True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

[Humorme]

Heller was a slap in the face to true constitutionalists. God given, inherent, unalienable, absolute Rights are natural Rights AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. The terminology is all synonymous!

"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. [311-Continued]

It is sacred; for, it is further declared, that the legislature shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of, the constitution. The constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no further. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed. Innovation is dangerous. One incroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical principles are generally broken in upon, and the constitution."

Van Horne's Lessee v. Dorrance 2 Dallas 304 (1795)

That is the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling on the subject

The Right of the people (as differentiated from the state) cannot be infringed. That was the the intent of the those who ratified the Ten Amendments. Where Heller got it wrong was to declare that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

The left is going to hang onto that one like a dog with a bone, but the whole concept of unalienable means that the Right is absolute and not subject to the control of the government. Heller attempted to rewrite established precedent (legislating from the bench), so one day it may end up with we, the people having to tell even the United States Supreme Court that the Bill of Rights limits the government - NOT the individual.

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

That's a totally meaningless post.

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

Back to that standard canard again? No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance. When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.

You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning. So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.

I can't help but ask, however, what do you get out of maintaining that ignorance?

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.

You're still wrong and you should read the applicable court rulings and the dicta to explain it to you.

 

[Humorme]

The Second says you're full of it

The Supreme Court says not all firearms are protected by the Second Anendnent.

AR15s are not protected.

They can be and should be banned as similar to weapons of war.

When Donald Chump became president, he said we our Court would begin interpreting the law, not legislating from the bench.

Under the original interpretation, the AR 15 is THE most protected of firearms.

 

[Humorme]

I have never argued that it meant singular. But plural does not mean collective, as you insist it does. The right is for the citizens of the nation. There were more than one citizen, hence the use of the plural.

it must also be collective, if applied to the militia. Only the right wing, never gets it.

It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms. That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part. It is an individual right not a collective one.

it must be, since Both the people and the militia are collective and plural, not individual Or singular.

Plural? Yes. Not collective. There is a reason they did not say "militia" in the last sentence.

convicts are People, too?

Yes, they are. It's a separate discussion, but one I'd love to debate with you.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

it must also be collective, if applied to the militia. Only the right wing, never gets it.

It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms. That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part. It is an individual right not a collective one.

it must be, since Both the people and the militia are collective and plural, not individual Or singular.

Plural? Yes. Not collective. There is a reason they did not say "militia" in the last sentence.

convicts are People, too?

Yes, they are. It's a separate discussion, but one I'd love to debate with you.

Under the Militia Act of 1792 Convicts are NOT Free Men therefore cannot be Citizens and cannot own, purchase nor possess firearms of any kind. And neither can anyone that isn't White, Male, Land Owners, or does not swear allegiance to the current Government of the Day. In otherwords, only about 8% of the population at any given time would be able to purchase, possess or own firearms of any kind if we used the same laws that our found fathers used.

Just a bit of information. The United States impounded weapons of the people that refused to swear allegiance to the newly formed United States even if they didn't fight or openly support the British during the conflict. And there were more people in the colonies that supported the British than the Revolutionaries. The French stated that there really wasn't that much of a difference between the Americans than the British only that the Americans were easier to get along with.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The Second says you're full of it

The Supreme Court says not all firearms are protected by the Second Anendnent.

AR15s are not protected.

They can be and should be banned as similar to weapons of war.

Meh, shut up Foo you're an annoying ass

 

[Cellblock2429]

All this about the 2nd amendment. We need to look at history when it was written. I wrote up something.

Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

/-----/ which is pinned on "“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
the people - not the state
the people - not the state
the people - not the state
the people - not the state
the people - not the state
the people - not the state

 

[Cellblock2429]

All this about the 2nd amendment. We need to look at history when it was written. I wrote up something.

Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

/----/ The 2nd Amendment is just one part of the entire bill.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[Skull Pilot]

True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

Technically we have the right to keep and bear arms

Own and carry

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

Sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry are considered "arms" thus is covered by the 2nd Amendment allowing Americans to have the constitutional right to own them if they choose dumbass.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed and I say ALL guns

That would not only be unconstitutional but also extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent. A mandatory confiscation of guns in America would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand millions of Americans that they surrender their guns and their constitutional rights. That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS

BECAUSE TECHNICALLY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Except the 2A doesn't allow individuals to have any weapon they like.

The 2A restricts the government, therefore the govt can't prevent individuals from having arms, yet they can prevent them from having certain types of arms.

Only if the government can justify the restriction through a compelling need. And, only if the restriction is the least intrusive way to meet that compelling need. Currently, there is no compelling need to further restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Well, you can't get SAM missiles, or nuclear weapons etc.

There are compelling reasons why these are banned.

But with the number of school shootings and murders every year, there does appear to be a compelling reason to restrict firearm ownership and access.

In some jurisdictions they are – in others, not.

