[ServiceSoon]

ROANOKE, Va. - As the sixth-month anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre approaches, a lawyer representing 20 people killed or injured in the April shootings has began notifying the town and the state about possible lawsuits.

Blacksburg Town Attorney Larry Spencer said he received notices Friday from Peter Grenier, a personal injury lawyer in Washington, D.C., of possible lawsuits claiming negligence by the town and its employees.

A spokesman for the state attorney general's office said it received notice Friday from Grenier's law firm of a possible lawsuit on behalf of injured student Kevin Sterne. Tucker Martin said he could not say whether it was a possible lawsuit against Virginia Tech or the state itself.

No lawsuits have yet been filed stemming from the shootings on the university's Blacksburg campus, where mentally disturbed student Seung-Hui Cho killed two people in a dormitory and 30 in a classroom building before taking his own life.

The notice does not necessarily mean lawsuits will be filed, but such notification is needed by Tuesday, six months after the shootings, if lawsuits against a locality are to be filed in state court. A notice of a claim against Virginia Tech or the state must be filed within a year.

More than two hours elapsed between the dormitory slayings and Cho's rampage at Norris Hall, and police initially thought the first shootings were an act of domestic violence. Grenier's notices to the town alleged that Blacksburg police, who were among officers who responded, "failed to conduct a reasonably thorough and professionally appropriate investigation."

Grenier also contended that town officials failed to take steps to protect Virginia Tech students.

University students and employees were not notified of the first shootings for more than two hours, and Grenier said the e-mail notice sent by school officials "was inaccurate and incomplete" and "unlikely to sufficiently advise students of the serious risks posed to their safety."

Greg Gwaltney, whose son Matthew Gregory Gwaltney was killed, said he and the other families represented by Grenier's firm have been advised not to comment regarding the potential lawsuits. But he said many of the families planned to go to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to speak regarding the Brady Act, which requires a background check for anyone buying a gun.

Grenier represents the families of 12 people killed and eight who were injured in the shootings. A phone message seeking comment from Grenier was not immediately returned.

A second lawyer who is representing a family of one of the slain students also did not immediately return a phone message, but Spencer said he had received no other notices that lawsuits may be filed.

The town attorney said he was not surprised by the notices from Grenier. "The law firm had informed me to expect this," he said.

___

Associated Press writer Kristen Gelineau in Richmond contributed to this report.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_lawsuits

I'm not sure what to make of this at this point.

[TargetTerror]

From that article (which may or may not be accurate), the lawsuit is against the town for failure to respond/protect the students from the second attack. This is GOOD in my opinion, for a number of reasons:

1) That the town and not gun manufacturers are possibly going to be sued indicates that the sentiment among the victims' families is that this isn't the fault of gun manufacturers. This is good, as we don't want another lawsuit against gun manufacturers for crimes committed with their products.

2) It is a long standing doctrine that towns and states cannot be held accountable for the negligence of their employees. Moreover, it has been held that neither the police nor any other government entity is obligated to offer any protection specifically to any given person or group of people. These cases will likely affirm that, I'd imagine, and bring that point to light for a lot of people who are oblivious to it.

[Car Knocker]

Was there ever any doubt that there would be numerous lawsuits filed as a result of this incident?

[JohnBT]

Blacksburg has a population of about 41,000. They might just end up owning the town government if they pursue legal action. I imagine some will and some won't. Some of the families are using the money from the Hokie Spirit Fund to endow scholarships and fund departments.

John
Class of '72
_________

From the CollegiateTimes.com

"Ken Feinberg, the administrator for the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund, was appointed the charge by President Charles Steger because of Feinberg's work with the 9/11 memorial compensation fund. Feinberg said the goal of the fund was, "to receive unsolicited private donations from around the country for each eligible family or victim's support, and to use the funds as they deem necessary."

Feinberg described how some of the families are creating endowed scholarships in honor of their children, while others are giving some of the funds to entire academic departments. Feinberg was adamant the funds were not conditional, like the 9/11 memorial compensation fund, where families who wished to accept part of the fund had to sign a release waiving their right so sue.

"There is absolutely no precondition to accept these funds," Feinberg said. "They could turn around and use these funds to pay a lawyer to sue if they wanted.""

[Cosmoline]

I'm not remotely surprised. The University's reaction to the first slayings was to cover it up and say absolutely nothing about it until they could do some damage control. Alerting everyone about a possible murderer on campus doesn't seem to have crossed their minds, they were too worried about their image. I can't imagine MORE fertile ground for a suit! If the plaintiffs can show that an alarm or warning would have allowed some or all of the victims to get off campus in the hours between the first shootings and the massacre, they have the basis of a case.

it has been held that neither the police nor any other government entity is obligated to offer any protection specifically to any given person or group of people.

