Kavanaugh Asks if Texas Abortion Law Could Be Model for Bans on Gun Rights

[Abatis]

1st amendment

Near v. Minnesota, 1931 “The liberty of the press … is safeguarded from invasion by state action.”

Although the First Amendment ensures a free press, until this case, it only protected the press from federal laws, not state laws. Minnesota shut down J. M. Near’s Saturday Press for publishing vicious antisemitic and racist remarks. In what is regarded as the landmark free press decision, the Court ruled that a state cannot engage in “prior restraint”; that is, with rare exceptions, it cannot stop a person from publishing or expressing a thought.

5th amendment
Miranda v. Arizona, 1966 “You have the right to remain silent …” After police questioning, Ernesto Miranda confessed to kidnapping and raping a woman. The Court struck down his conviction, on grounds that he was not informed of his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Hereafter, the Miranda warnings have been a standard feature of arrest procedures.

6TH amendment
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 Defendants in criminal cases have an absolute right to counsel.
Too poor to afford a lawyer, Clarence Earl Gideon was convicted for breaking into a poolroom—a felony crime in Florida. He appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the government must provide free counsel to accused criminals who cannot pay for it themselves. At first, the ruling applied to felonies only. It was later extended to cover any cases where the penalty was six months imprisonment or longer.

Those cases were applying the rights recognized and secured in the Bill of Rights on the states Those cases were "incorporating" those rights under the 14th Amendment which was deemed necessary to force states to respect the rights as secured in the federal constitution. Previous civil rights protections enacted by Congress (i.e., Civil Rights Act of 1866) were ineffective in forcing states to respect rights of Freemen, which forced making Freemen full US citizens and holding the states powerless to act against their rights.

The 14th AMENDMENT altered the relationship between the federal and state governments that the original Constitution established.

A new AMENDMENT was required to do those actions in law you note above.

WTF?
Who were the authors, that gave people god-given "rights"?

LOL. You have proven you can't understand law, now you want to dip your toe into philosophy???? Think of the great philosophers from The Enlightenment Period / The Age of Reason.

If these rights were "god-given" why didn't colonists have these "rights' before the constitution was written?

They did, that was the point. That the people possessed those rights but the English crown was authoritarian and not established upon the free association and decisions of the people, the Crown's government was deemed (in the Lockean sense) illegitimate and thus subject to the people throwing it off (and they were duty-bound to do just that).

The government, claims they are "god-given", so why don't other countries have these rights?

Because those governments are not predicated, established upon those principles (all power originates in the people, they freely choose the government. which is established to protect those inherent rights an only governs with their consent). Just because a nation's people are willing to suffer the insults of tyranny doesn't mean it isn't tyranny.

Those fundamental principles (conferred powers and retained rights) means "We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish" government but we retain everything not conferred . . . (again, see 9th and 10th Amendments).

Try to comprehend that "unalienable rights" is an utterly meaningless concept if there isn't a government being established, to NOT surrender rights to.

Huh?
So, the states already had all these rights before 1789?

The states didn't "have" the rights; the principle of pre-existing rights is even more evident in the state constitutions . . . Just read one; the rights of the citizen are called out, excepted out in Article I, before any powers are set-out.

The wording / construction of the provisions in the federal Bill of Rights flows from proposed amendments that came from the states who (along with anti-Federalists) demanded the citizen's rights that the states recognized, were secured against federal action.

The Federalists argued against adding a bill of rights. They argued that since the powers of the government were so exactingly set-out, no power was ever granted to act against those rights so they were safe.

The Federalists argued any attempt to list rights (which were considered everything not in the Constitution) was an absurd attempt to list what was uncountable. The list was believed dangerous as well, because in the future, someone might think those were the ONLY rights the people possessed, and everything else was thrown into the hands of the government. The 9th and 10th Amendments stand as the codification of Federalist arguments against the Bill of Rights, written as rules of interpretation.

.

 

[Abatis]

It's beyond evident, you don't.

Snide remarks are not an argument

Being a Trump U. grad, you think you do.

I was a student of the Constitution many decades before Trump came on the scene. Nothing he did or said modified what I had/have learned. Try to stay focused.

So.

Proof my statement that your brain can not comprehend the foundational principles of the US Constitution is absolutely true.

