[hkmp5g17]

I posted a poll earlier but it was locked.

My apologies if I offended anyone. Thanks for the suggestions in the poll.

PM'd several people with no response- so hopefully my editing will suffice.

I feel that everyone (including law enforcement and military) should have access to whatever they need/want to defend themselves- unless they use it to harm someone.

What are your thoughts?

Should nobody own full auto, ap, etc? Is there a cut off point where it is too"dangerous" for a civilian to own? What about an RPG if one were so inclined?

Should law enforcement/military have access but not civilians? As noted before- the departments- not the officers purchase the weapon. Nonetheless- private individuals are often unable to own weapons and gear that police/military/government can own. In some states- no NFA weapons are allowed at all.

How about civilians with a permit- you prove you are safe- then you can buy use whatever you want without background checks- for your whole life. Only if you break the law will you lose your right.

Any other possibilities I haven't mentioned?

I wish to stimulate intellectual debate- please no military/law enforcement bashing.

Anthony

[hkmp5g17]

Sorry- not sure what I did wrong but didn't post the poll.(can I edit this?) Please comment below.

Anthony

[Stickjockey]

If we're going to ban anything, it should be behaviors, not inanimate objects. Hand grenades? Might be just the thing for starting that hole in the back yard for the Japanese Cherry tree you just picked up from the nursery. As long as it doesn't endanger anyone else, I see no problem.

[lamazza]

I guess its the mindset of today.Everyone thinks in terms of 'what should be banned?" NOTHING should be banned. As stated above behaviors should be controlled and I believe that is where the idea of laws and law enforcement came from.
There will always be a sampling of morons to abuse anything under the sun.

[k_semler]

HEI and AP isn't illegal under federal law. If you want some, go buy it. I hope you have deep pockets. http://www.hi-vel.com/Catalog__18/catalog__18.html Also, my philosoly is that if a weapon is field-issue, or can be carried and operated by an individual man, (or a small crew, {3-5 men}), then it should be available on the open market. An M16A2 or M60E3 yes, A submarine, mortar, or nuclear weapon no. (Military aircraft or artillery is a no also). Unless they start issuing those to individual foot-soilders, or are deployed as a SAW, i do not see it as being protected under the 2nd amendment. Yes, you should be able to get non-protected items after an extensive process, but 2nd protected weapons should be as easy to buy as a hammer, knife, or gasoline.

:evil: FIRE FOR EFFECT!! :evil:

[Maxwell]

I think all men are created equal and innocent until proven guilty.

If the government wants to arm their soldiers, cops, and bodyguards with exclusive weapons, the Onus is on them to prove Me wrong and explain how their men are more valueable and trustworthy than everyone else.

History shows they are not.

For the simple fact of how our nation was born and how its evolved, and for our own safety, I dont think the government should have greater access to weapons than the civilians who keep them in check.

If they dont believe a civilian can be trusted with a weapon, then they themselves certainly cant be trusted with the same weapon.


An M16A2 or M60E3 yes, A submarine, mortar, or nuclear weapon no.

We sell explosives, jets, tanks and subs to forign countries all the time. Some of those places "lose" this stuff or turn it against us when their good and ready.
Joe citizen cant be trusted, but someone like Saddam Hussien can?

[Crosshair]

I say if you can get a gun under current law, then you should get NFA. Go buy a full auto AR, AK, a M203, M2 50 cal, RPG-7, TOW launcher, 155 Howizer, etc.

People will of couse ask "what about nukes". Well they are a special case. Provided I have a large enough range I can shoot and play with an RPG-7, TOW launcher, heavy artillery with little to no danger to anyone else. A nuke can't be safely played with so it is seperate.

[beerslurpy]

Yes they should be allowed to own everything except WMDs. The only reason I oppose nukes and biological weapons is because there is no way that any individual or even group of people can use such a weapon in a lawful way. I'll elaborate. If you are fighting invaders, tyranny or just burglars, a machine gun, artillery, missle, plane or tank can all be put to good use. You can direct it at a target against which you have a legal justification for attacking. With a nuke, you can attack the target that you have cause to attack, but you cannot avoid inadvertantly harming yourself and countless other innocent bystanders. The common defense, self defense, hunting and even entertainment are not reasonably served by people setting off nukes, releasing poison gas or disease organisms inside the US.

I have a paper I'm working on on just this subject, I'll post it in a bit.

[shootinstudent]

If you are fighting invaders, tyranny or just burglars, a machine gun, artillery, missle, plane or tank can all be put to good use.

This is true, but they can also be put to very bad use by relatively small (in terms of total) but dangerous (as in, 1,000 people or so) groups. What happens if a white supremacist group decides to buy tanks, artillery, and planes and station them in northern Virginia?

What nondiscriminatory way would could we use to prevent the nation of Islam from building itself a relatively powerful private army?

I'd say anything people commonly buy under the NFA, like full-auto rifles and silencers, should be allowed with a standard background check, but I'd draw the limit at light, individually carried weapons. Those can be used for self-defense and in a highly unlikely state of civil unrest, but do not pose the threat of having a radical group with its own private army.

[Vex]

Perhaps a little off topic, but you decide...

IMHO, it would be easier to allow civilian ownership of said weaponry if the death penalty saw more usage and didn't take 10 years to finalize an execution. Stiffer penalties for breaking laxed laws is the ticket.

[Maxwell]

What happens if a white supremacist group decides to buy tanks, artillery, and planes and station them in northern Virginia?


What stops me from buying a tank to deal with their tank?
Or a crate of russian RPG's for that matter?

The beauty of the 2nd is it allows all sides to collect weapons, and if 1000 people have amr's, rpgs and atm's, 100 cheap tanks in a neo nazi group is meaningless.
If they had millions upon millions to buy a single good US military quality tank, why not buy something more dangerous... like a politician?

You can already build gun trucks or attack aircraft illegally, but in an armed nation you cant even overthrow a dog catcher without the conscent of more than a few citizens.
It works out because neo nazis and terrorists have more to fear from the public than we do of them.

[SomeKid]

but in an armed nation you cant even overthrow a dog catcher without the conscent of more than a few citizens.

You have read Beyond this Horizon, haven't you? During the crappy revolt the main character says something very similar to that. In reality, it is very true. Uh-oh, I think I just turned this into a Heinlien thread...

Here is what I support. If the government agents can get it, and turn it on us, we should be able to own the same. From this rule, their would be zero exceptions. It would then become madness for any government agents to ever try a NOLA trick. Unless of course they wanted to feed worms, with themselves.

[ElTacoGrande]

Yes, citizens should be allowed to own NFA items. I actually agree with the NFA except the 86 MG ban. That is a noxious law which should be struck down. I doubt our elected leaders will ever do that but a court might.

[Molon Labe]

In a free country, a person can walk into a hardware store and buy a full-auto rifle and a couple thousand rounds of AP ammo. With no paperwork.

Would this be a dangerous country to live in? I don't know. I don't care.

As Thomas Jefferson once quipped, "I much prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery."

[Molon Labe]

IMHO, it would be easier to allow civilian ownership of said weaponry... I take issue with your terminology.

Our government does not "allow" citizens to do anything; it doesn't have the authority.

Only the converse is true: the citizens allow the government to do things.

[Baron Holbach4]

In a free country, a person can walk into a hardware store and buy a full-auto rifle and a couple thousand rounds of AP ammo. With no paperwork.

Would this be a dangerous country to live in? I don't know. I don't care.

As Thomas Jefferson once quipped, "I much prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery."

Make mine by mail-order. :D

[The Real Hawkeye]

Where's the poll?