As to the town police, that's generally true. But as to the university things get more complex. The amount of protection they have varies from state to state, and the relationship of college to student is legally different from the relationship between local government and citizen. There are at least some "in loco parentis" duties to be considered in the first instance. These powers have often been used by universities to assert control over students, but they have a flip side in exposer to suits from the students.
If I was working for the university I'd be worried most about the decision to keep the first murders quiet. That seems fertile ground for a suit, since it involved a deliberate choice to keep information from those who needed it. I don't know how VA comes down on any of this though. Do they have a duty to warn students on campus of a murderer on the loose? What if they were trying to keep it quiet?

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Maybe it is far fetched, but I think each and every person in the government of Virginia who had a hand in creating any laws, or grant of power to any entity, relating to a school's ability to prohibit firearms on campus ought to be sued as well. I would include any current government officials, legislators and etc. since they are in a position where they can or could repeal any such laws infringing upon the rights of any students, faculty, and staff that would have otherwise allowed them to defend themselves with arms.

They are the ones who infringed upon the right of these people to defend themselves by prohibiting them access to the arms that could have been used to save them. I think that might be a clear violation of 18 USC 241 and 242.

Woody

"The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel or where you stop along the way, as it is the right so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey." B.E.Wood

[JohnBT]

Well, how much is it going to cost me as a Virginia taxpayer? I think the school can only be sued for $100k per victim. I don't know if there is a limit per case on the town. Whatever they do, I'm not going to criticize. They're all family.

John
VPI Class of '72


P.S. - About that "They are the ones who infringed upon the right of these people to defend themselves"

A lot of the victims weren't old enough to get a Virginia carry permit, no matter what the school policy was.

[Owen Sparks]

The party at fault is not usually the target of lawsuits, it's the party that can pay the most. Lawyers use the law the same way a thief uses a crowbar, an instrument to take other men's property. Blacksburg VA did not shoot anyone. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

A lot of the victims weren't old enough to get a Virginia carry permit, no matter what the school policy was.

Ah, yes, but it is unconstitutional law setting those age limits. That notwithstanding, I'm sure some of the profs were old enough.

Woody

[yesit'sloaded]

IIRC one of the students who died had a permit.

[Zoogster]

Actualy since looking into the subject I learned VA tech had quite a few older students. Quite a few people going back to school for a new career, and individuals back from the military etc.
Also it is 21+ so even if every student had started at 18 that means 1/4 of the student body would have always been eligable. The additional factors that add even more older individuals boost that fraction even higher. You also have students that are second or third year transfers from other colleges, something many do many places, so that boosts the percentage even higher.
Then of course there is employees. So I would venture that a significant number of the people on campus are over 21.

As said at least one of the victims actualy had a CCW.

[Robert Hairless]

I do understand that the police have no obligation to protect any individual and I also understand the legal basis for it. What interests me more is something else.

When I see a "Gun Free Zone" sign or know that a university has prohibited even those with concealed weapons permits from having a self defense weapon, I assume that the property owner or university know that criminals and lunatics are unlikely to respect that prohibition. My assumption, therefore, is that the property owner or university has taken extraordinary measures to prevent everyone from violating it.

What those signs and policies communicate to me is that the premises have been safeguarded to the level that the signs and policies indicate. Virginia Tech, having declared that it is a Gun Free Zone, assures me that it is indeed a zone that is free of guns--not only mine but everyone's.

I expect that at the very least there are armed guards (whether in uniform or not) at every entrance, that there are devices or dogs around and about the premises to detect weapons, that the contents of rooms are inspected frequently to ensure that none have been smuggled in or manufacturer in any on premises facilities, and that every other possible measure has been taken to prevent those who do not obey laws from harming those who do obey laws.

Otherwise the only conceivable effect of such policies is to limit the ability of law-abiding potential victims to resist superior force while increasing the ability of lawless potential criminals and lunatics to apply superior force to them. And that, surely, is neither equitable nor right. Nor could it possibly be what the signs and policies are intended to do.

It wouldn't surprise me if at least some of you laughed at my assumption but I think it's reasonable. I also think that it's what the students and faculty of Virginia Tech have a right to assume.

[JohnBT]

"Ah, yes, but it is unconstitutional law setting those age limits."

Not until the Supreme Court says it is. Read the Constitution.


Robert, Even State Troopers in riot gear couldn't completely shut down the Tech campus in 1970 during the student occupation of Williams Hall (among others that year) during the protest of the Cambodia invasion. There aren't enough town and school police, and armed guards in Blacksburg and Montgomery County, to begin to pull it off given the size of the campus. Maybe they should contract with Blackwater. ;)

John
Class of '72

[The_Shootist]

I guess if that individual made a habit of griping to friends and family "he was legally allowed to carry but didn't do so due to VA Tech policies" then the university would take a pretty big hit in a wrongful death lawsuit. If he was a member of my family I'd sure try it and I'd bet I'd find a sympathetic jury in VA.

Could get grey though if he was quiet about it - VA Tech's lawyers could say he was indifferent / lazy to carry that day.

