Liberal war on the Constitution, again

[C_Clayton_Jones]

does this excuse forcing people to comply?

Remember that no right is absolute, including one’s Second Amendment rights. The state may curtail or restrict a given right provided it has a compelling reason supported by evidence:

California and other state governments have taken up lead bullets as a matter of policy. They worry that lead from the bullets contaminates ecosystems and could affect people.

This could be construed as a compelling reason, and there is likely evidence in support. It would be up to a court to review the evidence in the context of complaint filed by a citizen seeking remedy to a civil rights violation, in this case rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Consequently there is no ‘liberal war on the Constitution,’ as jurisdictions are entitled to enact a measure they consider necessary and proper, and citizens have the right to challenge those measures in Federal court.

 

[rdean]

Republicans have proposed 42 amendments since Obama became president. Wow, they sure do want to change what they claim they follow.

How do they explain this apparent conundrum?

Reps are old dems.

they do what you used to do; slowly move twards government tyranny.

but since the dems have been over run with progs, dems no longer feel any need to go slowly.


and here's some knowledge for you; Reps are moderates. The only "conservatives" are the religious right.

The only "conservatives" are the Religious Right? You sure about that?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Republicans have proposed 42 amendments since Obama became president. Wow, they sure do want to change what they claim they follow.

How do they explain this apparent conundrum?

Reps are old dems.

they do what you used to do; slowly move twards government tyranny.

but since the dems have been over run with progs, dems no longer feel any need to go slowly.


and here's some knowledge for you; Reps are moderates. The only "conservatives" are the religious right.

The only "conservatives" are the Religious Right? You sure about that?

sorry, typed that in a hurry.

The only republican conservatives is the RR, and only on social issues.

 

[Two Thumbs]

does this excuse forcing people to comply?

Remember that no right is absolute, including one’s Second Amendment rights. The state may curtail or restrict a given right provided it has a compelling reason supported by evidence:

California and other state governments have taken up lead bullets as a matter of policy. They worry that lead from the bullets contaminates ecosystems and could affect people.

This could be construed as a compelling reason, and there is likely evidence in support. It would be up to a court to review the evidence in the context of complaint filed by a citizen seeking remedy to a civil rights violation, in this case rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Consequently there is no ‘liberal war on the Constitution,’ as jurisdictions are entitled to enact a measure they consider necessary and proper, and citizens have the right to challenge those measures in Federal court.

then why is it that every single last law that restricts a right comes from liberals?

the only exception I can think of is privacy. that was killed by moderates via the Patriot Act. Which liberals now support.

 

[konradv]

This is a constitutional question, how exactly?

There's a right to hunt?

Could you find it?

There's a right to bear arms.

it's not the right to bear arms except.

What makes you think there are no exceptions? The amendment gives the right to THE PEOPLE, not to the individual.

 

[Sallow]

Actually, what he's doing is playing with your head, 'cause he considers you to be an irrational, delusional wacko with whom one cannot have a serious, intelligent conversation.

You're welcome.

That..and I don't think he understands the Constitution..at all.

"Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. ... Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them." --Benjamin Franklin

"I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am naturally very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country, and the least encroachment of those invaluable privileges is apt to make my blood boil."
― Benjamin Franklin

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
― Benjamin Franklin




"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them." ― Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148



"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." ― James Madison, Federalist No. 45

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." ― James Madison


There is nothing here to suggest an unlimited power given to the Federal Government, rather the Founders believed in (as the quotes above reveals) a very limited restrictve role for government.

Using quotes of the founders..who's opinions changed during their lifetimes..particularly after the French Revolution, doesn't show an "understanding" of the constitution.

A good example of that would be Jefferson who later regretted the "Refresh the tree of liberty" quote. And he was a small government guy until he became President and had to deal with real world issues, like Pirates asking for tribute. Despite the objections of the present day conservatives to, Jefferson went ahead and bought war ships to deal with the problem..as opposed to continued payments.

 

[Sallow]

This is a constitutional question, how exactly?

There's a right to hunt?

Could you find it?

There's a right to bear arms.

it's not the right to bear arms except.

What makes you think there are no exceptions? The amendment gives the right to THE PEOPLE, not to the individual.

This is the most parsed sentence in the English language. The amendment clearly outlines that it is for the defense of the state and need for militia.

 

[Sallow]

does this excuse forcing people to comply?

Remember that no right is absolute, including one’s Second Amendment rights. The state may curtail or restrict a given right provided it has a compelling reason supported by evidence:

California and other state governments have taken up lead bullets as a matter of policy. They worry that lead from the bullets contaminates ecosystems and could affect people.

This could be construed as a compelling reason, and there is likely evidence in support. It would be up to a court to review the evidence in the context of complaint filed by a citizen seeking remedy to a civil rights violation, in this case rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Consequently there is no ‘liberal war on the Constitution,’ as jurisdictions are entitled to enact a measure they consider necessary and proper, and citizens have the right to challenge those measures in Federal court.

then why is it that every single last law that restricts a right comes from liberals?

the only exception I can think of is privacy. that was killed by moderates via the Patriot Act. Which liberals now support.

