A Majority of people polled want the Supremes to rule based upon what the Constitution means today.

[Brian Blackwell]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

There’s a false premise at the heart of this thread - that it actually matters what the people want. Sure, politicians will always use a propped-up facade of “the will of the people” to further their own agenda (or better said, the agenda of those who pull their strings), but the people have no actual power, short of outright revolt.

Keeping that revolt at bay is the motive behind the two-party system, which creates the illusion of choice, and thus vents revolutionary fervor. It’s the motivation behind keeping up the illusion of “checks and balances” and the relevancy of the Constitution; using mass shootings as leverage for ever-increasing gun regulations; the cultural gender war on masculinity; rampant mind-numbing consumerism; the permissive legal attitude toward police excecuting citizens in the streets and the spare-no-expense manhunts for cop-killers.

The underlying message is clear, despite the public pandering: “We are the masters. Our agents are untouchable. You are to obey unquestioningly and keep the money for our war machine flowing. Do this, and we will keep your cage comfortable. Do not, and we will take you down while your mind-controlled neighbors stand idly by in apathic self-concern.”

The overarching trend is also clear, despite any apparent victories in the short-term: A tiptoe toward tyranny, moving ever further away from the principles that founded this nation. A left/right progression, each party making deeper inroads in their particular areas of focus, to resounding cheers from their own supporters. All serving the creation of an enslaved nation, each individual caged at the hands of his neighbor, each generation bound a little more tightly, and all the while believing they are free.

 

[OKTexas]

Really, since when does the terms of a contract get redefined by the simple passage of time?.

When the contract has its renegotiation terms.

So tell me, where and when was the commerce clause renegotiated to include intrastate commerce? And who were the parties to this renegotiation?.

Go read the Constitution for the first time, please.

You fucking coward, answer the questions..

tsk tsk I did. You have no idea what you are talking about.

And your proof would be?


.

 

[eagle1462010]

When the contract has its renegotiation terms.

So tell me, where and when was the commerce clause renegotiated to include intrastate commerce? And who were the parties to this renegotiation?.

Go read the Constitution for the first time, please.

You fucking coward, answer the questions..

tsk tsk I did. You have no idea what you are talking about.

And your proof would be?


.

He stayed in a Motel 6 once.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When the contract has its renegotiation terms.

So tell me, where and when was the commerce clause renegotiated to include intrastate commerce? And who were the parties to this renegotiation?.

Go read the Constitution for the first time, please.

You fucking coward, answer the questions..

tsk tsk I did. You have no idea what you are talking about.

And your proof would be?.

Every post you and eagle have made here. Neither of you have a clue about the Constitution and how it works.

 

[eagle1462010]

So tell me, where and when was the commerce clause renegotiated to include intrastate commerce? And who were the parties to this renegotiation?.

Go read the Constitution for the first time, please.

You fucking coward, answer the questions..

tsk tsk I did. You have no idea what you are talking about.

And your proof would be?.

Every post you and eagle have made here. Neither of you have a clue about the Constitution and how it works.

Read the Federalist papers and get back to me............do so in between kissing the picture of FDR

 

[OKTexas]

So tell me, where and when was the commerce clause renegotiated to include intrastate commerce? And who were the parties to this renegotiation?.

Go read the Constitution for the first time, please.

You fucking coward, answer the questions..

tsk tsk I did. You have no idea what you are talking about.

And your proof would be?.

Every post you and eagle have made here. Neither of you have a clue about the Constitution and how it works.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce)

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

So tell the class where this short clause gives the feds the power to regulate commerce within a State, or goods that never enter commerce at all.


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution from which case law derives guides the evolving of American interpretation of our founding document. It is not set in stone, and it never has been. Scalia knew that.

 

[OKTexas]

View attachment 193299The Constitution from which case law derives guides the evolving of American interpretation of our founding document. It is not set in stone, and it never has been. Scalia knew that.

The courts are not a party to the contract, the were created by it, only the parties to the contract have the right to agree to alter it, NOT THE COURTS. BTW Scalia was wrong on this one.


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, you are the one who is wrong on this.

 

[Weatherman2020]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

Leftist BS lies to push your fascism.

 

[SavannahMann]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

Leftist BS lies to push your fascism.

A couple thoughts. First reading comprehension isn’t really your strong suit is it? Nowhere in that post did I argue that it was my desire. I said it was good that more people had learned the arguments in favor of the Second Amendment that the founders had encompassed with the Amendment. I said we needed to continue educating them in the principles behind those arguments.

I can only assume you had some sort of knee jerk reaction when I said Obama was right regarding a quote of his. He was. He said that the Constitution limited government. I think that is literally the exact opposite of fascism, the idea of limited government.

My second thought was how ill suited you were to continue educating our fellow citizens on civics, or philosophy, or history, or really anything.

 

[OKTexas]

OK, you are the one who is wrong on this.

Feel free to point to my mistake in the verbiage of the contract. Or you could provide the agreement to the alteration, signed by the parties to the contract. Those are the only ways to prove me wrong.


.

 

[Weatherman2020]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

Leftist BS lies to push your fascism.