I just have a gut feeling that one reasonably well trained CHL holder with a .38 snub could have made a significant difference that day.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Not until the Supreme Court says it is. Read the Constitution.


I have. Over and over. Some how I keep missing that. Would you point out in the Constitution where it says the Supreme Court gets to decide what the Constitution says?

You see, most people will read the Constitution, see the limits upon government, and plan and act out their lives accordingly. I see where government is forbidden to infringe upon my Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I see any law infringing upon my Right to Keep and Bear Arms as unconstitutional. Otherwise, if I get arrested and put on trial for a violation of such a law, how would I know it's unconstitutional and, therefore, mount my defense accordingly?

The Supreme Court will not make that determination unless it's brought to them. The Court doesn't have the power to simply look at what our miscreantic Congress has done until such acts are brought to the Court according to the Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause (2). A lot of people get to make that determination of constitutionality - beginning with Jane and John Q. Public with the guns - long before it gets to the Supreme Court. All the Court gets to say is we're right or we're wrong.

Let's look at a "line". We the People don't get to cross that line of the law. Our government doesn't get to get out of line in creating that law. I don't cross that line unless Congress has gotten out of line(the Constitution) and put that other line(the Law) in the wrong place.

Glad to be of service.

Woody

"Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to prevent crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood

[Jeff Timm]

The fact remains an official of the university, during the hearings about allowing CCW on the campus GUARANTEED that "hundreds of police with guns" were all the protection students needed.

I would consider that guarantee on record grounds for a civil action. I'm stunned and shocked that no one has sued.

Geoff
Who believes the University will claim the usual "Super Nazi-god above the law status" as usual in these cases. Cross reference the Godvernment of Washington DC.

[Robert Hairless]

That's pretty close to the direction I was trying to explain, Jeff. It's not exactly the same but pretty close.

I wasn't trying to say that universities or "Gun Free Zone" posters assume liability by denying concealed weapons permit holders the ability to have their self defense firearms on the property.

What I was trying to say is that when a university or "Gun Free Zone" poster publishes a statement that its property is free of guns the people who know that policy have a right to believe in and rely on it. Virginia Tech told the public that its campus was gun free. The public should have believed that it was, and the evidence is that the public did.

I suppose it's possible that the university and the "Gun Free Zone" poster mean that they only intend for law abiding people to comply with that policy because they know that criminals and lunatics won't. If that's what they mean, though, it's a dirty trick to play on people. State legislatures shouldn't allow it.

Here's some rough analogies to explain what I'm trying to say.

A motel owner could post signs around the premises saying "No Fires in this Building." When I enter that building I wouldn't worry about it burning down while I slept because I'd believe that the owner didn't mean only that I shouldn't set fire to it. I'd believe that the owner meant that I could feel safe from fire there. Because I could feel safe there, I wouldn't take precautions against potential fires that I might otherwise take, and even if I smelled something unusual I might ignore it without thinking "That's smoke from a fire in this building!"

Or a department store might post signs saying "Crime Free Store." On reading that sign I'd feel safer in that store than in those that weren't "crime free" because I'd believe that the store owner took all necessary measures to prevent criminals from committing crimes in that store. Of course the sign would be a warning to me that I shouldn't commit a crime there, and of course I wouldn't because I am a law abiding person. But the sign couldn't possibly have only that purpose. It must also be intended to put everyone on notice that the store has taken extraordinary measures to prevent crime.

In those two situations it's futile to sound a siren or use other general forms of communication to alert people when a fire or crime is in progress. If I were to hear a noisemaker in a building or store that was guaranteed to be free of fires or crime, the one thing that wouldn't occur to me if I heard the siren is that a fire or crime was in progress. It couldn't be. The signs said so.

In fact it is well known that Virginia Tech asked to be a "Gun Free Zone" because it wanted students, faculty, and visitors to the campus to "feel safe." That's good. Everyone wants to feel safe. I would have felt safe on Virginia Tech's campus because I know that the university wouldn't tell me to "feel safe" just to mislead me into dropping my guard for a carefully constructed fantasy.

So if I were the parent of a child who was contemplating enrollment at Virginia Tech I would have felt relieved that he or she would be on a campus in which the administration took extraordinary measures to keep all guns out.

Because the university already knew that State Troopers in riot gear couldn't bring order in the 1970s and because the university also knew that not all the law enforcement officers in the region could enforce its "gun free" policy, it's reasonable to believe that the university took even greater and more effective measures to ensure that its campus was gun free.

I don't know what those extraordinary measures were or might have been or could have been, but that's probably because secrecy was part of Virginia Tech's security plan to ensure that it was a "gun free" zone. The university said it was a "Gun Free Zone" and, were I a parent or family member of one of its victims--and one of the state of Virginia's victims too--I would hope that my attorney would demand that the university detail all of its extraordinary measures to make that campus "gun free." It's a reasonable question that deserves reasonable answers.