Moderates?

 

[editec]

The second amendment gives on the right to bear armsw.

It doesn't give one the right to pollute the world with your ammo.

GET THE LEAD OUT.

While I'm at it?

Stop using spent-nuclear material for military ammo, too.

 

[Seawytch]

besides, we both know that liberals wouldn't stop at banning them for hunting. They would move into the other uses for lead bullets.

Nonsense.

‘Liberals’ have no intent on banning any type of gun; they’ve accepted Heller/McDonald as settled law, and have moved on. It’s only the nitwit right that refuses to do so in an attempt to keep a non-issue alive.

Liar.

How many times have we heard limited ammo clips?

Liberals will never fucking ever stop. The Constitution didn't slow them, so why would a law give them pause?

Are unlimited ammo clips in the Constitution? What right is being infringed upon when limiting the amount of bullets in one clip?

The guy that shot Gabby Giffords was stopped when he had to reload. Wish he'd had to reload sooner...

 

[Dragon]

it's not the right to bear arms except.

Actually, according to D.C. v. Heller, it is the right to bear arms except.

You might want to read that.

It seems clear to me that freedom won out and government tyranny was checked.

Get past the bumper-sticker slogans and into the actual wording of the decision, and it's clear that it supports a "right to bear arms except." Whether that means "freedom won out and government tyranny was checked," I leave to the judgment of those who habitually think in that kind of language.

Here's the language that Justice Scalia used in the decision, though:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

If the right is "not unlimited," then a "right to bear arms except" is EXACTLY what it is.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

No, the Jefferson quote isn't relevant. Jefferson is right that this language does not create a broad legislative power to promote the general welfare, AND NO ONE HAS EVER SAID OTHERWISE. It is a modifier of the power to tax, AND EVERYONE AGREES ABOUT THAT.

When we have a government that supports those on welfare, taking the role as the enabler of the problem rather than forcing them to provide for themselves, and providing free contraception, free health care, free cell phones. Then we have a government that is over reaching it's original purpose in the way the Founders wanted, into a government dependency role that was never intended. We have turned this country into a recliner, "provide for my needs" society, instead of one where individuals have the freedom to "choose" their path of success based upon reward for indivdual achievements through hard work. There was a time where hobos were shunned, and people insisted on providing for themselves over any handout dependancy. Now we have a government that provides incentives, over the allowance of indivdual "failure" and the iniative for the individual to provide for themselves. Each generation is instilled with less of the hard work ethics, than those who honestly struggled because they wanted to provide and leave something better for their kids. We allowed government to step in as the soothing "nanny" of provision, and now we have a generation that is spoiled, selfish, and lazy as a result. That's government welfare that our founders warned about, as the previous quotes illustrated.

 

[Dragon]

No, the Jefferson quote isn't relevant. Jefferson is right that this language does not create a broad legislative power to promote the general welfare, AND NO ONE HAS EVER SAID OTHERWISE. It is a modifier of the power to tax, AND EVERYONE AGREES ABOUT THAT.

When we have a government that supports those on welfare, taking the role as the enabler of the problem rather than forcing them to provide for themselves, and providing free contraception, free health care, free cell phones. Then we have a government that is over reaching it's original purpose in the way the Founders wanted, into a government dependency role that was never intended. We have turned this country into a recliner, "provide for my needs" society, instead of one where individuals have the freedom to "choose" their path of success based upon reward for indivdual achievements through hard work. There was a time where hobos were shunned, and people insisted on providing for themselves over any handout dependancy. Now we have a government that provides incentives, over the allowance of indivdual "failure" and the iniative for the individual to provide for themselves. Each generation is instilled with less of the hard work ethics, than those who honestly struggled because they wanted to provide and leave something better for their kids. We allowed government to step in as the soothing "nanny" of provision, and now we have a generation that is spoiled, selfish, and lazy as a result. That's government welfare that our founders warned about, as the previous quotes illustrated.

None of this says anything at all about the constitutionality of these government programs. "Constitutional" and "what I like" are not synonyms.

Here's the main mistake you are making with respect to most of the quotes you presented. There are not TWO possible interpretations of the "general welfare" subclause, but THREE (one of which is clearly wrong). These are, in order from most to least restrictive:

1) The first clause of Article I, Section 8, gives the government the power to lay and collect taxes, to provide revenue necessary to carrying out the other enumerated powers. The words, "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," are superfluous and add no meaning. The federal government is granted no powers of spending by this clause, only the power to tax, and may spend money only in carrying out the other enumerated powers.

2) The first clause of Article I, Section 8, gives the government the power to lay and collect taxes, and, by implication, to spend the revenues collected. The words, "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," define what the government may spend money on. The clause gives the government no powers of legislation beyond laying taxes and appropriating funds.

