What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

Bob Blaylock

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
19,150
Reaction score
10,971
Points
1,265
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Another Trump U. constitutional "law" school correspondence school "gradiate"?

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.


WTF?
Who were the authors, that gave people god-given "rights"?
If these rights were "god-given" why didn't colonists have these "rights' before the constitution was written?
The government, claims they are "god-given", so why don't other countries have these rights?

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


Trying to answer you probably falls under the cliché about trying to teach a pig to sing. You're too deeply and inseparably wedded to the delusion that government is the source of all rights, and that a right does not exist unless government recognizes and upholds it.

Some emaciated Jew, in the 1940s, taking his last breath in one of Auschwitz's gas chambers—did he have a right not to be treated as he was?

By your apparent [lack of] logic, we would have to say that no, he did not have any such right. What was done to him was done in accordance with the laws and policies of the government under which jurisdiction he fell; was entirely legal under that government, and therefore, was ethically right as well.

That's kwanzaa, of course.

He did have a right not to be so treated. God created him, as He created all of us, with certain inherent rights, which include the right not to be rounded up, imprisoned, tortured, and exterminated because of our religion or our ancestry. The Nazis did not rightfully remove this right. The right still existed, even as the Nazis, in defiance of God, violated this right.

Governments do not create rights. They do not have the authority to grant or to remove rights. They have the duty under God to recognize, uphold, and protect rights; and wherever they fail to do so, their actions are illegitimate, and Godless. Those who hold positions in government, who use those positions to violate the rights of others, who fail to fulfill their duty to protect rights, will one day stand before God, and will very harshly be held by Him to answer for it. The worst parts of Hell will probably be populated mostly by politicians.
 

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
5,916
Reaction score
2,758
Points
918
Location
Florida
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.'

Your statement, proven false.
No, it isn't.

And so, again: Why do you disagree?
WTF?
Did Trump U. really teach his cult to ignore parts of ANYTHING you don't understand?

I don't disagree with what you typed about the constitution, that is correct.
But what you and Abatis or you at the moment, fail to grasp is you're relying on a contract, the constitution that the government wrote.
So, what makes you think they, the supreme court, and the states can't change that contract, the constitution, as THEY see fit?
 

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
5,916
Reaction score
2,758
Points
918
Location
Florida
The -states- wrote the constitution, and they can change, amend, or eliminate it.
No, they didn't, the states ratified it, they didn't write it.
The -government- can do no such thing absent approval from the state.
Yes, they can.
You're still relying on the words written in a contract, the constitution.
 

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
5,916
Reaction score
2,758
Points
918
Location
Florida
Trying to answer you probably falls under the cliché about trying to teach a pig to sing. You're too deeply and inseparably wedded to the delusion that government is the source of all rights, and that a right does not exist unless government recognizes and upholds it.
That's true.
Where else do your "rights" come from besides a government of ANY country that will recognize and uphold what you can and cannot do?
Some emaciated Jew, in the 1940s, taking his last breath in one of Auschwitz's gas chambers—did he have a right not to be treated as he was?
I think he did, but that is my opinion, along with like 75% of the world, at the time, not the NAZI's
By your apparent [lack of] logic, we would have to say that no, he did not have any such right.
By your lack of logic, you would believe that.
What was done to him was done in accordance with the laws and policies of the government under which jurisdiction he fell; was entirely legal under that government, and therefore, was ethically right as well.
The NAZI's had no such laws.
No, I think the Nazis knew it was ethically wrong.
The concentration and work camps were clandestine, with very little or no paper trail.
That's kwanzaa, of course.

