Rove defies subpoena

[Ravi]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The militia is supposed to exist to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That in no way reads that people keep and bear arms in order to satisfy the requirements of the militia only.

Wuh? That's the screwiest interpretation I've ever seen. And your second sentence isn't what I said.

 

[Wow]

Start with FISA.

Or Torture.

Or Extraordinary Rendition.

Which acts were a crime?

Which laws state torture is a crime?

You do not want terrorists to have a fair trial?

 

[Ravi]

How did you come to that conclusion?

Something I read on a message board. And a pretty good op/ed piece I read in my local paper.

 

[manifold]

Something I read on a message board. And a pretty good op/ed piece I read in my local paper.

Can you summarize?


As far as I can tell, the 2nd Amendment explicitly protects the right to bear arms and implicitly protects the right to form militia groups. Whether or not a particular instance of firearm usage is or is not criminal, has always be adjudicated on a case by case basis.

 

[Ravi]

Can you summarize?


As far as I can tell, the 2nd Amendment explicitly protects the right to bear arms and implicitly protects the right to form militia groups. Whether or not a particular instance of firearm usage is or is not criminal, has always be adjudicated on a case by case basis.

It explicitly protects the right to bear arms to form militia groups and protect the state.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There's nothing in there about the defense of the self, only the security of a free state. The amendment was written to allow states to protect themselves against a tyrannical federal government. So, even though what D.C. did was unconstitutional, that case could have been made without redefining the amendment.

 

[Charles_Main]

Wuh? That's the screwiest interpretation I've ever seen. And your second sentence isn't what I said.

Now more screwed than those who claim the right only pertains to malitias, in the face of countless quotes from the framers of the constitution that clearly say the PEOPLE should have the right to bear arms.

Washington called this right second only to the Constitution itself in importance.

One said that the surest way to enslave a people is to disarm them.

Jefferson said Guns are our last best defense against Tyranny, yet people still pretend the meaning of the 2nd amendment is debatable.

It is laughable if you ask me.

 

[Ravi]

Now more screwed than those who claim the right only pertains to malitias, in the face of countless quotes from the framers of the constitution that clearly say the PEOPLE should have the right to bear arms.

Washington called this right second only to the Constitution itself in importance.

One said that the surest way to enslave a people is to disarm them.

Jefferson said Guns are our last best defense against Tyranny, yet people still pretend the meaning of the 2nd amendment is debatable.

It is laughable if you ask me.

That's not what I said either. In fact, I said exactly what they said.

 

[Charles_Main]

That's not what I said either. In fact, I said exactly what they said.

I didn't say you said it bud, I said the people who do say it are screwed and can't read our founding Fathers words.

IMO both parts of the 2nd amendment are about protecting the people from Tyranny in the Gov. One by they themselves being armed, and 2 by them having a well regulated militia.

Either way, if people do not want us to bear arms, the answer is not for the supreme court to change the law, it is for congress to pass a constitutional amendment to that effect. Any time I see the courts trying to legislate from the bench, for any reason, it pisses me off. In Fact IMO opinion and reading of the constitution the Supreme court was never meant to be = to the other 2 branches of our government in power. It goes against our basic principles of Democracy as the Justices are not elected they are appointed, and not for a term, but for Life!

 

[Ravi]

I didn't say you said it bud, I said the people who do say it are screwed and can't read our founding Fathers words.

IMO both parts of the 2nd amendment are about protecting the people from Tyranny in the Gov. One by they themselves being armed, and 2 by them having a well regulated militia.

Either way, if people do not want us to bear arms, the answer is not for the supreme court to change the law, it is for congress to pass a constitutional amendment to that effect. Any time I see the courts trying to legislate from the bench, for any reason, it pisses me off. In Fact IMO opinion and reading of the constitution the Supreme court was never meant to be = to the other 2 branches of our government in power. It goes against our basic principles of Democracy as the Justices are not elected they are appointed, and not for a term, but for Life!

Okay, I think we agree. I think what they did was both wrong and not needed. WHY they did it is a mystery.

 

[sealybobo]

Which acts were a crime?

Which laws state torture is a crime?

You do not want terrorists to have a fair trial?

Ppl that defend the Bush administration don't honor, love and respect the presidency, the love the president. And they don't love the constitution or the USA as much as they love the GOP.

