary to the security of a free state." Hence the whole reason for the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" under their contemplation is no longer applicable.

    I'm with the late Charlton Heston on this, actually; I'll give up my (imaginary) guns only when someone pries them from my cold, dead hands. But the 2nd Amendment is a historical anomaly, no longer relevant to anything.
     
  10. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    A creator guarantees or grants rights "the right to own (real and personal) property and to transfer it to others, the right to travel freely, the right to be free from assaults and injury from others, and the right of privacy, narrowly defined?" -- if so why would a creator narrowly define privacy?

    Your reasoning on the second amendment, especially your analogy :)lol: thanks for the laugh) sounds too abstract, more like a mathematical or logic formula than a gift given. To say the 2nd doesn't apply anymore is unsound as it is still law. It could be repealed. Yet it hasn't because we still argue over the original intent and meanings -- your analysis of it aside.
     

Share This Page