Were I an attorney, by the way, I'd subpoena some of the legislators who approved Virignia Tech's insistence that it be a "Gun Free Zone" and ask them what they did to ensure that the Virginia Tech campus would be safer than the rest of the state of Virginia.

[JohnBT]

Lots of good arguments. OTOH, there are many people who aren't buying it.


"The governor pointed out that most of the students injured in the shooting, and even some siblings of those who died, have returned to Tech.

"Why is that?" Kaine asked. "It's because Tech is a very good institution and Charlie Steger has a lot to do with that. " - Hampton Roads Pilot on-line

John

P.S. - On a legal note, the VA Attorney General has said the most anyone can do is sue the state for $100k, not the school. The schools have sovereign immunity.

[Double Naught Spy]

I have. Over and over. Some how I keep missing that. Would you point out in the Constitution where it says the Supreme Court gets to decide what the Constitution says?

I believe you are referring to judicial review. It is not expressly covered via the Constitution, but then again, many things are not covered by the Constitution such as case law. Even so, judicial review is a byproduct of Article III, Section one that sets up the SCOTUS and section two that says it has jurisdiction for all laws under the Constitution. More correctly, SCOTUS does not decide what the Constition says, but how it is interpreted and it has the final word in the matter as it is the highest court, as established by the Constitution.

[JohnBT]

"I have. Over and over. Some how I keep missing that. Would you point out in the Constitution where it says the Supreme Court gets to decide what the Constitution says?"

For instance, it's referred to in the following section. Note the phrase "both as to Law and Fact".


"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact..."


Reading the works of James Madison will give you a better perspective on what they intended when the Constitution was written.

www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/madison_archives.htm

[ConstitutionCowboy]

What you have pointed out only works to say that that passage might grant power to interpret the Constitution to the Supreme Court when taken out of context. Article III, Section 2, denotes the extent of the judicial power. It reads as follows:

The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, ...

If you stop at "The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity," you miss the first limit spelled out in the Constitution which is "arising under this Constitution,..."

Anything under the Constitution does not include the Constitution itself.

The other passage from the Constitution you quoted from the Constitution is also out of context. That passage, "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact..." only denotes a particular segment of the division of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction - not power, but jurisdiction.

As for "both as to Law...", that law is the laws of the United States made under their authority - that authority being the power granted to Congress to make law in the Constitution(and state law as well, depending upon what ever case the Court is hearing). "(A)nd Fact" refers the the Court's power to determine who is telling the truth - to determine what is fact and what is not.

There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Court power to interpret the Constitution.

Woody

If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. There is nothing worth more than freedom you win for yourself. There is nothing more valuable to that end than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood

[brickeyee]

"I have. Over and over. Some how I keep missing that. Would you point out in the Constitution where it says the Supreme Court gets to decide what the Constitution says?"

See Marbury vs. Madison (1803)
It is well decided, and has stood ever since the decision.

The inclusion if Blacksburg will be thrown out quickly.
Virgina Tech is a land grant university, and is NOT part of any county, city, or town.
The schools police force is part of the Virginia State police.

Either someone did some poor research, or they are really stretching.

Virginia is not bashful about sovereign immunity.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

See Marbury vs. Madison (1803)
It is well decided, and has stood ever since the decision.

That is only true for the determination of the constitutionality of law. Many people confuse such determinations as interpreting the Constitution when it is merely the Court interpreting the law. Marbury vs. Madison (1803) says nothing about any power of the Court to interpret the Constitution. It couldn't. Only the Constitution has the grants power, and they are quite specifically spelled out. The Court saying anything in any case it adjudicates claiming power to interpret the Constitution is a blatant usurpation of power.

Woody

This crap will continue until the Court stops allowing itself to be misused as a legislative branch of government, or as an alternative to amending the Constitution. B.E. Wood

[AndyC]

...he said many of the families planned to go to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to speak regarding the Brady Act, which requires a background check for anyone buying a gun.
Any bets on whether this will be pro or against Brady?

[ServiceSoon]

Any bets on whether this will be pro or against Brady?

That is why I entered this article without meaningful comment; because I don't know.

[JohnBT]

"If you stop at "The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity," you miss the first limit spelled out in the Constitution which is "arising under this Constitution,..."

Anything under the Constitution does not include the Constitution itself."
________________________________

Sure it does. Which constitutional scholars/experts are you reading?

In other news, "...a survivor of the shooting rampage and about 12 family members of victims plan to appear at a news conference in the Capitol..."

- today's Richmond Times-Dispatch

_______________________________

At Tech, roughly 100 civic and charity groups and university organizations plan to be on the campus Drillfield between 4 and 5 p.m. to sign up students, faculty and administrators for community service. The school hopes to complete 300,000 hours of volunteer work by May's graduation ceremony in honor of the shooting victims, and the Tech Alumni Association has pledged to try and match that effort. Renee Cloyd, mother of slain student Austin Michelle Cloyd, will speak during the campus drive to sign up volunteers.