So.

Proof my statement that your brain can not comprehend the foundational principles of the US Constitution is absolutely true.

YES, they can.

Proof my statement that your brain can not comprehend the foundational principles of the US Constitution is absolutely true.

Who gave you those "inalienable rights"?

They are rights that our ours simply by being capable of reason.

Specifically, the authors of the principles the USA is founded on were primarily John Locke, Algernon Sidney and especially for "unalienable rights", Francis Hutcheson, plus many more for the operational aspects of republicanism and federalism.

I get that I am presenting you with concepts completely foreign to you but I have little interest in giving you a rudimentary education in political philosophy. perhaps read about John Locke, even Wikipedia is better than profound ignorance.

There's a reason why the period Locke and Sidney and the other great philosophers rose, is called "The Enlightenment" and "The Age of Reason".

Was it "god"?

The principle of inherent rights was a rebuttal to the King's divine right to rule and his unquestionable authority. That "divine right" was why the founders framed the rights arguments in the Declaration of Independence as "Endowed by the Creator".

The DoI was an oppositional political treatise to the then current colonial legal situation under the King. The primary purpose of "Endowed by the Creator" was to convey that rights are inherent and not granted by the King or flow from any legislative act of man.

It really wasn't a theological statement and especially one that your personal hostility for God or your atheist beliefs will or could alter or negate.

I do not personally take the "God given" path but I do not disparage those who do. The most important thing to settle on is our rights are not granted by a King or government.

WTF?
"Contractually bound"?
Yeah, the government's "contracts" are good as gold.

The Constitution is a contract between "We the People" and the government. Only "We the People" can cancel it.

"Before the constitution"?
Really?

Yes, and I quoted 213 years of Supreme Court decisions on that point.

So, why did the states have to actually ratify ANYTHING?

The process in Article V demands an amendment to the Constitution be ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths of the states.

That means the two amendments that you pine for, giving the federal government power over the personal arms of the private citizen and then, rescinding the 2nd Amendment, would each need to be ratified by 38 states . . . How many do you think you have?

Why did it take so long?

The 12 proposed amendments were transmitted to the states on September 25, 1789 and enough states had ratified #'s 3-12 on December 15, 1791, they were renumbered and became the Bill of Rights. One of the original two proposed amendments not ratified in 1791, pertaining to monetary compensation of members of Congress, was ratified in 1992.

So.

That's the SCOTUS enforcing the principles I speak of and that you deny.

You're the one who got suckered into taking the Trump U. constitutional "law" school correspondence course.
Trump is Karl Marx part duh!

Grow the fuck up.

.

 

[Smokin' OP]

What these leftist statist authoritarians don't realize is how absurd they sound, how completely divorced their ideas are from the founding principles of the Constitution.

As opposed to the RWNJ's reality of the constitution?

They just can't comprehend how the right can exist without being granted or established by the 2nd Amendment.

It wasn't a right, moron.
It took the bill of rights to make it a right, nationally.

It would not surprise me to hear them speculate that to stop injuries and deaths from falls, we should revise or even rescind Newton's Law of Gravitation from physics books . . . Problem solved, the words creating gravity have been removed!

Don't need one idiot, OSHA and state governments have construction codes for that.

Their ideas about the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment sound that absurd to me.

Trumptards "defending" an amendment sounds absurd to me.

Unless something nefarious happens, it won't be going anywhere, anytime soon.
But Trumptards feel the need to defend it?

 

[Abatis]

As opposed to the RWNJ's reality of the constitution?

I'll happily hold up my understanding and explanations to the crap you post.

It wasn't a right, moron.
It took the bill of rights to make it a right, nationally.

That ignores that before the federal Constitution many states had RKBA provisions in their Constitutions and the principle holds, since no power was ever granted to the feds to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen, no power exists, thus the right exists. A right is simply an "exception of powers never granted" . . .

The 2nd Amendment doesn't give, grant, create or otherwise establish the right to arms. The people don't have the right to arms because of what the 2nd Amendment says; they retained and possess the right today because of what the body of the Constitution doesn't say.

I don't expect you to understand that.

Don't need one idiot, OSHA and state governments have construction codes for that.