He did have a right not to be so treated. God created him, as He created all of us, with certain inherent rights, which include the right not to be rounded up, imprisoned, tortured, and exterminated because of our religion or our ancestry. The Nazis did not rightfully remove this right. The right still existed, even as the Nazis, in defiance of God, violated this right.
WTF?
Who told you that?
Governments do not create rights. They do not have the authority to grant or to remove rights. They have the duty under God to recognize, uphold, and protect rights; and wherever they fail to do so, their actions are illegitimate, and Godless. Those who hold positions in government, who use those positions to violate the rights of others, who fail to fulfill their duty to protect rights, will one day stand before God, and will very harshly be held by Him to answer for it. The worst parts of Hell will probably be populated mostly by politicians.
OK, now I know, a book that was written by man.
Some of the ancestors of the crusades?

A perfect example of god-given rights would be the Taliban, in Afghanistan.
All their laws, based on religion.
 

Bob Blaylock

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
19,150
Reaction score
10,971
Points
1,265
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
But what you and Abatis or you at the moment, fail to grasp is you're relying on a contract, the constitution that the government wrote.
So, what makes you think they, the supreme court, and the states can't change that contract, the constitution, as THEY see fit?

It might have something to do with the fact that this contract—the Constitution—contains within itself the very terms by which it may be changed, and these terms do not allow any changes to be made in the manners that you suggest.
 

Bob Blaylock

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
19,150
Reaction score
10,971
Points
1,265
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Trying to answer you probably falls under the cliché about trying to teach a pig to sing. You're too deeply and inseparably wedded to the delusion that government is the source of all rights, and that a right does not exist unless government recognizes and upholds it.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Where else do your "rights" come from besides a government of ANY country that will recognize and uphold what you can and cannot do?
 

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
5,916
Reaction score
2,758
Points
918
Location
Florida
It might have something to do with the fact that this contract—the Constitution—contains within itself the very terms by which it may be changed, and these terms do not allow any changes to be made in the manners that you suggest.
Really?
Who doesn't allow it?

The government?
Terms?
The ones that wrote it.
 

Bob Blaylock

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
19,150
Reaction score
10,971
Points
1,265
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Really?
Who doesn't allow it?

The government?
Terms?
The ones that wrote it.

We're back into “trying to teach a pig to sing” territory with you.

The Constitution is very clear about how it may or may not be legitimately amended.

If you're too damn lazy, or too damn stupid, or both to read and understand it for yourself, then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you understand.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
139,687
Reaction score
18,196
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
We're back into “trying to teach a pig to sing” territory with you.

The Constitution is very clear about how it may or may not be legitimately amended.

If you're too damn lazy, or too damn stupid, or both to read and understand it for yourself, then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you understand.

Except we aren't talking about "legitimately amended", we are talking about interpretation.

You see, there used to be this whacky cult where the leaders were practicing polygamy and marrying 14 year old girls.... which if you read the constitution they should totally be allowed to do because Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of religion. Well, except the people not in that cult weren't too cool with that and passed a bunch of legislation to put a stop to that sort of thing. So eventually, the leaders of the Cult had a vision from God that the Polygamy had to come to an end.

NOW- in a more practical method, you have the Second Amendment as a guiding rule, but then you have to decide what constitutes a "Well-regulated militia" in relation to "right to bear arms". Which is why your average person can't own a howitzer or cook up Weapon's Grade Anthrax in his kitchen.

1642160553317.png


In short, the government can make laws based on pragmatism. The question is, does the right to bear arms really mean we all have to tolerate Joker Holmes buying an assault rifle with a 100 round magazine because what could possibly go wrong.

1642160702693.png

Looks totally sensible to me.

Now, I'm going to be very straight up. I actually think that Roe v. Wade is a bad ruling. It invents a right out of whole cloth. If you had an absolute right to do with your body whatever you want, we could dispense with the laws against prostitution, drug abuse, or selling your kidney on Ebay.