3) The first clause of Article I, Section 8, gives the government the power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. The words, "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," define what the government may enact legislation to do.

Most of the quotes you presented were arguing against #3, above. Only one of them (Madison's) was arguing against #2. But no one seriously advocates #3. The dispute (which in fact has been settled by the Supreme Court long since) is between the first and second interpretations; the third one is clearly, obviously wrong.

And that's why most of your quotes were irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Here's the main mistake you are making with respect to most of the quotes you presented. There are not TWO possible interpretations of the "general welfare" subclause, but THREE (one of which is clearly wrong). These are, in order from most to least restrictive:

1) The first clause of Article I, Section 8, gives the government the power to lay and collect taxes, to provide revenue necessary to carrying out the other enumerated powers. The words, "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," are superfluous and add no meaning. The federal government is granted no powers of spending by this clause, only the power to tax, and may spend money only in carrying out the other enumerated powers.

2) The first clause of Article I, Section 8, gives the government the power to lay and collect taxes, and, by implication, to spend the revenues collected. The words, "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," define what the government may spend money on. The clause gives the government no powers of legislation beyond laying taxes and appropriating funds.

3) The first clause of Article I, Section 8, gives the government the power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. The words, "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," define what the government may enact legislation to do.

Most of the quotes you presented were arguing against #3, above. Only one of them (Madison's) was arguing against #2. But no one seriously advocates #3. The dispute (which in fact has been settled by the Supreme Court long since) is between the first and second interpretations; the third one is clearly, obviously wrong.

And that's why most of your quotes were irrelevant to the discussion.

Here's a quote the specifically speaks of the term "general Welfare" and it's interpretation of the term by one of our Founders, illustrating their view of it's TRUE intent.

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
- James Madison

The Founders clearly did NOT desire a BIG government system that provides for every need of it's citizens. This is stretching the role of Government far beyond the original intent that the Founders had invisioned as its role that was outlined under the Constitution. We have with each generation deviated from, degraded, and (to use Madisons words) metamorphosized the Constitution into something it was never meant to be, with respect to the "proper" role of Government. There is nothing found by its Founders nor from the early Continential Congress or early Supreme Court interpretations, to suggest this was the course they wanted government to take. We have re-written and ignored it's original intent, rather looking to other countries as prime examples as to how we are to govern ours. This is not Constitutional, but rather an attempt to assimulate ourselves with the views of other European countries, because a certain "group" in government feels it's more beneficial to the people as a whole. We need to look to the Constitution as it was written and originally interpreted through the minds of those at the time (through public statements from our Founders, Continential Congress, and those involved with its creation of this form of government). To use any other world view other than the Constitution is to have absolutely no respect for the Founders who took the treasonal risk and sacrifice to create a free nation, under this documentment in establishing this newly formed government.

 

[Dragon]

Actually, that Madison quote was directed at interpretation #3. The one you presented before was directed at interpretation #2. It's the only one that was.

When you say "the Founding Fathers," you should remember that there were 70 delegates to the Constitutional Convention and they held very different views. The Constitution represents a compromise among their positions. It has no one author (which is why a quote from Madison, while interesting, is not authoritative).

Arguably, three men more than any of the other delegates contributed to the final result: James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington (as president of the convention). With respect to not desiring "big government," you are right about Madison, totally wrong about Hamilton, and fairly wrong about Washington, too. The language empowering "big government" is there in the founding document. If that doesn't comport with your own philosophy, that means that the Constitution does not. And it does not.

 

[Dugu]

Barnes Bullets, which manufactures copper bullets because, the company says, they perform better than lead, is seeing increased interest in its non-lead products, said Jessica Brooks, the Utah company's spokeswoman.

Loughlin, of Union City, California, has noticed new manufacturers jumping into the green bullet game.

"They're definitely coming out. Winchester and Remington, all the big-name ammo makers are loading green ammunition now," he said.

Some firing ranges are banning lead for safety reasons. Lead bullets contaminate military training grounds across the country and are the subjects of many environmental cleanups.

California and other state governments have taken up lead bullets as a matter of policy. They worry that lead from the bullets contaminates ecosystems and could affect people.

Last year, California banned lead bullets in the chunk of the state that makes up the endangered California condor's habitat. The large birds are known to feed on scraps of meat left behind by hunters. Those scraps sometimes contain pieces of lead bullets, and lead poisoning is thought to be a contributor to condor deaths.

Arizona, another condor state, gives out coupons so hunters can buy green ammunition. Utah may soon follow suit.


I just recently read about copper vs. lead at jsonline and also saw an older video that was really informative on youtube called 'copper vs lead bullet study pt 1'

There are some good deals on copper as well. searched a few discount sites and ordered online. Haven't tried them out yet but plan on heading to the range soon. I'll follow up afterward.