Sweet Merciful Jesus riding sidesaddle on a rainbow farting unicorn, waving a pink double-dong . . .

Trumptards "defending" an amendment sounds absurd to me.

That you use the insult "Trumptard" as you prove how profoundly ignorant you are and incapable of higher order thought, is really, really, funny.

Unless something nefarious happens, it won't be going anywhere, anytime soon.
But Trumptards feel the need to defend it?

If leftist statist authoritarians like you weren't so hostile to the Constitution, "defending" the rights recognized and secured by the Bill of Rights from your attacks, wouldn't be necessary.

.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Those cases were applying the rights recognized and secured in the Bill of Rights on the states Those cases were "incorporating" those rights under the 14th Amendment which was deemed necessary to force states to respect the rights as secured in the federal constitution. Previous civil rights protections enacted by Congress (i.e., Civil Rights Act of 1866) were ineffective in forcing states to respect rights of Freemen, which forced making Freemen full US citizens and holding the states powerless to act against their rights.

Really?
So, the 5th and 6th amendments weren't followed by the states?

The 14th AMENDMENT altered the relationship between the federal and state governments that the original Constitution established.

A new AMENDMENT was required to do those actions in law you note above.

But the 5th and 6th amendments weren't?

LOL. You have proven you can't understand law, now you want to dip your toe into philosophy???? Think of the great philosophers from The Enlightenment Period / The Age of Reason.

Yeah, LOL.
Who wrote the law and constitution?
Not philosophy in the slightest.

They did, that was the point. That the people possessed those rights but the English crown was authoritarian and not established upon the free association and decisions of the people, the Crown's government was deemed (in the Lockean sense) illegitimate and thus subject to the people throwing it off (and they were duty-bound to do just that).

They did but it was a secret?
They didn't. because Britain never gave them their "secret" rights

Because those governments are not predicated, established upon those principles (all power originates in the people, they freely choose the government. which is established to protect those inherent rights an only governs with their consent). Just because a nation's people are willing to suffer the insults of tyranny doesn't mean it isn't tyranny.

Those fundamental principles (conferred powers and retained rights) means "We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish" government but we retain everything not conferred . . . (again, see 9th and 10th Amendments).

Try to comprehend that "unalienable rights" is an utterly meaningless concept if there isn't a government being established, to NOT surrender rights to.

No shit.
That's my point, the government gave you those "rights".
The government can take them away.

You're citing something the government created for it's people.

The states didn't "have" the rights; the principle of pre-existing rights is even more evident in the state constitutions . . . Just read one; the rights of the citizen are called out, excepted out in Article I, before any powers are set-out.

Sure 13 of them.
"Pre-existing" rights?
The rights they had before the war and US constitution were British.

The wording / construction of the provisions in the federal Bill of Rights flows from proposed amendments that came from the states who (along with anti-Federalists) demanded the citizen's rights that the states recognized, were secured against federal action.

The Federalists argued against adding a bill of rights. They argued that since the powers of the government were so exactingly set-out, no power was ever granted to act against those rights so they were safe.

The Federalists argued any attempt to list rights (which were considered everything not in the Constitution) was an absurd attempt to list what was uncountable. The list was believed dangerous as well, because in the future, someone might think those were the ONLY rights the people possessed, and everything else was thrown into the hands of the government. The 9th and 10th Amendments stand as the codification of Federalist arguments against the Bill of Rights, written as rules of interpretation.

.

Correct.
That isn't guaranteed by anything but the US government.

 

[Smokin' OP]

I'll happily hold up my understanding and explanations to the crap you post.

I have no problems with your explanations.
You just keep repeating a document the government created and wrote.

That ignores that before the federal Constitution many states had RKBA provisions in their Constitutions and the principle holds, since no power was ever granted to the feds to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen, no power exists, thus the right exists. A right is simply an "exception of powers never granted" . . .

The 2nd Amendment doesn't give, grant, create or otherwise establish the right to arms.

Yes, it does.
What other entity gave you rights to own guns before the 2nd amendment?

The people don't have the right to arms because of what the 2nd Amendment says; they retained and possess the right today because of what the body of the Constitution doesn't say.

I don't expect you to understand that.

You still don't understand that right was given to everyone nationally by the constitution and the supreme court.