And of course the residents of the respective states are at liberty to seek through the political process a ban on AR 15s.

In states with a ban, residents have sought through the judicial process to have those measures invalidated, such as New York and Maryland – to date those efforts have failed in the lower courts and with the Supreme Court refusing to hear those cases.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in laments terms:

The Right To Bear Arms

Lets say YOU as a normal average person were to speak out against a Wealthy Person, I then get a Cartel or some sort of local Mafia involved to go to your house, tie you up, RAPE and Pillage your family as you watched.
The very next day, YOU WOULD LEARN TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

But here in the Untied States the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted so now all the Sheeple in this land have sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry equal to or greater than Cartel's & Mafia's, so now when I try to order them to go to your house to teach you a lesson, they will risk Serious Injury or even Death, this make it much more expensive to or even impossible to SHUT YOU UP.

Yes the American Sheeple have the Right To Bear Arms, so if I was to tell the Cartel or Mafia guys to cut off your hands, they would have to do so at the base of your wrist, thus preserving YOUR arm.............. Thus the Right to Bear Arms, it doesn't say anything about Sheeple being allow to own sophisticated firearms & modern weaponry at all.

This is why the confiscation of all Fire Arms from American Sheeple should be employed, and I say ALL guns including Flint Lock Muskets......... anything that can be used in self defense, because technically......... TECHNICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.

Technically we have the right to keep and bear arms

Own and carry

The problem is, you keep going on about our "Fore Fathers". If we go with their intent, the 2nd amendment was written to insure that their small group would stay in power. They even went as far as to confiscate weapons from people that didn't meet the narrow definition of what made up a Citizen. They had a very narrow definition of what a Free Man was back then. Does that mean you have the right to confiscate my guns?

Actually, you do have the right to own firearms governed by your State. Your State can limit the type like some do. They can also allow you to carry it. But they can also prevent you from carrying it outside of your home like most States do unless you have a permit. The Feds have no say in that matter according to the SCOTUS. It only goes to show that the 2nd amendment really needs to be modernized since we DO have a standing Army and most states do not have an Organized Militia of any kind. The chances of a violent revolution is almost nil unlike in the 1790s. Actually, it was almost nil then as well but our founding fathers were more than a little paranoid after doing it themselves to Britain. Plus, the definition of a Citizen has greatly changed so the last part is also not quite right as well.

Your Holy Grail ain't so Holy anymore. But, then again, it never was.

 

[Humorme]

It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms. That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part. It is an individual right not a collective one.

it must be, since Both the people and the militia are collective and plural, not individual Or singular.

Plural? Yes. Not collective. There is a reason they did not say "militia" in the last sentence.

convicts are People, too?

Yes, they are. It's a separate discussion, but one I'd love to debate with you.

Under the Militia Act of 1792 Convicts are NOT Free Men therefore cannot be Citizens and cannot own, purchase nor possess firearms of any kind. And neither can anyone that isn't White, Male, Land Owners, or does not swear allegiance to the current Government of the Day. In otherwords, only about 8% of the population at any given time would be able to purchase, possess or own firearms of any kind if we used the same laws that our found fathers used.

Just a bit of information. The United States impounded weapons of the people that refused to swear allegiance to the newly formed United States even if they didn't fight or openly support the British during the conflict. And there were more people in the colonies that supported the British than the Revolutionaries. The French stated that there really wasn't that much of a difference between the Americans than the British only that the Americans were easier to get along with.

A few episodes of watching Death Valley Days (episodes of how the west was won - actual historical accounts) will clear this up for you. A guy would serve his time and a year later become sheriff. Convicts are people that are IN prison.

 

[danielpalos]

it must also be collective, if applied to the militia. Only the right wing, never gets it.

It isn't applied to the militia, but to the people's right to keep & bear arms. That is why the specifically said "militia" in the first part and "the people" in the second part. It is an individual right not a collective one.

it must be, since Both the people and the militia are collective and plural, not individual Or singular.

Plural? Yes. Not collective. There is a reason they did not say "militia" in the last sentence.

convicts are People, too?

I never said there could be no regulations for individuals.

legal status is just a social form of socialism; the security of a free State, requires more security.

Well regulated militia militia being Necessary to the security of a free State,

we will get our Army Group in reserve, no excuses.

 

[danielpalos]

If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?

How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?

1st Amendment - Right of the People
3rd Amendment - consent of the Owner
4th Amendment - Right of the People
5th Amendment - No Person
6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "accused"
7th Amendment - Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
9th Amendment ends with by the people
10th Amendment ends with to the people

ALL of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people. Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia. You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.

The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!

The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be unalienable by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.

/-----/ So James Madison was only kidding when he included “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” He was really talking about the State.

lol. special pleading is what the right wing does best. The security of a free State, is what our Second Amendment is about.

You're wrong as usual

i can't be wrong; it says so in the first clause.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

That's a totally meaningless post.