- today's Richmond Times-Dispatch

[Double Naught Spy]

Anything under the Constitution does not include the Constitution itself

And yet SCOTUS deals with Constitutional law to decide what is or is not Constitutional. So if SCOTUS cannot interpret the Constitution, then how can they rule on the Constitutionality of a case? If SCOTUS does not interpret the Constitution in regard to the law, then just who does?

There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Court power to interpret the Constitution.

I love to read this logic. It seems so good when in fact it is poor. Just because something is not directly stated in the Constitution does not mean it isn't covered by the Constitution or somehow doesn't exist or isn't legal. The classic example I mentioned previously is case law. Case law is not covered by the Constitution in any direct manner and so by the logic presented, has no power. Yet, we have Constitutional case law like Miranda.

Did the Supreme Court not rule on the interpretation of the First Amendment that noted that freedom of speech has limitations? (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=249&invol=47) SCOTUS has interpretted the First Amendment as not being absolute.

You can claim all you want that the Supreme Court can't interpret the Constitution, but the fact remains that it does interpret the Constitution and no successful challenges have ever been made that say that the Supreme Court cannot do it.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Sure it does. Which constitutional scholars/experts are you reading?

None. I read the Constitution all by myself!

Woody

This crap will continue until the Court stops allowing itself to be misused as an alternative to amending the Constitution. B.E. Wood

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If SCOTUS does not interpret the Constitution in regard to the law, then just who does?

No one does other than liberals. SCOTUS interprets the law in regard to the Constitution.

More tonight.

Woody

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole of the People, is sacredly obligatory upon all."

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.

[Cosmoline]

Woody, I realize you enjoy bringing up your personal theories about the Constitution, but I'm not really seeing the connection with the potential lawsuits against the university and the local cops.

[JohnBT]

"None. I read the Constitution all by myself!"

But you're not doing a very good job of understanding it. That's why I suggested reading the views of the Founding Fathers - they wrote it. They explained what the words meant and how the system was to work.

John

[Double Naught Spy]

I read the Constitution all by myself!

No one does other than liberals. SCOTUS interprets the law in regard to the Constitution.

More tonight.

Woody


Thank you, Woody, for admitting that you are a Liberal as you are obviously providing your interpretation of the Constitution. :D

Bringing things back on track, anyone expect any of the potential lawsuits to be over concealed carry? That is, will they be suing for concealed carry or will concealed carry be the primary focus of any of the suits. Sure, all of the suits are going to mention that there was a failing to protect the student body and the community, but will any argue concealed carry have changed things? Historically, this hasn't been an argument of civil suits even though it is an argument mentioned repeatedly on gun boards.

[Cosmoline]

anyone expect any of the potential lawsuits to be over concealed carry?

I hope so. That's been a hugely unexplored area of liability IMHO. The argument wouldn't be to allow CCW--that's beyond the scope of a suit for WD or damages. The suit would be for damages arising from their decision to disarm all law-abiding members of the campus community. Now if it's a state or local *LAW* that disarms everyone, it's impossible to sue for damages because of it. But if it's just U policy, that's a different matter.

[ServiceSoon]

Now if it's a state or local *LAW* that disarms everyone, it's impossible to sue for damages because of it.

Why do you say that? My logic tells me otherwise.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Court power to interpret the Constitution.

Followed with:

I love to read this logic. It seems so good when in fact it is poor.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's poor. If you can show me where the SCOTUS has been granted power to interpret the Constitution, that would be a good place for you to start your argument.

Just because something is not directly stated in the Constitution does not mean it isn't covered by the Constitution or somehow doesn't exist or isn't legal.

I'd like you to point out anything supporting this claim that though that particular something isn't directly stated in the Constitution, it IS covered by the Constitution in regard to any supposed power of the Court over the Constitution. The following from you:

The classic example I mentioned previously is case law. Case law is not covered by the Constitution in any direct manner and so by the logic presented, has no power. Yet, we have Constitutional case law like Miranda.

I wouldn't call Miranda "constitutional" law. The "technical" name for this action is called a prophylactic rule. The Court has no power to enact legislation and Miranda, regardless of what ever good it is supposed to do, is legislation from the bench. Any such requirements to "read someone their rights" should come from the legislature and not the Court.

For those arguing against me who seem to want to hear it from "scholars" or other high officials, will Scalia and Thomas do?

The notion of prophylactic rules is controversial. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antinon Scalia and Clarence Thomas have argued against them, writing that the ability of judges to create these rules "is an immense and frightening antidemocratic power, and it does not exist."

These prophylactic rules are an interesting concept, don't you think? Sounds good. Sounds like a whole new way to protect our rights by calling it a new right. Throwing these "condoms" on the Constitution is not the way to go. Requiring law enforcement to explain the enumerated rights to a suspect being arrested is not their duty and is out of place. If any of these rights have been violated, the suspect can argue the case in court. There is no need for this bogus law or "prophylactic rule" if you prefer.