The problem is with the question you asked. The correct question is; has the Federal Government ever been delegated the authority to regulate the kinds of weapons or ammo we choose to purchase, own or carry? Another good question is, doesn't the Second Amendment specifically prohibit Federal restrictions, i.e., infringements, on the kinds of arms (and, by implication, ammo) we choose to purchase, own and carry?

[Alex45ACP]

I believe the 2nd Amendment protects "arms", which at the time it was written, referred to all standard infantry weapons. So machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars, etc. should be completely unregulated anywhere, by any level of government.

Tanks, aircraft carriers, etc. are not protected by the 2nd Amendment but that doesn't mean they should be illegal. That's more of a state/local issue. Obviously, it would be a bad idea for people in NYC to be driving around in tanks, but it wouldn't be an issue in rural Montana.

WMD (chemical, nuclear, and biological) are obviously not protected by the 2nd Amendment, and even I will admit it's a bad idea for individuals to own them. I'm not even sure our own government should own them.

As for keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, all forms of drug prohibition should be abolished and anyone who commits a serious crime (theft, murder, assault, etc.) should be executed or permanently imprisoned.

[hkmp5g17]

Thanks for all the responses! Sorry again about the lack of the poll- I hit the wrong button and couldn't edit to include this as an option.

Also- the 2nd amendment has come up more than once. I guess I should have asked whether you feel law abiding folks should be able to own whatever they please- regardless of the current laws.

Some would argue that the 2nd amendment was meant to give citizens equal footing against a (potentially) tyrannical government.

I have neither the money nor the desire to buy a fully armed F16 or an aircraft carrier- though I do feel it should be allowed.

Please note again- this isn't intended as an "us versus them" thread- no LEO/military bashing.

Cops- and everyone else should have whatever they want/need to protect themselves- unless they use it to harm innocents.

Take care-Anthony

[R.H. Lee]

I used to think 'yes', but the older I get and the more gross incompetence, raging insanity, and low intelligence of most of my countrymen convinces me that we're too stupid and irresponsible to possess anything more than we've already got.

Sorry, that's my opinion.

[hkmp5g17]

"gross incompetence, raging insanity,and low intelligence" Certainly prevalent!

:rolleyes: Can we ban that instead? Aren't the above statements subject to too much interpretation? Many would describe "gun nuts" that way, others describe anti's that way, as well as Republicans, Democrats....

Assuming everyone agreed on definitions (not likely)- should the rights of law abiding folks be infringed because some were dropped on their heads as kids? (some apparently more than once):D

[MechAg94]

As a side note from something mentioned above: What US weapons did Iraqi troops use or have available to use against US troops? Be specific please. I have heard this mentioned before, but no one ever states any facts or details.


I tend to agree with something above, the NFA works fine without the restriction added in the 80's.

[R.H. Lee]

The rights of law abiding folks have been continuously and increasingly infringed for at least the last 40 years during which time none of us (not enough of us anyway) bothered to get off our rhino haunches and act to stop it. In the meantime, government has gotten bigger and more intrusive to the point they can actually take your property (Kelo) and lock you up indefinitely without trial and/or charges (PA I, II, etc.) They can tax and regulate you all they want without any consequences. They can maintain files and information on you finances and activities, all without your knowlege or consent. They can take your money through confiscatory taxation and give it to whomever they please in exchange for votes.

So at this point, why do we need NFA weapons? What's the point? We've already surrendered (and continue to surrender).

[The Real Hawkeye]

Mr. Lee, this trend was made possible by the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, which repealed Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution. Prior to that, State governments used their Senators to hold back the Federal Government from gross usurpations into affairs properly belonging exclusively to the States. Once the Senate was neutered as a safeguard against Federal usurpation of "States Rights," as it were, the game was essentially over. The States have been, since then, stripped entirely bare of any means of checking the constant growth and usurpation of Federal Power.

The Constitution provided only two ordinary checks on the growth and usurpation of Federal Power. One was to deny the Federal Government direct taxation of earnings absent apportionment, and the other was to have Senators elected by State legislatures, rather than by the people directly. The idea was that they would be beholding to their masters, i.e., their State's legislature and governor, and that if they did not do the State's bidding, i.e., protect the State from Federal usurpation, they could and would be removed from office and replaced by someone else who would. The "planners" felt that this was too stifling of Federal growth in power, so they got rid of it via demagoging it to the American people as a way to give more power to the people directly. It worked, and now we have direct taxation of "income" without apportionment, and States no longer have representation in the Federal Government. Perfect condition for the not so gradual establishment of an unlimited Federal Government.

[Vex]

Perhaps a little off topic, but you decide...

IMHO, it would be easier to allow civilian ownership of said weaponry if the death penalty saw more usage and didn't take 10 years to finalize an execution. Stiffer penalties for breaking laxed laws is the ticket.

I take issue with your terminology.

Our government does not "allow" citizens to do anything; it doesn't have the authority.

Only the converse is true: the citizens allow the government to do things.



I take issue with your terminilogy, too. You interpret my post to immediately think I meant "government" when I clearly didn't use the word. Don't put words in my mouth. :scrutiny:

Perhaps a little off topic, but you decide...

IMHO, it would be easier [for me, a voting citizen,] to allow civilian ownership of said weaponry if the death penalty saw more usage and didn't take 10 years to finalize an execution. Stiffer penalties for breaking laxed laws is the ticket.

And on top of that, we, the people, give the government that power that you say they don't have. That's why I voted for Bush, to give him that power. That's why some people voted for Clinton, to give him that power. There were more citizens of the USA that wanted it that way. When the AWB came about, the people didn't vote on it. The people voted the government in to office, the government created the AWB, the AWB regulated the people because the government has the power to limit or ALLOW people to have certain weapons because we gave them that power. Don't like it? Start a rebellion or move somewhere you can have all the weapons you want. I hear Zimbabwe is nice this time of year.... :rolleyes:

[Molon Labe]

You interpret my post to immediately think I meant "government" when I clearly didn't use the word.Then who/what were you referring to?

You were rhetorically asking if citizens should be "allowed" to own certain kinds of weapons. The problem with your statement is it implies someone (or something) decides this.

I was trying to make the point that no one has the authority to decide what types of weapons I'm "allowed" to own.

[Vex]

As I pointed out, our representative government clearly has the authority to determine who is allowed to own what items and what other items are illegal to posess, whether they are weapons or not. The authority is there, whether you believe in it or not. Refusal to obey the authority will get you thrown in jail. It's the way governments work, because by definition, every government is tyrannical. The only truly free men are those who have no governing authority (i.e., a true anarchist society).

We, the people, give this government the power to do this. Maybe not you specifically said "I don't want anyone to have full-automatic rifles," but there are other people in this society that did say that, and that want their say in the way the government works in other aspects, too. Is this a bad thing? Depends. The world would be pretty boring without the Left v. Right thrust in constant bipartisan debate.

If we were allowed to own full-automatic weapons, would everyone be happy with that decision? Absolutely not. This is where we come to a little thing called, "a compromise." The representatives from the people compromised and decided that some weapons would be banned, but that it wouldn't be fair to take away all weapons. So now we're in this are we the Pro-gun people are happy we still have guns, but sad because we don't have all the guns. The Anti-gun people are happy some of the guns are gone, but sad because they didn't get rid of all the guns.

So you ask who has the authority to determine who gets what and why? Me and the rest of the 295,734,134 people who live in the United Sates, through representative government. You're part of that. Want to be heard above the rest? Then do something. Posting on a forum and arguing with me about whether government authority is real or not doesn't count as "getting the word out."

I was trying to make the point that no one has the authority to decide what types of weapons I'm "allowed" to own.

