Living Document or Not?

[Wry Catcher]

Yes, you fool the Crips and the Bloods ARE legal, as are the various private militias running around, they only become ILLEGAL when they commit a crime.

Really? How do you explain the San Francisco ordinance making the gathering of two or more members, within a specific region of The City, of the Bayside Mob a crime?
Or, more to the point, RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) may apply to the crazies running around the woods with automatic weapons.

OK Wry, make your case. Please set out a prima facie case using RICO either civil or criminal and apply it to "crazies running around the woods." I'll wait.

On it's face? Sure, easy. Members of the (pick a state) militia, in possession of automatic weapons, illegal by federal statute, as well as one member of the militia who is a convicted felon, gather together at a rally supporting a nationwide boycott of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.
Conspiracy, weapons, felon in possession of a firearm.

 

[jillian]

That said, the SCOTUS has erred in its interpretation before, isn't that right JS?

Yes. And hopefully at some point they'll correct the monstrosity that is Citizen's United. They can't ever make up for Bush v Gore.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Really? How do you explain the San Francisco ordinance making the gathering of two or more members, within a specific region of The City, of the Bayside Mob a crime?
Or, more to the point, RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) may apply to the crazies running around the woods with automatic weapons.

OK Wry, make your case. Please set out a prima facie case using RICO either civil or criminal and apply it to "crazies running around the woods." I'll wait.

On it's face? Sure, easy. Members of the (pick a state) militia, in possession of automatic weapons, illegal by federal statute, as well as one member of the militia who is a convicted felon, gather together at a rally supporting a nationwide boycott of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.
Conspiracy, weapons, felon in possession of a firearm.

it is not illeagl to own a automatic weapon. Anything made before 1986 can be owned if you get the permits.

 

[Tech_Esq]

That said, the SCOTUS has erred in its interpretation before, isn't that right JS?

Yes. And hopefully at some point they'll correct the monstrosity that is Citizen's United. They can't ever make up for Bush v Gore.

I'm gunning for US v. Darby Lumber Co., turning one of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights into a smoking heap of rubble is inexcusably corrupt. And, Wickard v. Filburn, granting the Congress unlimited powers was also a politically corrupt act by the same Supreme Court justices. It was only the fear of Roosevelt's court packing and finally getting enough justices after being elected to a third term that created this mess. It's going to take decades to undo the damage it's caused.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Really? How do you explain the San Francisco ordinance making the gathering of two or more members, within a specific region of The City, of the Bayside Mob a crime?
Or, more to the point, RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) may apply to the crazies running around the woods with automatic weapons.

OK Wry, make your case. Please set out a prima facie case using RICO either civil or criminal and apply it to "crazies running around the woods." I'll wait.

On it's face? Sure, easy. Members of the (pick a state) militia, in possession of automatic weapons, illegal by federal statute, as well as one member of the militia who is a convicted felon, gather together at a rally supporting a nationwide boycott of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.
Conspiracy, weapons, felon in possession of a firearm.

That's not even close to a prima facie case of RICO. Have you ever filed a RICO pleading?

 

[Wry Catcher]

OK Wry, make your case. Please set out a prima facie case using RICO either civil or criminal and apply it to "crazies running around the woods." I'll wait.

On it's face? Sure, easy. Members of the (pick a state) militia, in possession of automatic weapons, illegal by federal statute, as well as one member of the militia who is a convicted felon, gather together at a rally supporting a nationwide boycott of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.
Conspiracy, weapons, felon in possession of a firearm.

it is not illeagl to own a automatic weapon. Anything made before 1986 can be owned if you get the permits.

In the example the weapons are Russian and Chinese made and illegally imported.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

OK Wry, make your case. Please set out a prima facie case using RICO either civil or criminal and apply it to "crazies running around the woods." I'll wait.