Sweet Merciful Jesus riding sidesaddle on a rainbow farting unicorn, waving a pink double-dong . . .

As you hug your Trumpy bear in one hand and your pea-shooter in the other?

That you use the insult "Trumptard" as you prove how profoundly ignorant you are and incapable of higher order thought, is really, really, funny.

As you think 'god" gave you "rights", not the constitution?

If leftist statist authoritarians like you weren't so hostile to the Constitution, "defending" the rights recognized and secured by the Bill of Rights from your attacks, wouldn't be necessary.

.

WTF?
Hostile towards the constitution?
A republican fantasy like the war on christmas.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Snide remarks are not an argument



I was a student of the Constitution many decades before Trump came on the scene. Nothing he did or said modified what I had/have learned. Try to stay focused.

SO.

Proof my statement that your brain can not comprehend the foundational principles of the US Constitution is absolutely true.



Proof my statement that your brain can not comprehend the foundational principles of the US Constitution is absolutely true.



Proof my statement that your brain can not comprehend the foundational principles of the US Constitution is absolutely true.



They are rights that our ours simply by being capable of reason.

Really?
So, if those rights were just reasoning, why have the bill of rights?

Specifically, the authors of the principles the USA is founded on were primarily John Locke, Algernon Sidney and especially for "unalienable rights", Francis Hutcheson, plus many more for the operational aspects of republicanism and federalism.

Were based on?
The actual document had authors, they were THE government.

I get that I am presenting you with concepts completely foreign to you but I have little interest in giving you a rudimentary education in political philosophy. perhaps read about John Locke, even Wikipedia is better than profound ignorance.

There's a reason why the period Locke and Sidney and the other great philosophers rose, is called "The Enlightenment" and "The Age of Reason".

You're presenting a concept that the constitution was somehow created by some superior entity, written in stone that can't be changed, even by the people that wrote it.

The principle of inherent rights was a rebuttal to the King's divine right to rule and his unquestionable authority. That "divine right" was why the founders framed the rights arguments in the Declaration of Independence as "Endowed by the Creator".

Endowed by their creator.....................?
Written by.........................?

The DoI was an oppositional political treatise to the then current colonial legal situation under the King. The primary purpose of "Endowed by the Creator" was to convey that rights are inherent and not granted by the King or flow from any legislative act of man.

But granted by another entity..................the US government.

It really wasn't a theological statement and especially one that your personal hostility for God or your atheist beliefs will or could alter or negate.

Really?
Can you prove god gave you those rights, 1700 years prior to the constitution?

I do not personally take the "God given" path but I do not disparage those who do. The most important thing to settle on is our rights are not granted by a King or government.



The Constitution is a contract between "We the People" and the government. Only "We the People" can cancel it.

Last I checked, there on people in the government and that another item the government "promised' the people.

Yes, and I quoted 213 years of Supreme Court decisions on that point.



The process in Article V demands an amendment to the Constitution be ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths of the states.

Very good.

That means the two amendments that you pine for, giving the federal government power over the personal arms of the private citizen and then, rescinding the 2nd Amendment, would each need to be ratified by 38 states . . . How many do you think you have?

Doesn't matter.

The 12 proposed amendments were transmitted to the states on September 25, 1789 and enough states had ratified #'s 3-12 on December 15, 1791, they were renumbered and became the Bill of Rights. One of the original two proposed amendments not ratified in 1791, pertaining to monetary compensation of members of Congress, was ratified in 1992.



That's the SCOTUS enforcing the principles I speak of and that you deny.

You're FOS.

Grow the fuck up.

.

You're the moron that thinks god gave you rights.

 

[Abatis]

Really?
So, the 5th and 6th amendments weren't followed by the states?

But the 5th and 6th amendments weren't?

Yes, really . . . The federal Bill of Rights was not enforceable on the states. When I throw a word like "incorporation" in my post, try running it through Google; I'm not writing it for fun, it actually means something..

Yeah, LOL.
Who wrote the law and constitution?
Not philosophy in the slightest.