No one has the authority. The authority comes from "We". Now I know there are some people out there thinking, "If the government doesn't have authority to take my home-modified unregistered silenced full-automatic 10 inch barrel AK-47, then they don't have the authority to throw me in jail." This has been tried before. You see, we had this little thing called the "Eighteenth Amendment" which banned the sale of alcohol. Some people didn't like this, it was "unconstitutional." So what did they do? They made their own alcohol anyway. When they were discovered, they were thrown in jail. It doesn't matter that the "Twenty-first Amendment" made alcohol legal again. Those people who defied the law were still criminals, some of them were still in jail, and the past had already done it's damage. The law is the law, whether it's right or not, whether you believe in it or not.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Vex, you are confusing two very different ideas, 1) power, and 2) authority. Authority derives from just laws, while power derives from the muzzle end of a gun. The government has power to enforce its authority, and it has power to enforce its unauthorized and lawless will. The Federal Government derives all of its authority from the US Constitution. If a power is not authorized by that document, its exercise is an act of lawlessness, i.e., it is an act of despotism, not of authority. See the difference?

[Vex]

Amendment 10, right?

I understand what you're saying about the difference between power and authority. I'll go one step further and state that you can't have authority without power. What Molon Labe asked me is:

I was trying to make the point that no one has the authority to decide what types of weapons I'm "allowed" to own.

As of today, the government has the authority to take away certain weapons. Is this an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment? Well, this hasn't been decided yet. And until it is decided, the governments power to enact it's authority is cleary present and often used.

If we break laws because we don't believe in them, we're still criminals, and it's alot harder to get laws changed from jail.

Before Ohio had shall-issue CHL, people still "broke the law" and carried concealed weapons. The reason for why they carried doesn't matter, because those people are now felons. During proponent hearings on the initial CHL law, do you think having these "felons" testify for the CHL law would have been a wise idea? Absolutely not. So what good does it do to break a law because you don't "believe" in it? Absolutely none. You could go to jail, lose your job, lose your house, lose your family, and be labeled a felon for the rest of your life. Is it worth it?

[The Real Hawkeye]

As of today, the government has the authority to take away certain weapons. Is this an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment? Well, this hasn't been decided yet. And until it is decided, the governments power to enact it's authority is cleary present and often used.That begs the question; Is this an enactment of authority or an exercise in despotism? They are two quite different things.If we break laws because we don't believe in them, we're still criminals, and it's alot harder to get laws changed from jail.Yes, if we break duly enacted laws, we are criminals, however, if we break laws which were made despotically, i.e., laws passed without authority, we are merely resisters of despotism, not criminals. Often, resisters of despotism even get shot or put in jail by the despots they are resisting. That, however, does not make one a criminal. One is only a criminal when one breaks laws duly enacted, and this is precisely the question we are dealing with here. Are these laws duly enacted, or are they acts of despotism? If the authority to pass said laws was not delegated via the US Constitution, then they are acts of despotism by definition.

[beerslurpy]

What happens if a white supremacist group decides to buy tanks, artillery, and planes and station them in northern Virginia?

The same thing that would happen if our government adopted a white supremacist agenda. They would be outnumbered and outgunned by a populace largely unsympathetic to their goals.

Anyone who has ever played BF2 and tried to drive a tank through karkand without infantry support knows that a tank alone is no guarantee of superiority if your adversaries have antitank weaponry and outnumber you.

I am personally more worried about our ever more intrusive government than I am about a bunch of hypothetical white supremacists in a far away state.

[The Real Hawkeye]

+1 to that, Beerslurpy.

[Art Eatman]

TRH & Vex, argue semantics and dictionaries via PM, okay?

Art

[Crosshair]

So true beerslurpy. On the servers I play on most I am known as the "RPG sniper". They HATE it when I run out of stingers and shoot down a helo with an RPG.:cool:

/Plays BF1942 Desert Combat Mod.

[Vex]

Sorry, Art, you're right... back on topic.

That begs the question; Is this an enactment of authority or an exercise in despotism? They are two quite different things.

I have some required reading for you that will clear up all this authority confusion....

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution (a.k.a. The Commerce Clause): To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Commerce_Clause

Go read it, think about this debate for a day or two. I have a good feeling you'll realize that things like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (specifically the Federal Assault Weapons Ban provision) and Firearm Owners Protection Act are all constitutional and covered under the Commerce Clause.

As far as the original question as posed by the topic starter: You can own these weapons, as long as it's pre-ban and you pay the $200 tax stamp.

[Zero_DgZ]

Quote:

"(Military aircraft or artillery is a no also). Unless they start issuing those to individual foot-soilders, or are deployed as a SAW, i do not see it as being protected under the 2nd amendment."

I know I guy who was a pilot, rolling in it pretty good, and imported himself a Russian MiG-17F. The guns still worked - Just no ammo.

Personally, I figure that nothing should be outright banned but perhaps access should be restricted. Same sort of thing as hunting, driving, and concealed carry.

It's easy to say that the people have the right to arm themselves. I agree with that. But it's also equally (if not more) important that other people have the right not to be shot, blown up, fragged, or incinerated by the arms of other (presumably less than responsible people). Should you be able to get it? Hell yes. But you should have to at least do some rudimentary paperwork to ensure that you're not going to endanger anyone else with it without good reason (self defense).

This process should be cheap or free, fast, and accessible. None of this NFA nonsense, for sure.

[The Real Hawkeye]

I have some required reading for you that will clear up all this authority confusion....

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution (a.k.a. The Commerce Clause): To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...ommerce_ClauseThe commerce clause authorizes Federal regulation of commerce between the States. What does that have to do with what kinds of guns you, a non-interstate trader, own or can buy? Additionally, authority to regulate commerce is not authority to regulate the items which can be in commerce. To regulate is not to ban or prohibit. Regulate means to make regular, i.e., establish regular rules of conduct, and for resolving and avoiding conflict and confusion. There is no authority given over what things can be in commerce, but only to make commerce regular by establishing rules for the commerce itself. If you are arguing that the commerce clause gives the Federal Government the ability to stifle commerce in certain items, you will have to show me the language to that effect. If you cannot, it does not exist.
Go read it, think about this debate for a day or two. I have a good feeling you'll realize that things like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (specifically the Federal Assault Weapons Ban provision) and Firearm Owners Protection Act are all constitutional and covered under the Commerce Clause.

As far as the original question as posed by the topic starter: You can own these weapons, as long as it's pre-ban and you pay the $200 tax stamp.You are mistaken. If I cannot legally purchase a newly manufactured weapon, then I am being prohibited from doing so, and you bear the burden of showing me from where in the Constitution the authority to do this derives.

[MGshaggy]

The commerce clause authorizes Federal regulation of commerce between the States. What does that have to do with what kinds of guns you, a non-interstate trader, own or can buy? Additionally, authority to regulate commerce is not authority to regulate the items which can be in commerce. To regulate is not to ban or prohibit. Regulate means to make regular, i.e., establish regular rules of conduct, and for resolving and avoiding conflict and confusion. There is no authority given over what things can be in commerce, but only to make commerce regular by establishing rules for the commerce itself. If you are arguing that the commerce clause gives the Federal Government the ability to stifle commerce in certain items, you will have to show me the language to that effect. If you cannot, it does not exist.

Here's a start Hawkeye..

Wickard v. Filburn (http://www.justia.us/us/317/111/case.html)
US v. Stewart (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:2kvbUmJl-1gJ:www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/90B5FFB18A092A6F88256DDD000000FE/%24file/0210318.pdf%3Fopenelement+us+v.+stewart&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1)
Raich v. Gonzales (http://www.justia.us/us/545/03-1454/case.html)
US v. Lopez (http://www.justia.us/us/514/549/case.html)

(Keep in mind following Raich, Stewart was remanded back to the 9th for reconsideation in light of Raich.