Now they may say the same about us who defended Clinton, but this isn't a witch hunt like Monicagate was. Bush, rove, chaney, libby, rumsfeld, rice, wolfowitz and probably hundreds of other insiders in this administration are guilty of very high crimes.

don't ask me what they are. just look at wexler and kuchenich's articles of impeachments.

pelosi and reed are making a decision that it will help the gop if they try to impeach. I think they are wrong, but since democrats will rule government next year, I guess I can wait. then everything will come out.

ppl will go to jail and fortunes wil be taken from the neo cons that fucked over america.

but we will never get back what we lost. not our reputation, money, standing in the world.

the saddest thing is that we had the worlds support after 9 11, and bush squandered it to steal oil from iraq.

we were already getting iraqs oil cheap. but this was a way to rape the treasury via haloburton.

or have we already forgotten how chaney literally said iraq had a part in 9 11. just go back and listen to him selling us on invading iraq if you dare say he did not.

 

[AllieBaba]

That's not what I said either. In fact, I said exactly what they said.

What they said is that a militia is necessary to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Not that people keep and bear arms in order to maintain a militia.

You have to understand English and the use of commas, but it couldn't be any clearer.

 

[sealybobo]

What they said is that a militia is necessary to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Not that people keep and bear arms in order to maintain a militia.

You have to understand English and the use of commas, but it couldn't be any clearer.

Allie, I'm glad the Supreme Court ruled that we have the individual right, but it could have easily gone the other way. That militia thing could have given the supreme court the wiggle room to interpreter it differently. It wasn't clear cut really.

sandra day o'conner, appt by reagan warned alito and roberts to follow stari decisis. amazing how many rights have been questioned since bush got into office.

 

[Charles_Main]

John Adams and the other Federalist fought the bill of rights, and were called monarchist for it.

in actually they opposed it, because they rightly believed any power not explicitly given to the Government in the constitution would not be a power of the federal government. They rightly feared that in the future people would assume our rights were limited to what is in the bill of rights, when in fact the truth is if the constitution is silent on something it means we do have the right not that we don't.

 

[Ravi]

What they said is that a militia is necessary to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Not that people keep and bear arms in order to maintain a militia.

You have to understand English and the use of commas, but it couldn't be any clearer.

Allie, you're insane. That isn't remotely what it said.

 

[Ravi]

John Adams and the other Federalist fought the bill of rights, and were called monarchist for it.

in actually they opposed it, because they rightly believed any power not explicitly given to the Government in the constitution would not be a power of the federal government. They rightly feared that in the future people would assume our rights were limited to what is in the bill of rights, when in fact the truth is if the constitution is silent on something it means we do have the right not that we don't.

Yep, because the constitution doesn't grant us rights, it only spells out which rights they cannot take away. And it only covers those they thought most important at the time...but that doesn't mean the other rights don't exist.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

John Adams and the other Federalist fought the bill of rights, and were called monarchist for it.

in actually they opposed it, because they rightly believed any power not explicitly given to the Government in the constitution would not be a power of the federal government. They rightly feared that in the future people would assume our rights were limited to what is in the bill of rights, when in fact the truth is if the constitution is silent on something it means we do have the right not that we don't.

Except since at least the end of the Civil War that is not true. The Government continues yearly to add powers by stretching the intent of clauses in the Constitution. The most over abused one being the Commerce clause.

And now we have liberals claiming that " the general welfare" means they can pass any law they want.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Congress is not a court, and congressmen are not judges.

Unless the President is a Democrat!


BTW Allie - when Congress impeaches someone, what happens in the Senate is very much a court. The House acts as prosecutor and the Senate as jury.

 

[pete]

Rove ignores subpoena, refuses to testify - Yahoo! News

I say throw his fat butt in jail and let him become someone's cell princess.

The white house/doj ignores its subpoenas ... and then delays .... plead the 5th
Whats good for one ....

 

[Katzndogz]

Isn't this cooked up to give the democrats something to talk about while obama defies the subpena in Solyandra?

 

[driveby]

Rove ignores subpoena, refuses to testify - Yahoo! News

I say throw his fat butt in jail and let him become someone's cell princess.

It must have been regarding Fast and Furious and Solyndra, it's ok to ignore them........