Case law robs every subsequent litigant of his day in court. No two cases are exactly the same. Relying on a ruling from a previous case to decide every subsequent case, no matter how similar, is a miscarriage of justice. And how would you justify altering or going against case law as does sometimes happen? Does every criminal who has been punished under the old case law get to go free?

More correctly, SCOTUS does not decide what the Constitution says, but how it is interpreted and it has the final word in the matter as it is the highest court, as established by the Constitution.

Wow! That's deep! Let me dig into this a little, OK? You say the Court doesn't decide what the Constitution says, but does decide how it is interpreted. Seems a bit oxymoron to me. There are two definitions of "interpret" that apply here:

1. to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms.

2. to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : construe

I could accept the first definition of "interpret" as defining what the Constitution says. However, the Court has run amok by using the second definition of "interpret". Therefore, I will grant that no power to interpret the Constitution has been given to the Court, or even exists for the Court. In fact, the word "interpret" does not appear in the Constitution. I will go so far as to say anyone in government is forbidden to interpret anything beyond that which is plainly written in the Constitution. No less than thrice in the Constitution are those in government specifically forbidden to construe.

Did the Supreme Court not rule on the interpretation of the First Amendment that noted that freedom of speech has limitations? SCOTUS has interpreted the First Amendment as not being absolute.

The fact that the First Amendment is not absolute is a DUH. To begin with, the First Amendment prohibits abridgment of free speech but does not protect speech as a right. If a person were to possess a right to free speech, there could be no crime of perjury. You may say what you will, but you are subject to and responsible for any adverse effects your speech might have, and on the converse, you may also reap the rewards of any good that might come of your speech. The mere stating of, and ruling with, the obvious facts is not an interpretation.

You can claim all you want that the Supreme Court can't interpret the Constitution, but the fact remains that it does interpret the Constitution and no successful challenges have ever been made that say that the Supreme Court cannot do it. The simple fact that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and has not ruled against itself in doing so does not make it right. That's a paradox. Would you expect a king to say he cannot rule his land?

Anyway, we live by the rule of law. Law lives by the rule of the Constitution. We are the authors of the Constitution.

Thank you, Woody, for admitting that you are a Liberal as you are obviously providing your interpretation of the Constitution. It's nice to see you have a sense of humor. But for those who missed the humor, I abide the Constitution. I read and obey. I see a "No Turn On Red" sign, I wait for green before I turn. I don't claim the light is magenta and turn regardless. That's the difference between abide and interpret.

Woody, I realize you enjoy bringing up your personal theories about the Constitution, but I'm not really seeing the connection with the potential lawsuits against the university and the local cops. I'm merely defending my initial supposition in my comment - number 6 in this thread - and JohnBT's rebuttal of my rebuttal of his claim that a lot of the victims weren't old enough to get a Virginia carry permit. It all follows from there.

My technique is simple. I see it clearly as fact. Words mean things - just as numbers have value and you can add, subtract, multiply and divide them. I just do the math.

Woody

"Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to prevent crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood

[1x2]

To begin with, the First Amendment prohibits abridgment of free speech but does not protect speech as a right. If a person were to possess a right to free speech, there could be no crime of perjury.Would you clarify this just a little? That the 1st amendment was included in the "Bill of Rights" makes it sound like you're splitting ethereal hairs. Nothing exists in a vacuum (boy, I love that one :D ), but I hope you know what I mean. I think we've been protecting speech for a long time...

1x2

[Robert Hairless]

"Nothing exists in a vaccum" indeed. Shame on you.

Woody, you're clogging the discussion of a specific issue by spinning it off in a direction that might be interesting in another context but not this one. No offense intended.

DNS, I'm just guessing but I'd be surprised if any of the suits were to involve concealed carry. My impression based only on reading between the lines of newspaper reports, is that the parents demonize guns just as the VT administration does. My guess is that at least a key issue if not the central issue will be the university's failure to alert students for some time after the first murder.

Have you (anyone) formed a different impresion or do you think the issue irrelevant?

[Double Naught Spy]

Nope, I don't have a different opinion. However, this is an event where pro-gun people have repeatedly claimed that a person with a CCW could have stopped the gunman and lots of folks on this board and others bring up the issue of suing because of such an event where law abiding citizens were not allowed to have guns and as such "not allowed to defend themselves." The last statement is the one often made and is ignorant. It isn't that not allowing guns results in not allowing people to defend themselves. Not allowing guns just means that they aren't supposed to have guns. They are free to defend themselves otherwise.

Getting back on track, the topic comes up time and time again and this would appear to be the perfect situation for such a suit, but I personally doubt it will be filed. Why? Because people will have trouble substantiating a CCW would have changed the outcome and would have to substantiating that the school is at fault for not allowing CCW.

My point here is that if such an event is such a great test case for this sort of suit, as with previous barred legal CCW shootings, then why aren't these suits being filed? My guess is that they are being filed because they aren't winnable. Barring legal CCW isn't negligence.