[gunsmith]

What nondiscriminatory way would could we use to prevent the nation of Islam from building itself a relatively powerful private army?

why can't the nation of islam have it's own millitia?
(I am willing to bet they do.)

we should have lots of millitia groups in this country.

during the American Revolution cannons and warships were privately owned and loaned to the millitia and given back after we won!

wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said "Americans have the right to every terrible weapon of war"

[Byron Quick]

The white supremacist group can put their aircraft, artillery, and such wherever they want. So can Nation of Islam. After they decide to get froggy with such, I'd be willing to bet that the rest of the groups with some toys would decide to either divest themselves of such temptations or go back to the drawing board as to plans.


To quote Clint,"Dying ain't much of a living, boy."

Research militias in this country. Militias were historically associated with civil authority. Private armed groups under private authority have been unlawful for centuries in this country. The militias had much autonomy. They largely selected their own sergeants and officers. However, the civil authority was what called them to service and appointed the officer who would be their commanding officer. Also, examine who the militias elected as officers and then compare the officers with the corresponding civil authority. You will find that there was much confluence between the members of the civil government and the officers of the militias,i.e, officers also held positions in the civil government or were connected with officials of the civil government by social and kinship ties.

Cannon were owned by some individuals who lent them to the militias at need. The warships were not owned by individual citizens during times of peace. Letters of marque and reprisal were issued by the government. Merchant ships were converted to naval use by individuals or groups who received the letters. In some few cases, true warships were built by holders of the letters, financed by individuals or groups. It could be quite profitable, as any prize ships seized from the enemy-including private merchant vessels and their cargoes-could be sold legally. But no private citizens, except a few pirates, owned warships in time of peace. You couldn't legally make a profit with them and their upkeep just sitting in a slip was quite expensive.

[Henry Bowman]

"gross incompetence, raging insanity,and low intelligence" Certainly prevalent!

Can we ban that instead? Or at least stop protecting it and let natural selection run its course?

[The Real Hawkeye]

Here's a start Hawkeye..

Wickard v. Filburn
US v. Stewart
Raich v. Gonzales
US v. LopezI guess I should have said that a little differently. This is how I should have said it: If you are arguing that the commerce clause gives the Federal Government the ability to stifle commerce in certain items, you will have to show me the language IN THE CONSTITUTION to that effect. If you cannot, it does not exist.

Your task is simple. The Constitution is a rather short document. Simply cut and paste the language from the Constitution into a post answering my question. No need for hyperlinks to Supreme Court cases. My rule is that if the Founders would not have found the power in the Constitution, it is more than likely not there, regardless of the tortured logic of Supreme Court justices.

[MGshaggy]

Art. III, section 2:

"Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority..."

The Constitution also sets out the process by which laws are made. I can cut & paste that too, or you can just read Art. I for yourself. When the Constitutionality of those laws, duly passed by the legislature, is called into question you have a case 'arising under the Constitution' as per Art. III, section 2, to which the judicial power may extend. The cases I provided are examples of how the judiciary has interpreted the commerce clause and questions pertaining to legislative authority exercised pursuant to the commerce clause.

Obviously, you don't like how the commerce clause has been interpreted by the SCOTUS so far and you interpret its meaning differently. I can agree with you 100% on that. However, our interpretation of the commerce clause isn't really relevant. Can you show me where in the Constitution the founding fathers named you or me as the final arbiter of questions arising from the Constitution?

I'm sure there's plenty of people who would interpret the commerce clause and other parts of the Constitution to mean something much different than either you or I would. The Constitution, however, doesn't empower every citizen to interpret and follow the Constitution (and thus the laws passed by congress) the way they personally want to interpret and obey it. IOW, while I agree with it, who said your view of the commerce clause was the correct one? Would you want someone like Sara Brady to interpret the 2nd Amendment? How about the sex offender on parole; does he get to interpret the 1st Amendment to his liking... which may include protections for child pornography? There's about 260,000,000 people in the US - if everyone gets to interpret the constitution and the laws the way they each want, we might as well not have a constitution. But thats why the founding fathers created the judiciary - as a means to decide such constitutional questions definitively for all.

Or do we just ignore the parts of the Constitution we don't like?

[The Real Hawkeye]

Art. III, section 2:

"Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority..."And you interpret this to mean that judges may legislate from the bench? This is not a license for judges to expand their own, the Congress's or the president's powers extraconstitutionally.The Constitution also sets out the process by which laws are made. I can cut & paste that too, or you can just read Art. I for yourself. When the Constitutionality of those laws, duly passed by the legislature, is called into question you have a case 'arising under the Constitution' as per Art. III, section 2, to which the judicial power may extend. The cases I provided are examples of how the judiciary has interpreted the commerce clause and questions pertaining to legislative authority exercised pursuant to the commerce clause.Yes, I remember those cases well from law school. I remember my amazement at the disingenuousness with which the Supreme Court manufactured Federal powers where non existed.I can agree with you 100% on that. However, our interpretation of the commerce clause isn't really relevant. Can you show me where in the Constitution the founding fathers named you or me as the final arbiter of questions arising from the Constitution?"Should an unwarrantable measure of the Federal Government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand... But ambitious encroachments of the Federal Government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every Government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combination in short would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case, as was made in the other... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone, they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be able to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition, that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures, which must precede and produce it." - Alexander HamiltonI'm sure there's plenty of people who would interpret the commerce clause and other parts of the Constitution to mean something much different than either you or I would. The Constitution, however, doesn't empower every citizen to interpret and follow the Constitution (and thus the laws passed by congress) the way they personally want to interpret and obey it. IOW, while I agree with it, who said your view of the commerce clause was the correct one? Would you want someone like Sara Brady to interpret the 2nd Amendment? How about the sex offender on parole; does he get to interpret the 1st Amendment to his liking... which may include protections for child pornography? There's about 260,000,000 people in the US - if everyone gets to interpret the constitution and the laws the way they each want, we might as well not have a constitution. But thats why the founding fathers created the judiciary - as a means to decide such constitutional questions definitively for all.The Constitution's meaning is clear in the vast majority of its content. It only became unclear to those who began to see it as a set of limits on an otherwise unlimited Federal Government, rather than what it is, i.e., a set of delegated powers, to be narrowly defined in accord with the Tenth Amendment to said document. A long train of treasonous acts on the part of the Supreme Court does not justify the usurpations of the last century.

[Vex]

Hawkeye,

There is no place in the constitution that specifically states that marijuana is illegal under federal law, right? But it does state that congress can not pass a bill into law unless it's allowed by the constitution, right (Amendment 10)? So how is making/selling marijuana illegal also constitutional? Article I, Section 8. The Commerce Clause, and a Supreme Court case called "Gonzales v. Raich" (formerly "Ashcroft v. Raich).

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Same with machine guns, etc. Here is an explanation of the machine gun ban:

A last-minute provision that was added to the act prevents the ATF from accepting the federal tax mandated by the National Firearms Act for the civilian registration of a fully-automatic firearm, automatic sear, drop-in sear, or similar device which provides fully automatic fire, the date of manufacture for which was after May 19, 1986. This effectively banned their manufacture except for law enforcement, military, or export, which require different registration forms. However, fully automatic firearms and sears manufactured and registered with ATF prior to May 19, 1986, can still be transferred to private citizens after payment of the $200 transfer tax.



The Commerce Clause has more power than you would ever think. It is the root of alot of the government's authority. Just takes a little imagination. How great is that?

And we owe it all to Chief Justice John Marshall (September 24, 1755 – July 6, 1835), who clarified the Commerce Clause in 1824....

Marshall suggested that "commerce" included navigation of goods, and that it "must have been contemplated" by the Framers. Marshall added that Congress's power over commerce "is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the Constitution."


Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbons_v._Ogden

"The mind can scarcely conceive a system for regulating commerce between nations which shall exclude all laws concerning navigation." The ruling determined that "a Congressional power to regulate navigation is as expressly granted as if that term had been added to the word 'commerce'.


If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations and among the several states is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the Constitution of the United States.


:D

[Maxwell]

So far as "what happens if X group gets Y weapons!" goes, I more fear what happens if a neo-nazi/terrorist/animal liberation group got a tank as things are now!

The law is supposed to stop a madman from buying or building a tank in his backyard and going on a rampage... But the funny thing about madmen is they dont listen to laws.

So if some group of rather unpleasant folks would manage to smuggle, steal or build armor, they would have the advantage from the time they start shooting until the time we can get a military force in to do something about them.
That could be hours of free roaming chaos.

I'd dare ask how many of us could, within the hour, put our hands on a weapon capable of stopping so much as an up-armored truck?

Answer seems to be "Not many":

[The Real Hawkeye]

Hawkeye,

There is no place in the constitution that specifically states that marijuana is illegal under federal law, right? But it does state that congress can not pass a bill into law unless it's allowed by the constitution, right (Amendment 10)? So how is making/selling marijuana illegal also constitutional? Article I, Section 8. The Commerce Clause, and a Supreme Court case called "Gonzales v. Raich" (formerly "Ashcroft v. Raich).The arguments used in those cases are mere contrivances designed to permit the Federal Government to do what it wishes, under the apparent color of law, despite not having been actually delegated the authority to do them. The proof of this is that Prohibition required an amendment to the Constitution specifically delegating to the Federal Government authority to regulate alcohol. No such amendment was sought, however, for the war on some drugs. The Supreme Court simply decided that the Constitution had become a "living document," able to morph at will so as to grant new powers to the Federal Government as the times required. This is an obviously disingenuous stance. I am surprised that you fell for it.The Commerce Clause has more power than you would ever think. It is the root of alot of the government's authority. Just takes a little imagination. How great is that?Ok, now I am beginning to question the sincerity of your pretended stance.

[MGshaggy]

And you interpret this to mean that judges may legislate from the bench? This is not a license for judges to expand their own, the Congress's or the president's powers extraconstitutionally.

Ah yes, the old canard of 'activist judges' legislating from the bench. So if you believe that, then it should logically follow that you think the states shouldn't be bound by the BoR and should be free to legislate in derogation of rights like free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion? Or is it just an inconsistant position where some kind of legislating from the bench is okey-dokey? Please explain. The first Amendment states "Congress shall make no law...". It doesn't mention laws made by the states. And the 14th Amendment speaks of "privileges and immunities", not "rights". Seems clear to me, but maybe you can explain how the extension of the rights enumerated in the first amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment was not judicial activisim. Or is it just your view that the states can and should be able to restrict the rights in the BoR?

The Constitution's meaning is clear in the vast majority of its content. It only became unclear to those who began to see it as a set of limits on an otherwise unlimited Federal Government, rather than what it is, i.e., a set of delegated powers, to be narrowly defined in accord with the Tenth Amendment to said document.

If the meaning of the Constitution is so clear, then please explain why the founding fathers chose to create a government with a judicial branch and a Supreme Court to decide questions and cases arising under the Constitution. Why did they even bother with Article III; I mean, if its so clear, who needs a court to interpret the Constitution?

I submit that its not so clear and while you think you know what terms in the Constitution means, so do a lot of people who have very different views. As a perfect example, one only needs to look to the confirmation hearings of Judge Alito. Alito received a lot of scorn for his opinion in Rybar both by some members of the Senate, and by many people in the public who strongly thought that machineguns were obviously something that should be able to be controlled by congress via the commerce clause. You and I probably share the opinion that thier view is wrong, but they nonetheless feel as strongly about their position as we do about ours, so there are obviously valid disagreements about the terms of the constitution and their interpretation. I looked over my copy of the Constitution again last night, and I still haven't found the section where it names "The Real Hawkeye" or "MG shaggy" as the final arbiter of constitutional questions, so I'll have to stick with what it says in Art. III and continue to believe the SCOTUS has that power.

A long train of treasonous acts on the part of the Supreme Court does not justify the usurpations of the last century.

OK, so if its your belief that the government has really been usurped by a cabal of activist judges and self-serving legislators, I have to ask (especially in light of your quote from Hamilton) why are you sitting there at your computer instead of taking Hamilton's advice and taking up arms against the government? If you really believe that, why do you continue to pay taxes and financially support what you must believe to be a rogue government? Why do you obey the laws of a rogue government?

[Third_Rail]

I'd dare ask how many of us could, within the hour, put our hands on a weapon capable of stopping so much as an up-armored truck?

Answer seems to be "Not many":


The answer is more truly "those who are amatuer chemists and know how to make a shaped charge."

I could, more than likely, have a LSC ready within two to three hours at most. Crude, yes. Effective, though, going by literature on them.

[hugh damright]

Ah yes, the old canard of 'activist judges' legislating from the bench. So if you believe that, then it should logically follow that you think the states shouldn't be bound by the BoR and should be free to legislate in derogation of rights like free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion? Or is it just an inconsistant position where some kind of legislating from the bench is okey-dokey? Please explain. The first Amendment states "Congress shall make no law...". It doesn't mention laws made by the states. And the 14th Amendment speaks of "privileges and immunities", not "rights". Seems clear to me, but maybe you can explain how the extension of the rights enumerated in the first amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment was not judicial activisim. Or is it just your view that the states can and should be able to restrict the rights in the BoR?
I'll step up and say that I think the 14th "Amendment" is beyond judicial activism ... it is despotism. One of the very basic premises of free government is that the government cannot modify the Constitution against the will of the people, yet the 14th is just exactly that very thing.

And yes, I think the States should, and must, be able to restrict the rights in the BOR. In fact, I tend to believe that many of our modern problems are caused by an attempt to use the 14th "Amendment" to limit the States in the same way that the US is (intended to be) limited ... as a result the States are so bound that they cannot maintain a society and culture. There's a good book on this ... "The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding", edited by Eugene W. Hickok, Jr.

"_Resolved_, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;" and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed." -Thomas Jefferson (Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions: October, 1798)

[The Real Hawkeye]