OK

Jefferson, who established the University of Virginia, mandated that Locke and Sidney's works be required reading. He wrote,

"Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Board that as to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and in society, the doctrines of Locke, in his "Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government," and of Sidney in his "Discourses on government," may be considered as those generally approved by our fellow citizens of this, and the United States, and that on the distinctive principles of the government of our State, and of that of the United States, the best guides are to be found in, 1. The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these States. 2. The book known by the title of "The Federalist," being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the United States, on questions as to its genuine meaning. 3. The Resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia in 1799 on the subject of the alien and sedition laws, which appeared to accord with the predominant sense of the people of the United States. 4. The valedictory address of President Washington, as conveying political lessons of peculiar value. And that in the branch of the school of law, which is to treat on the subject of civil polity, these shall be used as the text and documents of the school." -- University of Virginia Library, Jefferson, Thomas, 1743-1826. Public Papers, "Report to the President and Directors of the Literary Fund, October 7, 1822​

They did but it was a secret?
They didn't. because Britain never gave them their "secret" rights

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

That's my point, the government gave you those "rights".
The government can take them away.

You're citing something the government created for it's people.

No, the people created the Constitution which is the charter of the specific, limited powers the government possesses. No power was ever granted that would allow government to violate rights.

If government does violate the principles of its establishment and exceeds the powers granted to it, it is no longer --the government established by the Constitution-- it is something else and subject to the citizens rescinding their consent to be governed and reclaiming the powers originally conferred. If that depowering can not be done peacefully, then the people have the original right to keep and bear arms, as secured in the 2nd Amendment, using violence to unseat the usurpers.

Sure 13 of them.

By all means, find a state constitution that does not begin with an Article I that calls out a declaration of rights. Even the modern lefty states declare this along the lines of:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.​

"Pre-existing" rights?
The rights they had before the war and US constitution were British.

The rights recognized could be said to be British; the rights that were being violated were inherent rights, which is what compelled the Americans to throw-off the Brits.

Correct.
That isn't guaranteed by anything but the US government.

So your gig is to not even read what I write . . . I'm not asking you to agree, I not even asking you compose a cogent rebuttal . . . But to write the above, in complete opposition to what I wrote, saying "correct" shows you are just a contrarian and are not worth my time.

.

 

[Abatis]

SO.

Really?
So, if those rights were just reasoning, why have the bill of rights?

I align with the Federalists,.

Were based on?
The actual document had authors, they were THE government.

they were not the founders of the political philosophy

You're presenting a concept that the constitution was somehow created by some superior entity, written in stone that can't be changed, even by the people that wrote it.

It can be changed, by the process in Art. V

Endowed by their creator.....................?
Written by.........................?

But granted by another entity..................the US government.

You are thick.

Really?
Can you prove god gave you those rights, 1700 years prior to the constitution?

Last I checked, there on people in the government and that another item the government "promised' the people.

I'm the one arguing it isn't a theological statement.

Very good.

LOL

Doesn't matter.

Of course it does, you can't do what you want to do without those amendments and the shear numbers and politics say you will never be able to do it. Go shove your gun control up your ass.

You're FOS.

How? Can you formulate any argument that demonstrates any intelligence, knowledge and understanding?

You're the moron that thinks god gave you rights.

You're the one that keeps writing shit and assigning it to me that not only didn't I say but I expressly denounced.

Are you really that slow? I've tried to give you every opportunity to act like an adult and converse like an adult and you just revert to being a petulant child who just keeps saying they want a cookie before dinner.

To call you obtuse would require the assignment of at least 80 IQ points.

.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Yes, really . . . The federal Bill of Rights was not enforceable on the states. When I throw a word like "incorporation" in my post, try running it through Google; I'm not writing it for fun, it actually means something..

WTF?
The constitution had to be ratified by the states.
The bill of rights are part of the constitution.

OK

Jefferson, who established the University of Virginia, mandated that Locke and Sidney's works be required reading. He wrote,

"Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Board that as to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and in society, the doctrines of Locke, in his "Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government," and of Sidney in his "Discourses on government," may be considered as those generally approved by our fellow citizens of this, and the United States, and that on the distinctive principles of the government of our State, and of that of the United States, the best guides are to be found in, 1. The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these States. 2. The book known by the title of "The Federalist," being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the United States, on questions as to its genuine meaning. 3. The Resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia in 1799 on the subject of the alien and sedition laws, which appeared to accord with the predominant sense of the people of the United States. 4. The valedictory address of President Washington, as conveying political lessons of peculiar value. And that in the branch of the school of law, which is to treat on the subject of civil polity, these shall be used as the text and documents of the school." -- University of Virginia Library, Jefferson, Thomas, 1743-1826. Public Papers, "Report to the President and Directors of the Literary Fund, October 7, 1822​

Yes, required reading.
Still doesn't make Locke and Sidney authors of the constitution.