But it was addressing the reality that a law against abortion is impossible to really enforce. Not unless you are going to put a woman under house arrest from the point of conception to birth.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
29,206
Reaction score
5,117
Points
290
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
I don't disagree with what you typed about the constitution, that is correct.
But what you and Abatis or you at the moment, fail to grasp is you're relying on a contract, the constitution that the government wrote.
"The government" didn't write the constituion - the states did, and created "the government" with it.
How do you not know this?
So, what makes you think they, the supreme court, and the states can't change that contract, the constitution, as THEY see fit?
The states can change the constitution as they see fit. The USSC cannot.
The USSC can -interpret- the constitution as it sees fit, but that's not the same thing, and, ultimately, any such decision is subject to states' approval.
Not sure why you think you have anything resembling a meaningful point here.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
29,206
Reaction score
5,117
Points
290
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me

Abatis

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
735
Reaction score
341
Points
190
Location
Upper Bucks County, PA
Really?
Who doesn't allow it?

The government?
Terms?
The ones that wrote it.

And who is that?
Who established "the government"?
Who are the final arbiters and enforcers when "the government" usurps authority, ignores the principles of its establishment and exceeds the powers granted to "the government" by the Constitution?

I always thought Justice Patterson's eloquent explanation of what the Constitution IS compelling:
"What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it.​
The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: they derive their powers from the Constitution: It is their commission; and, therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void.​
The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature.​
The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative, Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve.​
Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt, that every act of the Legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, as absolutely void."​
VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)​
 

Abatis

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
735
Reaction score
341
Points
190
Location
Upper Bucks County, PA
Except we aren't talking about "legitimately amended", we are talking about interpretation.
. . .

NOW- in a more practical method, you have the Second Amendment as a guiding rule, but then you have to decide what constitutes a "Well-regulated militia" in relation to "right to bear arms". Which is why your average person can't own a howitzer or cook up Weapon's Grade Anthrax in his kitchen.

And another Porky, with his nose in the mud, is grunting out what he believes is an opera.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
39,504
Reaction score
30,613
Points
2,905
Location
Arizona
Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights,
Abortion is not a “constitutional right.”

So the law cannot be used to restrict actual constitutional rights.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
139,687
Reaction score
18,196
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
And another Porky, with his nose in the mud, is grunting out what he believes is an opera.

Naw, man, if you are going to argue your main reason for people to have weapons is so they can overthrow the eeebil gummmit, then why can't private citizens have weapons grade Anthrax? I mean, more effective for bringing down government than your "compensator".

Mind you, if everyone is going to have a variety of weapons, coordinating that Militia to overthrow the government might be difficult. "Okay, I brought the Anthrax... Um, Cleetus, did you bring the tank?"
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
50,967
Reaction score
12,838
Points
2,190
Location
North Carolina
Naw, man, if you are going to argue your main reason for people to have weapons is so they can overthrow the eeebil gummmit, then why can't private citizens have weapons grade Anthrax? I mean, more effective for bringing down government than your "compensator".

Mind you, if everyone is going to have a variety of weapons, coordinating that Militia to overthrow the government might be difficult. "Okay, I brought the Anthrax... Um, Cleetus, did you bring the tank?"
strategic weapons are barred from private ownership always been that way.
 

Abatis

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
735
Reaction score
341
Points
190
Location
Upper Bucks County, PA
Naw, man, if you are going to argue your main reason for people to have weapons is so they can overthrow the eeebil gummmit,

That's not my primary argument. My primary argument is that the federal government was never given any power to even compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen.

That fact disallows any grading of "reasons" for securing the right to arms; you have no justification for assigning any degrees of importance for the many reasons why the right to arms is excepted out of the powers granted to government. Put simply, government has no legitimate reason to qualify reasons.

then why can't private citizens have weapons grade Anthrax? I mean, more effective for bringing down government than your "compensator".

I would point to the principle of conferred powers and retained rights. The interests "We the People" have conferred (granted) to government (warmaking powers, maintaining an army) we can no longer claim any power / right to (to your quesiton, we have no claimable right to possess and use the weapons of open, indiscriminate warfare).

The obverse of that principle is of course, for those interests that "We the People" never granted government any aspect of any power over, the people retain full and complete rights to and government has no claim of authority in those interests (in this case, the right to keep and bear arms).