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

Back to that standard canard again? No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance. When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.

You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning. So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.

I can't help but ask, however, what do you get out of maintaining that ignorance?

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.

Totally wasted words regarding your ignorance. You should read more and pontificate less about things you don't have a clue about.

Individual Rights... The Right of the people.

Militia are People too!

 

[danielpalos]

If the right was reserved strictly to state militias, then why does it say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Do you think they forgot how to spell militia?

How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?

1st Amendment - Right of the People
3rd Amendment - consent of the Owner
4th Amendment - Right of the People
5th Amendment - No Person
6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "accused"
7th Amendment - Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
9th Amendment ends with by the people
10th Amendment ends with to the people

ALL of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people. Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia. You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.

The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!

The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be unalienable by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.

There is no quibbling. You choose to remain ignorant and you continue to be proven wrong by so many posters that they cannot be counted.

natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

We have a Tenth Amendment.

STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS

Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

 

[Humorme]

How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?

1st Amendment - Right of the People
3rd Amendment - consent of the Owner
4th Amendment - Right of the People
5th Amendment - No Person
6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "accused"
7th Amendment - Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
9th Amendment ends with by the people
10th Amendment ends with to the people

ALL of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people. Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia. You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.

The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!

The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be unalienable by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.

/-----/ So James Madison was only kidding when he included “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” He was really talking about the State.

lol. special pleading is what the right wing does best. The security of a free State, is what our Second Amendment is about.

You're wrong as usual

i can't be wrong; it says so in the first clause.

You simply can't read nor accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law.

 

[Humorme]

That's a totally meaningless post.

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

Back to that standard canard again? No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance. When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.

You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning. So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.

I can't help but ask, however, what do you get out of maintaining that ignorance?

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.

Totally wasted words regarding your ignorance. You should read more and pontificate less about things you don't have a clue about.

Individual Rights... The Right of the people.

Militia are People too!

And your point? You don't have one.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are specifically enumerated Necessary to the security of a free State.

Both militia and the people are specifically enumerated terms that are, both: plural and collective.

That's a totally meaningless post.

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

Back to that standard canard again? No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance. When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.

You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning. So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.

I can't help but ask, however, what do you get out of maintaining that ignorance?

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.

You're still wrong and you should read the applicable court rulings and the dicta to explain it to you.

judicial forms of activism. they have nothing but fallacy.

bring them on here! an open book test. Only the "dumb ones" should fall for it!

 

[Humorme]

How come that every time a Right is guaranteed under the Ten Amendments, it is to the people?

1st Amendment - Right of the People
3rd Amendment - consent of the Owner
4th Amendment - Right of the People
5th Amendment - No Person
6th Amendment - a guarantee for the "accused"
7th Amendment - Guarantee of the individual to a jury trial
8th Amendment - Guarantee that the individual will not face excessive fines or be subject to cruel or unusual punishment
9th Amendment ends with by the people
10th Amendment ends with to the people

ALL of those Amendments unequivocally are guarantees to the individual and to the people. Yet some people try to argue that the Second Amendment is about protecting a state's right to maintain a militia. You couldn't sell that to an honest fifth grader.

The entire Bill of Rights is ONE bill - NOT TEN DIFFERENT ones!

The over-all theme of the Bill of Rights is about guaranteeing individual Rights of the people - most, if not all, deemed to be unalienable by the men who drafted the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural or individual rights, every time we have to quibble.

There is no quibbling. You choose to remain ignorant and you continue to be proven wrong by so many posters that they cannot be counted.

natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

We have a Tenth Amendment.

STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS

Our federal Constitution clearly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, it is most definitely not, the unorganized militia of the People.

Look, I am not going to babysit you today. Get some material because no less than a dozen people have already explained this to you and given you links to what the founders have said as well as what the Courts have ruled.

You are not winning anything by arguing. Sit back, take a deep breath and research some of the material that's been provided to you in this thread. If you do that you will see you are WRONG.

 

[Humorme]

That's a totally meaningless post.

what an even more meaningless attempt at any form of rebuttal, instead simply appealing to ignorance.

Back to that standard canard again? No sir, we cannot appeal to ignorance. When people choose ignorance over a careful reading of history and the law does not sway someone, I have no ability to force them to be right.

You cannot rebut posts that have no meaning. So there was little to do except point out that a few words strung together were meaningless.

I can't help but ask, however, what do you get out of maintaining that ignorance?

There is no appeal to ignorance of the first clause, if there any Thing ambiguous about the second clause.

You're still wrong and you should read the applicable court rulings and the dicta to explain it to you.

judicial forms of activism. they have nothing but fallacy.

bring them on here! an open book test. Only the "dumb ones" should fall for it!

Danny, I do not believe in judicial activism. That is why I quoted the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings on each point. After that, I agree, you're dealing with judicial activism if they don't uphold their own precedents.