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

Yes.

No, the people created the Constitution which is the charter of the specific, limited powers the government possesses. No power was ever granted that would allow government to violate rights.

Really?

The people of the government.
George Washington started his term in 1789.
The constitution was ratified until 1791.

If government does violate the principles of its establishment and exceeds the powers granted to it, it is no longer --the government established by the Constitution-- it is something else and subject to the citizens rescinding their consent to be governed and reclaiming the powers originally conferred. If that depowering can not be done peacefully, then the people have the original right to keep and bear arms, as secured in the 2nd Amendment, using violence to unseat the usurpers.



By all means, find a state constitution that does not begin with an Article I that calls out a declaration of rights. Even the modern lefty states declare this along the lines of:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.​

So, why don't all the countries of the world have these 'inalienable" rights?

The rights recognized could be said to be British; the rights that were being violated were inherent rights, which is what compelled the Americans to throw-off the Brits.

Really?
But you stated they were "inalienable"?

So your gig is to not even read what I write . . . I'm not asking you to agree, I not even asking you compose a cogent rebuttal . . . But to write the above, in complete opposition to what I wrote, saying "correct" shows you are just a contrarian and are not worth my time.

I know, you're completely missing the point, even after I explained it to you.

.

 

[Smokin' OP]

I align with the Federalists,.



they were not the founders of the political philosophy

Really?
I'm am almost certain the authors to the constitution had to have had some sort of political philosophy in mind when they wrote the constitution.

It can be changed, by the process in Art. V

What if they changed that?

You are thick.

You are really dense.

I'm the one arguing it isn't a theological statement.



LOL



Of course it does, you can't do what you want to do without those amendments and the shear numbers and politics say you will never be able to do it.

You still don't get it, you think the government that wrote the rules are going to abide by them?

Go shove your gun control up your ass.

Go hug your Trumpy bear.

How? Can you formulate any argument that demonstrates any intelligence, knowledge and understanding?



You're the one that keeps writing shit and assigning it to me that not only didn't I say but I expressly denounced.

Are you really that slow? I've tried to give you every opportunity to act like an adult and converse like an adult and you just revert to being a petulant child who just keeps saying they want a cookie before dinner.

As everything flies over your head but keep repeating the document the government wrote.

To call you obtuse would require the assignment of at least 80 IQ points.

Right, you still think the government can't take your rights away because they are "Inalienable", because the government told you they were?

You're still in the single digits in IQ points, just like your dear leader.

.

 

[Abatis]

WTF?
The constitution had to be ratified by the states.
The bill of rights are part of the constitution.

I can understand your politics forcing you to have a f'ed up understanding of he 2ndA, but the fact that the states were not bound by the federal Bill of Rights is fundamental US history.

Yes, required reading.
Still doesn't make Locke and Sidney authors of the constitution.

Yes, required reading to understand the concept of rights under the Constitution. Maybe you should follow his directive?

I didn't say authors of the Constitution, I said they were the authors of the philosophy the framers of the Constitution embraced and employed to form our government.

Yes.

I said "Declaration of Independence, not Das Kapital.

Really?

The people of the government.
George Washington started his term in 1789.
The constitution was ratified until 1791.

Yes, really. Read Federalist 84 for an explanation of the concept.

So, why don't all the countries of the world have these 'inalienable" rights?

Already answered that. You seem to be operating under a definition of un/inalienable that has no relationship to it's actual meaning and definitely without any reference to what I wrote.

Really?
But you stated they were "inalienable"?

Already answered that. You seem to be operating under a definition of un/inalienable that has no relationship to it's actual meaning and definitely without any reference to what I wrote.

I know, you're completely missing the point, even after I explained it to you.

You have no "point" your position has nothing it rests on; you argue without any base of knowledge or understanding.