Mind you, if everyone is going to have a variety of weapons, coordinating that Militia to overthrow the government might be difficult. "Okay, I brought the Anthrax... Um, Cleetus, did you bring the tank?"

No doubt it would be undisciplined. It was assumed (by the framers) that the people would always have the state governments on their side and their organization and structure in a dispute with a tyrannical federal government and much ink was used explaining that.

Interestingly, Hamilton discussed in Federalist 28 what would happen if it was the state government that went tyrannical and the obvious deficiencies in order within the citizens fighting against that government. Of course defending Liberty from usurpers remains the priority no matter what the obstacles (and yes, a reason why the RKBA is secured). . . .


"In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."​
I don't expect a reasoned reply from you but a least you have been presented with the truth. I know it will make no difference to you because all you argue is that the "main reason for people to have weapons" is so they can murder.

.
 
Last edited:

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
5,916
Reaction score
2,758
Points
918
Location
Florida
"The government" didn't write the constituion - the states did, and created "the government" with it.
How do you not know this?
Where else would they come from?
But that was the only governing bodies the US had at the time, 13 different ones.
The federal government is what they were trying to establish.
STILL NOT my point.
The states can change the constitution as they see fit. The USSC cannot.
You're STILL relying on the constitution, a contract written by the government.

The USSC can -interpret- the constitution as it sees fit, but that's not the same thing, and, ultimately, any such decision is subject to states' approval.
True.
STILL NOT my point.
Not sure why you think you have anything resembling a meaningful point here.
The one keeps flying over your head.

December 3 2020
Michael Flynn, the recently pardoned three-week national security advisor for Donald Trump, shared an alarming message on Twitter Tuesday from something called the “We the People Convention.” The press release, titled “WTPC Calls for Trump to Declare Limited Martial Law,” not only does that but also calls for a temporary suspension of the entire U.S. constitution so that the one-term president can hold a new election.

“When the legislators, courts and/or Congress fail to do their duty under the 12th Amendment, you must be ready Mr. President to immediately declare a limited form of Martial Law, and temporarily suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections, for the sole purpose of having the military oversee a national re-vote,” wrote TEA Party leader Tom Zawistowski.
 

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
5,916
Reaction score
2,758
Points
918
Location
Florida
And who is that?
Who established "the government"?
Who are the final arbiters and enforcers when "the government" usurps authority, ignores the principles of its establishment and exceeds the powers granted to "the government" by the Constitution?

December 3 2020
Michael Flynn, the recently pardoned three-week national security advisor for Donald Trump, shared an alarming message on Twitter Tuesday from something called the “We the People Convention.” The press release, titled “WTPC Calls for Trump to Declare Limited Martial Law,” not only does that but also calls for a temporary suspension of the entire U.S. constitution so that the one-term president can hold a new election.

“When the legislators, courts and/or Congress fail to do their duty under the 12th Amendment, you must be ready Mr. President to immediately declare a limited form of Martial Law, and temporarily suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections, for the sole purpose of having the military oversee a national re-vote,” wrote TEA Party leader Tom Zawistowski.


I always thought Justice Patterson's eloquent explanation of what the Constitution IS compelling:
"What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it.​
The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: they derive their powers from the Constitution: It is their commission; and, therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void.​
The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature.​
The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative, Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve.​
That is what they are doing following Trump.
Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt, that every act of the Legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, as absolutely void."​
VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)​
 

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
5,916
Reaction score
2,758
Points
918
Location
Florida
We're back into “trying to teach a pig to sing” territory with you.

The Constitution is very clear about how it may or may not be legitimately amended.
No, shit, dumbass.
What if it was suspended?
What then "genius"?
If you're too damn lazy, or too damn stupid, or both to read and understand it for yourself, then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you understand.
Holy fuck what a retard.
Right back at you, IDIOT.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$80.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top