Ah yes, the old canard of 'activist judges' legislating from the bench. So if you believe that, then it should logically follow that you think the states shouldn't be bound by the BoR and should be free to legislate in derogation of rights like free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion? Or is it just an inconsistent position where some kind of legislating from the bench is okey-dokey? Please explain. The first Amendment states "Congress shall make no law...". It doesn't mention laws made by the states. And the 14th Amendment speaks of "privileges and immunities", not "rights".You are right about the First Amendment. Prior to the invention of incorporation doctrine, no one would have ever thought the Federal Government had any authority to regulate the States with regard to religion. In fact, many States even had official religious denominations. As for the Fourteenth Amendment, it has been the victim of judicial activism too. What Section 1 does is place a few clear cut restrictions on the States, i.e., 1) it establishes who's a citizen, 2) it reaffirms Article IV, Section 2 of the US Constitution, and 3) It requires that States be held to a due process requirement in line with due process requirements restricting the Federal Government. The Fourth thing it clearly does is require States to treat all of their citizens equally under the law. All other claims deriving from the Fourteenth Amendment are smoke and mirrors, similar to what we see being done with the commerce clause.Seems clear to me, but maybe you can explain how the extension of the rights enumerated in the first amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment was not judicial activism. Or is it just your view that the states can and should be able to restrict the rights in the BoR?The States are far more restricted by the Constitutional requirement to provide their citizens with a republican form of government than they are by the First Amendment, which, as you so smartly point out, makes mention only of Congress's limits. There is a certain minimum of liberty and rights recognition required for a republican form of government, however. Fleshing this out only requires reference to history and well established political science definitions. No activism required here. It is enough that words have meaning. Stifling free political speech is not only inconsistent with a republic, it is antithetical to it, i.e., this is a no brainer.If the meaning of the Constitution is so clear, then please explain why the founding fathers chose to create a government with a judicial branch and a Supreme Court to decide questions and cases arising under the Constitution. Why did they even bother with Article III; I mean, if its so clear, who needs a court to interpret the Constitution?Interpreting is one thing. Manufacturing meaning that never was is quite another. Tools of interpretation are two fold, 1) original intent, and 2) strict construction. The latter means that our understanding of the various delegations of power to the Federal Government is to be narrowing tailored so as not to make meaningless the Tenth Amendment.I submit that its not so clear and while you think you know what terms in the Constitution means, so do a lot of people who have very different views.What is important is not what any individual thinks it means, but what was intended, and what it clearly says, all the while keeping the words of the Tenth Amendment in mind, because, remember, the Tenth Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution, and is therefore not on any equal footing with it, but is the ruler against which all interpretations of it must be made.As a perfect example, one only needs to look to the confirmation hearings of Judge Alito. Alito received a lot of scorn for his opinion in Rybar both by some members of the Senate, and by many people in the public who strongly thought that machineguns were obviously something that should be able to be controlled by congress via the commerce clause. You and I probably share the opinion that their view is wrong, but they nonetheless feel as strongly about their position as we do about ours, so there are obviously valid disagreements about the terms of the constitution and their interpretation. I looked over my copy of the Constitution again last night, and I still haven't found the section where it names "The Real Hawkeye" or "MG shaggy" as the final arbiter of constitutional questions, so I'll have to stick with what it says in Art. III and continue to believe the SCOTUS has that power.As I said, it is not you or I, but the framers that matter. Any correct interpretation of the Constitution will be in accord with original intent using a strict construction, as defined above. Since I possess the same standard intended by the Constitution's framers, I can be confident that I am correct in its interpretation. To the extent, however, the Supreme Court deviates from the standard by which the Constitution was intended to be interpreted, to that extent they are acting despotically, and should be removed, tried and hung.OK, so if its your belief that the government has really been usurped by a cabal of activist judges and self-serving legislators, I have to ask (especially in light of your quote from Hamilton) why are you sitting there at your computer instead of taking Hamilton's advice and taking up arms against the government?It's already been tried, and failed. Hamilton's solution didn't work as he had hoped it would. We are now subjects. Government by the consent of the governed is a distant memory.If you really believe that, why do you continue to pay taxes and financially support what you must believe to be a rogue government? Why do you obey the laws of a rogue government?Because if I do not, they will come to my home with black masks and assault rifles and kill me. Acting alone, I stand no chance of winning against such odds, so I obey their dictates and I pay my taxes. Might may not make right, but sometimes it's hard to resist still the same.

[Maxwell]

I could, more than likely, have a LSC ready within two to three hours at most. Crude, yes. Effective, though, going by literature on them.

I dont doubt you could make an explosive, maybe even work out a delivery meathod, given enough time. but even then your risking the irony that some idiot could charge you for a weapons violation if you manage to save the day.

[ctdonath]

I'd dare ask how many of us could, within the hour, put our hands on a weapon capable of stopping so much as an up-armored truck?If not for prohibitions, I'd have one in my closet right now available in seconds.

NFA laws & regulations have essentially eliminated the ability to own such weapons by putting a $200 tax per round on suitable ammunition.

Hence the purpose of RKBA: our enemies, be they foreign powers or domestic nutcases, CAN obtain/build such weapons ... yet by restrictions we cannot prepare for such cases. Because of stupid arguments like "we can't risk neonazis/islamoradicals/sociopaths getting their hands on such weapons", the rest of us are disarmed - but then we are effectively disarmed when our enemies do manage to smuggle/steal/build such weapons, and then we are powerless against them.

So: precisely because of the possibility of having to "stop so much as an up-armored truck" with weapons obtained "within the hour" we DO have a 2nd Amendment whereby I should be able to have a Barrett 25mm in my closet or trunk, and a modern cartdridge-based 2" cannon decorating my front lawn - with reasonable quantities of suitable explosive ammunition - both of which could be pressed into service on short notice.

[ctdonath]

I think the States should, and must, be able to restrict the rights in the BOR.Our Founding Fathers created this country precisely to protect those rights. Without those enumerated rights, and un-enumerated rights as well, there really isn't much point in having this kind of country.

People should be held accountable for the consequences of exercising those rights, certainly. Thing is: it's not that it's illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, it's that you're responsible for all the damage & injuries suffered if you do and there wasn't. Likewise for weapons: it's not whether I'm towing a 2" caliber cannon-like gun behind my truck, it's whether I use it to, say, stop the maniac who is crushing cars on the freeway with a stolen tank.

[Vex]

I was trying to make the point that no one has the authority to decide what types of weapons I'm "allowed" to own.

Molon Labe, if you're still reading, I think myself, Hawkeye, and MGshaggy have answered your question many times over.

[MGshaggy]

The States are far more restricted by the Constitutional requirement to provide their citizens with a republican form of government than they are by the First Amendment, which, as you so smartly point out, makes mention only of Congress's limits. There is a certain minimum of liberty and rights recognition required for a republican form of government, however. Fleshing this out only requires reference to history and well established political science definitions. No activism required here. It is enough that words have meaning. Stifling free political speech is not only inconsistent with a republic, it is antithetical to it, i.e., this is a no brainer.

Oh I agree with you that words have meaning, but to the extent you think its ok to infer rights that aren't specifically spelled out, I think you're being inconsistant. The guarantee of a republican form of government in Art. IV, sect. 4 does not explicitly state any protection for free speech, religion, assembly, etc. so in 'fleshing this out' and referring to history and well established political science definitions (BTW, "well established" when and by whom?) you are inferring rights where there are none specifically enumerated and engaging in the exact same kind of legal interpretation and creation of rights you rail against. As you said, "The Constitution's meaning is clear" but then you go on and want to infer rights by fleshing out, referring to history and "well established" political science definitions, to manufacture meanings rather than relying on the actual written text of the document.

Interpreting is one thing. Manufacturing meaning that never was is quite another. Tools of interpretation are two fold, 1) original intent, and 2) strict construction. The latter means that our understanding of the various delegations of power to the Federal Government is to be narrowing tailored so as not to make meaningless the Tenth Amendment.[/QUOTE]

Umm...excuse me? Understanding the various delegations of power to the federal government in such a manner as to not make the 10 Amendment meaningless? The 10th amendment states; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The commerce clause is just such a power delegated to the federal government to regulate commerce between the states. To the extent something may affect commerce between the states, it may be validly argued it is fair game for regulation by congress...unless you want to resort to applying the same sort of overly expansive view of the 10th Amendment as the Court has used in interpreting the commerce clause. Remember, the 10th carves out for the states and the people everything not already delegated to the federal government by the constitution, and the commerce clause was just such a delegation of authority to which the 10th is subject. You can call what has happened with the commerce clause in the last few years a "manufacturing meaning that never was" but its really just an interpretation of the extent of that grant with which you don't agree. And if you think the entire constitution now has to be judged against such an expansive interpretation of the 10th amendment that it excludes and cuts off prior grants of authority, you are "manufacturing meaning" to expand the 10th and restrict Art. I powers no less than the court did in Wickard or Raich (but to expand the commerce clause at the expense of other constitutional provisions). FWIW, I too think the commerce clause has been extremely overused as a basis for federal legislation, but I see it as a valid (however poor) interpretation of the constitution and the commerce clause by the SCOTUS. Its our duty (and failing) as citizens to rectify that by voting in a president and Congress that will appoint and confirm good judges to the SCOTUS.