A couple thoughts. First reading comprehension isn’t really your strong suit is it? Nowhere in that post did I argue that it was my desire. I said it was good that more people had learned the arguments in favor of the Second Amendment that the founders had encompassed with the Amendment. I said we needed to continue educating them in the principles behind those arguments.

I can only assume you had some sort of knee jerk reaction when I said Obama was right regarding a quote of his. He was. He said that the Constitution limited government. I think that is literally the exact opposite of fascism, the idea of limited government.

My second thought was how ill suited you were to continue educating our fellow citizens on civics, or philosophy, or history, or really anything.

“Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working.“

Working to make people morons.

Constitution is an immovable foundation, not some wishy washy feel goody what do I want today document. It can only be modified at Great need and concensous.

The intent of the 2A is exactly the same as today with the goal of keeping the shithole government in check.

 

[sakinago]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

Wow, what a great display of just not being aware of history. This post is a good example of how education has severely let us down.

It wasn’t that founders never thought a standing army wouldn’t ever be strong enough to provide security. Quite the contrary, a standing army is much more effective than militias (as proven by Washington’s continental army) which was a top down structure that operated as a single unit vs the militias which were like herding cats and aiming them at the enemy. The founders (who were great students of history) were very afraid of an established standing army in peace time, since it’s always the military that seems turn on its own citizens who are basically defenseless against it, as well as put dictators in power. The founders wanted nothing to do with a standing army during peace time, and instead wanted to further empower the individual against a government/military/tyrant/etc. So they wanted their citizens armed, because a free society does not exist when government has a monopoly of force, nor would a government be willing to go make laws against its citizens who are armed.

The founders did not base the constitution on their times, they based it on what human nature was proven to do over and over again throughout history. They are principle based laws that combat what they’ve seen gone wrong over and over again throughout history. Technology may change, but humans really don’t change all that much. What we get fussy about may change, but the same themes are still there throughout history. We are short sighted far too often, and seem to forget the lessons the generations before us had to learn the hard way. The constitution was constructed so that we do not forget those lessons so easily.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

What a tub of fertilizer.

Seriously. The Constitution means exactly the same things in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE that it meant when written. Changing the meaning of words to change the intent is a game that the Progs have played for decades.

No thank you.

The intent was a compromise, something you would understand if you had studied US History.

 

[SavannahMann]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

Leftist BS lies to push your fascism.

A couple thoughts. First reading comprehension isn’t really your strong suit is it? Nowhere in that post did I argue that it was my desire. I said it was good that more people had learned the arguments in favor of the Second Amendment that the founders had encompassed with the Amendment. I said we needed to continue educating them in the principles behind those arguments.

I can only assume you had some sort of knee jerk reaction when I said Obama was right regarding a quote of his. He was. He said that the Constitution limited government. I think that is literally the exact opposite of fascism, the idea of limited government.

My second thought was how ill suited you were to continue educating our fellow citizens on civics, or philosophy, or history, or really anything.

“Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working.“

Working to make people morons.

Constitution is an immovable foundation, not some wishy washy feel goody what do I want today document. It can only be modified at Great need and concensous.

The intent of the 2A is exactly the same as today with the goal of keeping the shithole government in check.

Does it physically hurt to be that dumb? I only wonder because again, reading comprehension isn’t at all what is going on.

When I first got involved in this debate in the 1980’s, the people believed that Militia meant National Guard. That was the accepted definition of Militia. Now, thanks to the education of people, obviously not you, more people are aware that at the time of the Constitution’s being written, and the Second Amendment being ratified, the Militia was every able bodied free man.

The fact that this information has been learned is a good thing. I believe that people learning information about civics, history, philosophy, well just about anything is always a good thing. That is how they make informed choices. Well it’s how most of us make informed choices.

That is the good news I was talking about, a point you would have gotten if your reading comprehension was at the level of a grade school child. Obviously it is not. The bad news is that the people want it to mean what it did not at the time.

To put it as simply as possible. The people polled want the word Militia to mean National Guard. They know it did not mean it at the time, but they want it to be viewed that way.

I would go on, but since you are incapable of reading and comprehending, why bother.

 

[LeftofLeft]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

I don't buy the "majority" claim, but never let it be said there is a shortage of uneducated morons among the current American citizenry, and however many illegal "guests" responded to that poll.

never let it be said there is a shortage of uneducated morons among the current American citizenry,
That's for sure. Look at who's President.

This coming from the side that has elected officials believing Guam can tip over or that we must not review legislation in draft but pass it so we can see what is in the legislation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, you are the one who is wrong on this.

Feel free to point to my mistake in the verbiage of the contract. Or you could provide the agreement to the alteration, signed by the parties to the contract. Those are the only ways to prove me wrong..

Your errors have been rebutted many times with factual, objective evidence, and you simply go to the equivalent of "nuh uh, what about you."

(1) The OP is correct about how the majority want the Constitution handled in American law.

(2) SCOTUS has made it clear that it will decide how to do that, not the far right.

 

[longknife]

The Originalism Blog is something I check out on a daily basis that always has interesting commentary on the constitution and its original basis for the creation of the various clauses.

 

[iceberg]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

bullshit. times msy change its true. people do not.

leave it alone.