On it's face? Sure, easy. Members of the (pick a state) militia, in possession of automatic weapons, illegal by federal statute, as well as one member of the militia who is a convicted felon, gather together at a rally supporting a nationwide boycott of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.
Conspiracy, weapons, felon in possession of a firearm.

That's not even close to a prima facie case of RICO. Have you ever filed a RICO pleading?

His first big mistake was saying that it was illegal to own a automatic firearm.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

On it's face? Sure, easy. Members of the (pick a state) militia, in possession of automatic weapons, illegal by federal statute, as well as one member of the militia who is a convicted felon, gather together at a rally supporting a nationwide boycott of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.
Conspiracy, weapons, felon in possession of a firearm.

it is not illeagl to own a automatic weapon. Anything made before 1986 can be owned if you get the permits.

In the example the weapons are Russian and Chinese made and illegally imported.

Thats not what you said.

"in possession of automatic weapons, illegal by federal statute"

http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIF1.html

 

[jillian]

That said, the SCOTUS has erred in its interpretation before, isn't that right JS?

Yes. And hopefully at some point they'll correct the monstrosity that is Citizen's United. They can't ever make up for Bush v Gore.

I'm gunning for US v. Darby Lumber Co., turning one of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights into a smoking heap of rubble is inexcusably corrupt. And, Wickard v. Filburn, granting the Congress unlimited powers was also a politically corrupt act by the same Supreme Court justices. It was only the fear of Roosevelt's court packing and finally getting enough justices after being elected to a third term that created this mess. It's going to take decades to undo the damage it's caused.

funny... i think that was a correct decision. in fact, i can't imagine taking issue with government's right to legislate workplace conditions.

and i think the new deal did good... not bad. so there ya go.

the court wasn't that afraid of being 'packed'... they struck down parts of then new deal.

 

[Tech_Esq]

it is not illeagl to own a automatic weapon. Anything made before 1986 can be owned if you get the permits.

In the example the weapons are Russian and Chinese made and illegally imported.

Thats not what you said.

"in possession of automatic weapons, illegal by federal statute"

rec.guns FAQ: II.F.1. General Guide to Class 3 Weapons

He's realizing his mistake and trying to get it close to a RICO claim. It has to effect Interstate Commerce to meet RICO. By now positing that the arms were illegal foreign weapons, he meets the commerce aspect. But he has yet to allege several element required for RICO.

 

[Liability]

Damn that's just wrong.

We most absolutely do NOT live in a "common law" nation. That's simply wrong.

While it is true that our roots DO include the common law, it is also true that we have a large array of codified laws. In fact, our FOUNDING CHARTER, the Constitution, is obviously NOT a "common law" document. We have a MIX of common law and codified law.

We have stare decisis, but we also have very exacting codified laws that may often trump precedent. I don't deny that we have SOME principles of common law inherent in our judicial system because we do. But that's a different kettle of fish than claimin that we "are" a common law country.

Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?

Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?

Beats the hell out of me stupidity I guess.

you mean a 'lib' attorney who knows EXACTLY the type of legal system we live under?

really?

No. A lib like you who apparently doesn't quite know the exact type of legal system we live under, like you.

You, for example, seem to believe (erroneously) that the United States has a "common law" legal system; but if you actually did know exactly what kind of legal system we live under, you wouldn't make such a rookie mistake.

Our legal system is only a common law system in part; not in whole.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In the example the weapons are Russian and Chinese made and illegally imported.

Thats not what you said.

"in possession of automatic weapons, illegal by federal statute"

rec.guns FAQ: II.F.1. General Guide to Class 3 Weapons

He's realizing his mistake and trying to get it close to a RICO claim. It has to effect Interstate Commerce to meet RICO. By now positing that the arms were illegal foreign weapons, he meets the commerce aspect. But he has yet to allege several element required for RICO.

Sorry I did not mean to kill your mid morning surprise.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Yes. And hopefully at some point they'll correct the monstrosity that is Citizen's United. They can't ever make up for Bush v Gore.