Back in the late 1700's, there were only two competing political philosophies represented in a few treatises. For the King and monarchy, aristocracy and absolutism there was Sir Robert Filmer and Jean Bodin . . . For inherent rights, the concept of individual liberty and a legitimate government established on popular consent, there was Locke and Sidney.

In a discussion of the Constitution, those are the only possibilities . . . To introduce collectivist or other late 19th or even 20th Century political philosophies as being influential or instructive on discerning the meaning of the Constitution, is ignorant leftist garbage.

With your ungrounded, formless BS, you can't even claim that distinction.

 

[Smokin' OP]

I can understand your politics forcing you to have a f'ed up understanding of he 2ndA, but the fact that the states were not bound by the federal Bill of Rights is fundamental US history.

They still had had a right to outlaw them, make them mandatory or something in between.
So, the states had "Inalienable" rights?

Yes, required reading to understand the concept of rights under the Constitution. Maybe you should follow his directive?

I didn't say authors of the Constitution, I said they were the authors of the philosophy the framers of the Constitution embraced and employed to form our government.

OK.

I said "Declaration of Independence, not Das Kapital.



Yes, really. Read Federalist 84 for an explanation of the concept.

Don't give a fuck about the concepts, concepts are not the constitution.

Already answered that. You seem to be operating under a definition of un/inalienable that has no relationship to it's actual meaning and definitely without any reference to what I wrote.



Already answered that. You seem to be operating under a definition of un/inalienable that has no relationship to it's actual meaning and definitely without any reference to what I wrote.



You have no "point" your position has nothing it rests on; you argue without any base of knowledge or understanding.

I understand just fine.
You're the one that doesn't understand.

The government wrote the constitution and they can change, amend or eliminate it.

Back in the late 1700's, there were only two competing political philosophies represented in a few treatises. For the King and monarchy, aristocracy and absolutism there was Sir Robert Filmer and Jean Bodin . . . For inherent rights, the concept of individual liberty and a legitimate government established on popular consent, there was Locke and Sidney.

In a discussion of the Constitution, those are the only possibilities . . . To introduce collectivist or other late 19th or even 20th Century political philosophies as being influential or instructive on discerning the meaning of the Constitution, is ignorant leftist garbage.

With your ungrounded, formless BS, you can't even claim that distinction.

You keep repeating drivel about the constitution, it background how it came about and other BS.
I don't give a fuck.
You STILL can't grasp that the people in/that formed the government wrote the constitution and cannot be changed/suspended or eliminated by the government.

What makes you think all these "rights" were given to you by someone/something other than the government?

 

[westwall]

Because you believe NRA propaganda?

Europe has nowhere near the gun violence the US has.

No, because it is true. No shit. Most of their violent population got killed off in two world wars.

Duh.

Now they are importing violent 3rd worlders and the crime rates are skyrocketing.

DURRRRRR

 

[M14 Shooter]

My point which you and Abatis do not understand.
The enumerated "rights" and the entire constitution depend on the government.

The government, itself, disagrees:

The government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,

The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. 'To secure these rights,' says the Declaration of Independence, 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'

UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL.

www.law.cornell.edu

Your statement, proven false.

And so, again: Why do you disagree?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The government wrote the constitution and they can change, amend or eliminate it.

The -states- wrote the constitution, and they can change, amend, or eliminate it.
The -government- can do no such thing absent approval from the state.

 

[JoeB131]

No, because it is true. No shit. Most of their violent population got killed off in two world wars.

Duh.

Now they are importing violent 3rd worlders and the crime rates are skyrocketing.

Wow, so you are saying soldiers are "violent populations"? Really?

 

[miketx]

That seems very dubious. Justifiable homicides are very few.

Prove it liar.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wow, so you are saying soldiers are "violent populations"? Really?

retard more civilians were killed then soldiers.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No!

In Canada and Scandinavia, even the worst criminals are treated humanely.

The result of that is that more human beings are victimized by these criminals. Fuck the idea of treating these animals “humanely”. I would much rather see human beings treated humanely, and this includes protecting human beings from the acts of criminals, no matter what must be done to criminals to achieve this.

You can either be on the side of human beings, or you can be on the side of criminals. It is not possible to be on both sides; for the interests of the two are irreconcilable one with the other.