[JohnBT]

"Words mean things"

And many of them have multiple meanings. For instance, look up the word you used, abide. Did you mean you:

1: await
2: endure without yielding
3: to accept without objection <will abide your decision>
4: to remain stable or fixed in a state
5: to continue in a place

I assumed you meant 3:accept without objection, but that required a judgement, an interpretation if you will, on my part. You knew what you meant, but my using a word with multiple meanings you left yourself open to misinterpretation.

Since many of the words - and phrases - in the Constitution have multiple meanings, the Supreme Court has to decide what they mean. In addition to the multiple meanings of many of the words at the time the Constitution was written, there is also the issue of how the meaning of some words have changed over the centuries. Take the word militia as an example and the other meanings it has acquired over the years.

John

[Kharn]

Schools try to sweep so much stuff under the rug so that prospective students do not go elsewhere, it was inevietable that such attempts at spin contorl would bite one in the butt.

Kharn

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Bringing things back on track, anyone expect any of the potential lawsuits to be over concealed carry? That is, will they be suing for concealed carry or will concealed carry be the primary focus of any of the suits. Sure, all of the suits are going to mention that there was a failing to protect the student body and the community, but will any argue concealed carry have changed things? Historically, this hasn't been an argument of civil suits even though it is an argument mentioned repeatedly on gun boards.

I doubt any of these suits will be brought to sue for concealed carry. That would be, after all, demanding the court to legislate from the bench. The court could decide that any such limitations in the concealed carry laws are too restrictive and shoot down any such restrictions or the whole law itself.(The Second Amendment considered notwithstanding for the sake of discussion.) It would then be up to the state legislature to make whatever corrections it desired - or not.

Woody

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Would you clarify this just a little? That the 1st amendment was included in the "Bill of Rights" makes it sound like you're splitting ethereal hairs. Nothing exists in a vacuum (boy, I love that one ), but I hope you know what I mean. I think we've been protecting speech for a long time...

Yes, but we've been "protecting" the freedom of speech, not any right to free speech. If I had a right to free speech, I could say anything to anyone and what I was to say or to whom could not be challenged nor could I be held accountable for whatever I said. When you get down to the nitty gritty, it's more about why it's protected. Because of the prohibition in the First Amendment, those in government cannot shut us up when we wish to speak out about what those in government have done or intend to do.

As for the "Bill of Rights", it included more than just rights to be protected. It included an amendment proposal to keep congressional pay raises from going into effect until after the next election of representatives. It was ratified on May 7, 1992, nearly 201 years after the ratification of the the ten we now call the "Bill of Rights". There was another proposed amendment in the bunch that has never been ratified, but it is moot now as it dealt with the number of representatives from each state in the House, and the method of determining how many representatives from each state was changed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Woody

[ConstitutionCowboy]

JohnBT

You are certainly free interpret what ever I say as you so choose, but you didn't have any trouble discerning which definition of "abide" I was using by the context in which I used it.

The Constitution must be read in context as well. An example is the word "state". It is used two ways in the Constitution. One way is the political unit and the other way is the condition definition. Its definition wherever it is used is determined by the context in which it is used.

It would be interesting how my short, concise statement - "I abide the Constitution" - could have any other meaning than "to accept without objection" when taken in the context of the whole paragraph in which it appears. Usually, only liberals will take statements out of context in an attempt to discredit, besmirch, or obfuscate. Neither of those goals is very high road.

In any event, the law or bylaw in question regarding the limitations on students, faculty, and staff at VT is unconstitutional, culpable in the lack of these dead people's preparedness to defend themselves, and as dastardly as the prohibitions on carrying arms on airliners by law abiding citizens that enabled the loss of 3000 lives, the destruction of the World Trade Center, the attack on the Pentagon, and the downing of Flight 93.

I'll say it again: I believe these people have a case under 18 USC 241 and 242.

Woody

[1x2]

Yes, but we've been "protecting" the freedom of speech, not any right to free speech. If I had a right to free speech, I could say anything to anyone and what I was to say or to whom could not be challenged nor could I be held accountable for whatever I said.OK (I think). Your "right to free speech" is a freedom without regard to the "truth or consequences". As important as terms are, I can't differentiate between these two.

I think it important though (to reconstruct an approach to legislation) that to maintain as broad a set of freedoms (rights) as possible, that the consequences be legislated, rather than attempting to preempt outcomes by legislating the right, though the latter seems more expedient (and possibly appears theoretically superior on the surface). My sense is that you'd have more of a right to free speech, this way.

For example, "He's guilty because he shot this person" has been legislated as well as "A person cannot go armed into a courtroom, Federal building, 1,000 yds from a school, etc." because a person might commit a crime. So we've legislated the right (wrong approach) as well as the "truth or consequences".

1x2

[ConstitutionCowboy]

1X2.

You've got the gist of it.