[QUOTE]As I said, it is not you or I, but the framers that matter. Any correct interpretation of the Constitution will be in accord with original intent using a strict construction, as defined above.

The framers also clearly set out the body by which questions arising from the constitution would be decided - the SCOTUS. But yet you state:

Any correct interpretation of the Constitution will be in accord with original intent using a strict construction, as defined above. Since I possess the same standard intended by the Constitution's framers, I can be confident that I am correct in its interpretation.

Geez, talk about circular reasoning. IOW, since you interpret the intent of the framers to intend strict construction, your interpretation is correct? Sorry, but the logic there is almost laughable. Can you show me where in the Constitution the judiciary is required to apply strict construction (or your interpretation of strict construction)? Nevertheless, if you want to apply strict construction, then you must necessarily start with strict construction of Art. III and accept the premise that the SCOTUS has the authority to make those determinations, not you, since the framers clearly set out the role of the judiciary and didn't specify you as the determiner of questions arising from the constitution.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Oh I agree with you that words have meaning, but to the extent you think its ok to infer rights that aren't specifically spelled out, I think you're being inconsistant. The guarantee of a republican form of government in Art. IV, sect. 4 does not explicitly state any protection for free speech, religion, assembly, etc. so in 'fleshing this out' and referring to history and well established political science definitions (BTW, "well established" when and by whom?) you are inferring rights where there are none specifically enumerated and engaging in the exact same kind of legal interpretation and creation of rights you rail against. As you said, "The Constitution's meaning is clear" but then you go on and want to infer rights by fleshing out, referring to history and "well established" political science definitions, to manufacture meanings rather than relying on the actual written text of the document.

Umm...excuse me? Understanding the various delegations of power to the federal government in such a manner as to not make the 10 Amendment meaningless? The 10th amendment states; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The commerce clause is just such a power delegated to the federal government to regulate commerce between the states. To the extent something may affect commerce between the states, it may be validly argued it is fair game for regulation by congress...unless you want to resort to applying the same sort of overly expansive view of the 10th Amendment as the Court has used in interpreting the commerce clause. Remember, the 10th carves out for the states and the people everything not already delegated to the federal government by the constitution, and the commerce clause was just such a delegation of authority to which the 10th is subject. You can call what has happened with the commerce clause in the last few years a "manufacturing meaning that never was" but its really just an interpretation of the extent of that grant with which you don't agree. And if you think the entire constitution now has to be judged against such an expansive interpretation of the 10th amendment that it excludes and cuts off prior grants of authority, you are "manufacturing meaning" to expand the 10th and restrict Art. I powers no less than the court did in Wickard or Raich (but to expand the commerce clause at the expense of other constitutional provisions). FWIW, I too think the commerce clause has been extremely overused as a basis for federal legislation, but I see it as a valid (however poor) interpretation of the constitution and the commerce clause by the SCOTUS. Its our duty (and failing) as citizens to rectify that by voting in a president and Congress that will appoint and confirm good judges to the SCOTUS.

The framers also clearly set out the body by which questions arising from the constitution would be decided - the SCOTUS.

Geez, talk about circular reasoning. IOW, since you interpret the intent of the framers to intend strict construction, your interpretation is correct? Sorry, but the logic there is almost laughable. Can you show me where in the Constitution the judiciary is required to apply strict construction (or your interpretation of strict construction)? Nevertheless, if you want to apply strict construction, then you must necessarily start with strict construction of Art. III and accept the premise that the SCOTUS has the authority to make those determinations, not you, since the framers clearly set out the role of the judiciary and didn't specify you as the determiner of questions arising from the constitution.So much to reply to, yet so little time. Going out to see Ultra Violet, starring that Jovovich babe. Will respond to your nonsense later. So, DMF ... I mean MGShaggy, or whatever you're calling yourself lately, I will get back to you.

[MGshaggy]

So much to reply to, yet so little time. Going out to see Ultra Violet, starring that Jovovich babe. Will respond to your nonsense later. So, DMF ... I mean MGShaggy, or whatever you're calling yourself lately, I will get back to you.

Take your time, after tonight I'm out until Monday.

[beerslurpy]

DMF was another user with a posting style apparently similar to yours.

[MGshaggy]

Thanks Beerslurpy. I did't know DMF was another poster; I thought he meant something else.

[Byron Quick]

I think the States should, and must, be able to restrict the rights in the BOR.


The Bill of Rights does not constrain individuals. Instead, it constrains the exercise of governmental power. The Bill of Rights does this for very good reason.

Your thought opens the door to tyrrany.

[ctdonath]

I'll second that. The Bill of Rights was designed precisely to tell the government "you are specifically NOT allowed to limit these rights". To say "the States should, and must, be able to restrict the rights in the BOR" is to utterly, completely, totally miss the entire point of the Bill of Rights, and even of the Constitution as a whole.

[The Real Hawkeye]

+1 Byron.

[Zen21Tao]

Let me make this short and sweet. It is my belief that the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the Government for limiting any form of defense a citizen could mount. As such I think that the limit of one's own pocket book should be the only thing limiting the types of weapons a person may own.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Oh I agree with you that words have meaning, but to the extent you think its ok to infer rights that aren't specifically spelled out, I think you're being inconsistant. The guarantee of a republican form of government in Art. IV, sect. 4 does not explicitly state any protection for free speech, religion, assembly, etc. so in 'fleshing this out' and referring to history and well established political science definitions (BTW, "well established" when and by whom?) you are inferring rights where there are none specifically enumerated and engaging in the exact same kind of legal interpretation and creation of rights you rail against.Not at all. As I said, words have meaning. For example, there was a time in the history of the courts when they would go to great lengths discussing the precise historical meaning of the Constitutional term "direct taxation." A judicial activist, however, would not care to ground himself in the actual relevant historical meaning of that term. He would look to interpret it freed from any objective or relevant anchor at all, so as to benefit his particular preference for Federal taxation power. An originalist/strict constructionist, on the other hand, would be very much interested in what the framers believed they were saying when they used that term. In order to find that out, they would research how the most influential economists of that time used it. In this case it was Adam Smith. He used the term frequently, and clearly expressed its meaning. He was a contemporary of the framers of the Constitution, and it is well known that the framers of the Constitution were well versed in his writings, and in fact used the term in their own writing consistent with Adam Smith's usage, even referring to Smith, therefore this is the meaning attributed, by the originalist/strict constructionist, to the framers, so this is the interpretation they give to it in the Constitution.

See the difference between manufacturing powers that aren't there and merely delving into an analysis of what words meant to the framers of the Constitution? One seeks to make the "interpreter's" will into law, while the other seeks to understand the law that was actually enacted by the framers. One is a despot, while the other is a judge exercising judicial temperament.As you said, "The Constitution's meaning is clear" but then you go on and want to infer rights by fleshing out, referring to history and "well established" political science definitions, to manufacture meanings rather than relying on the actual written text of the document.I believe what I actually said was that most of the Constitution's meaning is quite clear. The most word is the key. Some of it may not be clear at first glance, but is certainly knowable by a sincere exploration of the framer's intentions, as I discussed above. This is what an originalist does, at any rate, and at the time of the Founders, originalists were the only kinds of judges there were. It was considered criminal, in fact, to be anything else.
Umm...excuse me? Understanding the various delegations of power to the federal government in such a manner as to not make the 10th Amendment meaningless? The 10th amendment states; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The commerce clause is just such a power delegated to the federal government to regulate commerce between the states. To the extent something may affect commerce between the states, it may be validly argued it is fair game for regulation by congress...unless you want to resort to applying the same sort of overly expansive view of the 10th Amendment as the Court has used in interpreting the commerce clause. Remember, the 10th carves out for the states and the people everything not already delegated to the federal government by the constitution, and the commerce clause was just such a delegation of authority to which the 10th is subject.An interpretation of the commerce clause that would make the Tenth Amendment meaningless would be any interpretation that did not seek to narrowly interpret the commerce clause. An expansive interpretation, i.e., one which goes beyond the actual and necessary meaning of words objectively found in the clause, would mean that the Tenth Amendment reserves, essentially, nothing to the States, when, to the contrary, we know from reading the Founders that quite the opposite was their intention, viz.,