I'm gunning for US v. Darby Lumber Co., turning one of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights into a smoking heap of rubble is inexcusably corrupt. And, Wickard v. Filburn, granting the Congress unlimited powers was also a politically corrupt act by the same Supreme Court justices. It was only the fear of Roosevelt's court packing and finally getting enough justices after being elected to a third term that created this mess. It's going to take decades to undo the damage it's caused.

funny... i think that was a correct decision. in fact, i can't imagine taking issue with government's right to legislate workplace conditions.

and i think the new deal did good... not bad. so there ya go.

the court wasn't that afraid of being 'packed'... they struck down parts of then new deal.

I simply cannot abide that the Supreme Court has the power, by judicial fiat, to strike down an Amendment to the Constitution. If they can strike the 10th Amendment by fiat, they can strike the First Amendment by that same fiat. It's just plain dangerous to have as a precedent.

The court did strike down a number of New Deal programs in the first 8 years of the Roosevelt's administration, however the Darby and Wickard decisions we decided in the 1940s after Roosevelt was elected for his third term and it was clear to the court that he wasn't going anywhere (no way to wait the retirements until the other party took over). Roosevelt appoints Douglas and the rest is history:

Douglas was often at odds with fellow Justice Felix Frankfurter, who believed in judicial restraint and thought the Court should stay out of politics.[10] Douglas did not highly value judicial consistency or stare decisis when deciding cases.

William O. Douglas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tech_Esq]

Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?

Beats the hell out of me stupidity I guess.

you mean a 'lib' attorney who knows EXACTLY the type of legal system we live under?

really?

No. A lib like you who apparently doesn't quite know the exact type of legal system we live under, like you.

You, for example, seem to believe (erroneously) that the United States has a "common law" legal system; but if you actually did know exactly what kind of legal system we live under, you wouldn't make such a rookie mistake.

Our legal system is only a common law system in part; not in whole.

He's finding that out as he struggles to present a prima facie case of RICO. Maybe he's madly researching on FindLaw now......

 

[topspin]

whining about progressives is so last decade.

 

[Mr Natural]

Nothing is cast in stone.

Things change, people change.

So it definitely has to be a living document to keep up with the times.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nothing is cast in stone.

Things change, people change.

So it definitely has to be a living document to keep up with the times.

Rights are cast in stone or should I say the Bill of Rights

 

[Tech_Esq]

Nothing is cast in stone.

Things change, people change.

So it definitely has to be a living document to keep up with the times.

The Constitution is written such that it need not change to provide the governmental structure required of it. One need only review the plain meaning of the words as written to determine the law. We do this everyday.

Would you suppose that a contract for lease with a term of 100 years may be interpreted in some different fashion because "things" changed in the 100 years? Most certainly, they are not. They are read with the plain meaning of the words written. If there might be some confusion as to what the word meant, it is researched so that the meaning at the time of the writing is derived. Not a very difficult thing to determine. Nothing in this country is pre-historic. There are very good records of what the language meant all the way back to the founding.

Would we do less for our Social Contract than treat it as well as we would a lease? I see no reason. Is there something that you think the Constitution cannot speak to because of a change or technological revolution?

Finally, if there were some great change, the Constitution specifically allows Amendment

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Bill of Rights has altered with time. The conservative SCOTUS used a liberal interpretation, incorporation, to bring the 2d under the protection of the national government. No longer do individual states have the right unilaterally to limit gun regulations. Thus classic liberalism trod over conservatism. Times do change, and so do interpretations and procedures re: the Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Bill of Rights has altered with time. The conservative SCOTUS used a liberal interpretation, incorporation, to bring the 2d under the protection of the national government. No longer do individual states have the right unilaterally to limit gun regulations. Thus classic liberalism trod over conservatism. Times do change, and so do interpretations and procedures re: the Constitution.

"Thus classic liberalism trod over conservatism"
spin doctor spin who are the gun grabbers?