Consistency In Interpretations of the US Constitution

[Dante]

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.



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 |

 

[Dante]

of course the Second Amendment doesn't actually SAY "self defense"...the right to self defense is protected by the Second Amendment

Americans have far more rights than are named in the Constitution.

rights don't come from the government, they come from God.
"self defense" does not come from the Constitution, it's only protected by it.

The second amendment does not cover the right to self defense.......only a well regulated militia

...

- JoeB supports rightwinger's view here

The right to self defense always came from the state level. The Constitution was concerned about the ability to assemble citizen militias

The right to self defense, as with all other rights, is not absolute, and it is subject to appropriate and reasonable restrictions.

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

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

The second amendment does not cover the right to self defense.......only a well regulated militia

Absolutely false. It mentions a well regulated militia, but it states "the right of the people", not a right of militia or of the gov't.

 

[Dante]

disappointingly editec just blah - blah - blahs -- too bad.
kondarv adds nothing too
OODA_loop adds nothing too

The right to bear arms is given to citizens in order to defend themselves.

there is no right to self defense in the COnstitution. THat comes via common law.

There is no mention of self defense in the Constitution. There is a reason stated, but it is not a limiting reason. This is all spelled out in Heller.
By your reading everything is a right. Gay marriage, abortion, etc etc.

The 2nd amendment says the right of the people, not the right of the militia...The founders were very clear in their letters about wanting the American people to be armed.

peach and jillian agree with rightwinger and sallow

There is no other amendment that ends - "shall not be infringed." There is no interpretation needed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is very, very clear.

Triton adds more of nothing as does JakeStarkey

The second amendment does not cover the right to self defense.......only a well regulated militia

That is correct.

Everyone knows that slaves do have no right to life or to defend the same.

As always, Heil Hitler.

Justice Joseph Story, who wrote in his 1833 “Commentaries on the Constitution,” “

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

Katzndogz contributes something - to more of nothing

The right to keep and bear arms covers a great many things - inarguably, self-defense is one of them. To place focus on one of thse great many things does not deny the existence, and does not diminish the imprtance of, the others.

States are granted powers by the people that create them; as such, states cannot grant rights to their people.

------

Rights are not granted by the states that's why the people are the militia to protect their inalienable rights.

can somebody explain things to red?

---

 

[Dante]

this one deserves it's own area as T will deny what it is he is saying...

The Second Amendment was enumerated (crafted) precisely for the citizen to protect thier life, liberty, property from all enemies foreign and domestice including thier own government as a last resort.

What is so confusing to so many about it?

The OP is quite on target especially the Ninth Amendment...which bolsters the Second...

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

There's NOTHING vague about it.

It WARNS the Federal government to not overstretch/overreach...reminds them that the PEOPLE have ultimate power under law.

 

[Dante]

I think it's absurd to use the word reason in reference to human behavior. We aren't reasonable or rational human beings.

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

 

[Dante]

I think it's absurd to use the word reason in reference to human behavior. We aren't reasonable or rational human beings.

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

and then we had an extremely long thread on this....

 

[Dante]

Wondering how it all turned out

 

[Dante]

still wondering...

 

[DGS49]

(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.

 

[Dante]

(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.

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.

 

[Dante]

ex:

bendog

"Without the 17th...Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?"

We are back to that. That was and is the opinion of critics of the 17th. State legislatures are better off sticking to state issues and not national ones. They actually function better that way.

Reagan was a doddering old fool in many ways. If people want a program -- keep your ideology off their programs. What Reagan wanted was for government to interfere with what people wanted

Graft was horrific before direct elections. Who cares what the framers envisioned about this -- they left in place an amendment process because THEY KNEW they couldn't possibly envision everything

IMNSHO, practically "there isn't much chance of amending the constitution" not because of Citizens United, but because we have demagogues were we need leaders. None of us trust enough people to get their hands on amendments or redoing the Constitution.

Term limits invites it's own set of problems, where the remedy might just be worse than the dis-ease. It sux in California where I am now -- as does the imbecilic ballot initiative.

Money doesn't BUY elections, it persuades stupid people too dumb to get informed on issues (yet who know sports stats and celebrity gossip like experts) to vote or not vote one way or the other and even to vote or stay home.

People are the problem, not government

I didn't assert that CI impaired amending the constitution. The Irony was that Roberts said he just wanted to be a fair umpire and call balls and strikes. The 17th didn't end graft, but it did ultimately (or perhaps until CI) allow us to demand those buying influence identify themselves.

I think Reagan wanted a return to pre-civil rights laws America, and I don't mean to imply he was racist.

People have always been the problem. To that, there's no answer.

What Roberts did is classic -- he took the principled stance of bending over backward in order to respect Congress' role. It has been the philosophy of most all the Justices for ages

Not really. He declared congress to be without the power it exercised first in 1907, and then in 1947 and again in 1971. Some of us thought that his view of the constitution was just pre-great society, but it seems the new deal and even progressivism are fair game.

Try reading his decision and not the rantings of the blabbersphere.

The PPACA was a duly enacted law passed by a duly elected Congress and a duly elected President. The Court laid out it's reasoning on both the unconstitutionality and constitutionality differing challenges to law

here is a little bit to explain why you are not only in error, but spouting ideologically based talking points:

Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. “Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.” United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Our deference in matters of policy cannot, however,become abdication in matters of law. “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed. “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190–191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969). And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176.

The questions before us must be considered against the background of these basic principles.

We disagree

So bendog agrees that the Court should "strike down an Act of Congress" no matter if the "constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question" has been "clearly demonstrated?"

 

[regent]

There are different ways of interpreting, does each justice have their favorite or do they interpret differently depending on the case or those involved?

 

[Dante]

There are different ways of interpreting, does each justice have their favorite or do they interpret differently depending on the case or those involved?

Answered this last night. Must have not got into the database.

I believe each justice has their own judicial philosophy and mostly use that in cases before the court, then we get Bush v Gore.

 

[Ivan88]

The Constitution was created to limit the American Man.
Americans had more power and rights before the Constitution.