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." - Federalist No. 45 MadisonYou can call what has happened with the commerce clause in the last few years a "manufacturing meaning that never was" but its really just an interpretation of the extent of that grant with which you don't agree.No, I have distinguished manufacturing law from interpreting it already. There is a difference. Words have meaning.And if you think the entire constitution now has to be judged against such an expansive interpretation of the 10th amendment that it excludes and cuts off prior grants of authority, you are "manufacturing meaning" to expand the 10th and restrict Art. I powers no less than the court did in Wickard or Raich (but to expand the commerce clause at the expense of other constitutional provisions).The correct interpretation of the Tenth Amendment requires no particular expansiveness. Simple objectivity and the ability to read basic English will do. If that is not enough, you may look to the writings of its authors, such as Federalist No. 45 provided above.FWIW, I too think the commerce clause has been extremely overused as a basis for federal legislation, but I see it as a valid (however poor) interpretation of the constitution and the commerce clause by the SCOTUS. Its our duty (and failing) as citizens to rectify that by voting in a president and Congress that will appoint and confirm good judges to the SCOTUS.

The framers also clearly set out the body by which questions arising from the constitution would be decided - the SCOTUS.Yes, questions in law and equity, however they were not actually given sole charge over the actual interpretation of the Constitution. That would be to establish an aristocracy. No, Congress, our elected representatives, may limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme court with simple legislation to that effect. Congress can, in fact, if it so chose, entirely eliminate all Federal Courts except for the Supreme Court. It could even entirely eliminate the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. So no, you are mistaken on this point as well.Geez, talk about circular reasoning. IOW, since you interpret the intent of the framers to intend strict construction, your interpretation is correct? Sorry, but the logic there is almost laughable.I suggest you analyze my logic more carefully, if that is your conclusion. To the logical mind, it makes perfect sense.Can you show me where in the Constitution the judiciary is required to apply strict construction (or your interpretation of strict construction)?Yes, by referring to justices as judges it identifies them as persons who will exercise judicial temperament, i.e., a strict adherence to original intent. Any judge who would divorce his rulings from a strict adherence to original intent was considered a criminal, since authentic law only lies in the intent of the law's framers. All else is despotism. Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on this point. Nevertheless, if you want to apply strict construction, then you must necessarily start with strict construction of Art. III and accept the premise that the SCOTUS has the authority to make those determinations, not you, since the framers clearly set out the role of the judiciary and didn't specify you as the determiner of questions arising from the constitution.Not me, nor you, nor the judges, but the original intent of the framers, as I've said from the beginning. All else is despotism.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Thanks Beerslurpy. I did't know DMF was another poster; I thought he meant something else.Hahahahaha! I never thought of that, but that could very well be interpreted as a rather crude insult. Did you think I was calling you a dumb mo fo? Not at all. I must admit, in fact, that you are obviously very bright. You'd have to be in order to generate arguments justifying your belief system. They cannot come easily. :neener:

[Zen21Tao]

Hawkeye... Excellent description of Originalist/Strict Constuctionist theory. My first law course last semester was basically just an indoctrination into Ronald Dwarkins liberal "law as integrity" form of activism.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Thanks Zen. Hang in there. I know how rough it can be. For some support, join the Federalist Society. I used to attend their meetings a lot, but I don't think I ever officially joined. It's a good organization. They bring in a lot of good speakers. When I was in law school, the Federalist Society brought Mr. Stephen P. Hallbrook, Esq in to speak to us. That was a real eye-opener for me.

[Zen21Tao]

Thanks Hawkeye I check them out. I was the only Conservative minded person in that class (Philosophy of Law) last semester. I about died when the Professor tried to stuff "Redistributive Justice" down our throats. I just couldn't swallow holding someone liable even when the person can't be proved negligent. Any argument I tried to raise was met with an appeal to emotion to make me sound heartless or assurance I was wrong based on his interpretation of precedent from a case I hadn't heard of.

[Vex]

Hawkeye,

I agree completely that the majority of governing authority must be delegated to the State, by people of the State, and for the purpose of governing the people as decided by representation. However, I have a question for you, you being a strict constitutionalist and all. What authority extends to the federal government to regulate the State from becoming all powerful? The constitution extends authority to the federal government for the purpose of regulating trade to and from foreign nations, correct (also in the Commerce Clause)? But the Commerce Clause only applies to interstate travel and commerce, right? So here's a purely theoretical question: A State allows a company to make machine guns and give them away to any citizen of the State who comes to the factory and get them, and each machine gun is implanted with a GPS device that makes the gun completely useless if it leaves the State. Legal? Note that the guns are staying inside the State, the machine guns are not being transported by anyone other than the owner, and the citizens are not buying them, therefore they are not considered "commerce."

Just trying to find the line to which the Commerce Clause doesn't count...

[The Real Hawkeye]

Hawkeye,

I agree completely that the majority of governing authority must be delegated to the State, by people of the State, and for the purpose of governing the people as decided by representation. However, I have a question for you, you being a strict constitutionalist and all. What authority extends to the federal government to regulate the State from becoming all powerful?I am not sure I understand the question. The Founders' main concern was that the Federal Government would seek to become a consolidated central governmental entity, i.e., that it would begin to usurp powers naturally and legally belonging to States, powers never having been delegated to the Federal Government. This is what they feared, because tyranny and totalitarianism is an outgrowth of centralized authority, not decentralized authority such as Federalism established. So, your question, if I am understanding it, doesn't make much sense to me since you seem to see the greatest threat to liberty coming from decentralization of governmental authority, whereas I join the Founders in seeing said threat coming almost exclusively from a central consolidation of governmental power, such as has been steadily and increasingly occurring in our nation since about the time of Reconstruction.The constitution extends authority to the federal government for the purpose of regulating trade to and from foreign nations, correct (also in the Commerce Clause)? But the Commerce Clause only applies to interstate travel and commerce, right? So here's a purely theoretical question: A State allows a company to make machine guns and give them away to any citizen of the State who comes to the factory and get them, and each machine gun is implanted with a GPS device that makes the gun completely useless if it leaves the State. Legal? Note that the guns are staying inside the State, the machine guns are not being transported by anyone other than the owner, and the citizens are not buying them, therefore they are not considered "commerce."

Just trying to find the line to which the Commerce Clause doesn't count...Well, that depends on whether or not you believe in the rule of law. The Supreme Court as a body does not (has not for a long time), and would therefore find that your limits are way too restrictive compared to the virtually unlimited power that they read into the commerce clause to Federally regulate every thing and every behavior. If, however, you believe in the rule of law, and not of men, the latter of which being rightly defined as despotism, then you will read the commerce clause as its framers intended, and your examples would indicate that you have already taken the clause's delegation of Federal power way too far.

Your example demonstrates that you believe Congress to have regulatory authority over objects no longer in the stream of commerce, let alone objects no longer in the stream of interstate commerce. Once an item reaches an end user, it can no longer be said to be in the stream of commerce at all. It has become an ordinary piece of private property, completely outside of the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and can be taken anywhere the owner wishes to take it, whether across State lines or not, so long at it complies with the laws of the State in which he is entering or currently residing. No GPS required, therefore, to make it ok with Federal law ... if you believe in the rule of law, that is.