With "Freedom of Speech", a person may be free to say that which he can, but that doesn't mean what he says is correct or make him immune from adverse consequences. With a "Right to Free Speech", a person IS free to say that which he can. Though that still doesn't mean what he says is correct, it does make him immune from adverse consequences.

Woody

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all." ~~Henry Waxman

[MASTEROFMALICE]

Actually the Constitution DOES NOT give the Supreme Court the power to interpret it.

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to interpret the Constitution in Marbury v. Madison. It was essentially a nothing little case and they kind of kicked in as a side note, "Oh, by the way, we're now the most powerful branch of government. Have a nice day."

[phaed]

...sue the government for failure to protect. ...going to speak with the brady bunch.
...complaining about the quality of email, while thinking that it's a real time notification system.


this is all headed in the wrong direction.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to interpret the Constitution in Marbury v. Madison. It was essentially a nothing little case and they kind of kicked in as a side note, "Oh, by the way, we're now the most powerful branch of government....

Actually, it's the power to interpret the law and declare it unconstitutional.

Have a better day!

Though it appears the Court took that power, it actually "has" that power in that the Court's power to adjudicate does not extend to unconstitutional law. Therefore, anything Congress does that is unconstitutional cannot be enforced. It's as if such a law does not exist.

Woody

[JohnBT]

"Usually, only liberals will take statements out of context in an attempt to discredit, besmirch, or obfuscate. Neither of those goals is very high road."

Liberals? Out of context? Discredit? Besmirch? Obfuscate? I posit sir that you are the one who is not being high road here. All I did was post on the subject of the multiple meaning of words and the Founding Father's intent that the Supreme Court interpret the law of the land. You on the other insist that the Constitution means what you say it means.

How you got all that garbage you just posted out of a simple straightforward post of mine is a real mystery. I again suggest you take two giant steps back and go read, or re-read, the Founding Fathers' writings on the Constitution. It's all there in black and white.

John

[209]

Back to the lawsuits:

I believe the SCOTUS has already ruled on the obligation of the State to protect. It was when Dushanbe v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services 489 US 189, 109 S Ct 998, 103 L Ed 2d 249 (1989) was heard. The case was dismissed. It was appealed in the 7th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. They also dismissed the case.

It ultimately went to SCOTUS for final appeal. As I understand it, the plaintiffs were arguing that a violation of the 14th amendment using a “Due Process” clause violation was the reason for the suit. The Supremes up-held the dismissal, saying:

“But nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security. It forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without' due process of law,' but its language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.” Cite: DeShaney 489 at 495.

The Supremes also said:

" Its [the Due Process Clause] purpose was to protect the people from the State, not to ensure that the State protected them from each other." Cite: DeShaney 489 at 196.

The Court also said:

"Consistent with these principles, our cases have recognized that the Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual. ... If the Due Process Clause does not require the State to provide its citizens with particular protective services, it follows that the State cannot be held liable under the clause for injuries that could have been averted had it chosen to provide them. As a general matter, then, we conclude that a State's failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.” Cite: DeShaney 489 at 196, 197.

Having said all of that, there are supposed to be some loopholes, or exceptions, in the above ruling. Some legal experts think if the case is proven that a state-created or state-enhanced danger was caused by some state action, another lawsuit may well be successful. Maybe some sharp lawyer can plead the “gun-free” policy created a state enhanced danger which caused the state to have a “duty to protect”. It’d be an interesting argument.

I am curious as to why the town/city is being named. I was under the impression that VA Tech is a state school and, as such, state property. Up ‘round here, cities are not mandated to provide much of anything to the state universities as the university [state] and the city are two separate entities. While we can request assistance from the city in which we are located, there is no formal mutual aid in force. If we asked, they would come, but there is no mandate. Our back-up request would ultimately be State Police; they are mandated to respond. Maybe it’s different in VA. :confused:

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Discredit: Comment # 26

Sure it does. Which constitutional scholars/experts are you reading?

Rather than present an argument, you claim my source of information is faulty.

Besmirch: Comment #31

But you're not doing a very good job of understanding it.

I don't see it your way, so I must be stupid or ignorant


Obfuscate: Comment #39

Since many of the words - and phrases - in the Constitution have multiple meanings, the Supreme Court has to decide what they mean. In addition to the multiple meanings of many of the words at the time the Constitution was written, there is also the issue of how the meaning of some words have changed over the centuries. Take the word militia as an example and the other meanings it has acquired over the years.

When taken in context, there is only one meaning for any of the phrases or words in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were quite adroit, terse and blunt in the way they wrote the Constitution in order to avoid any confusion. Here is a funny thing you might find interesting: The words in the Constitution pretty much mean the same thing today as they did back then. In any event, the definitions that applied to the words when the Constitution was written are the definitions that count.

Having said all of that, there are supposed to be some loopholes, or exceptions, in the above ruling. Some legal experts think if the case is proven that a state-created or state-enhanced danger was caused by some state action, another lawsuit may well be successful. Maybe some sharp lawyer can plead the “gun-free” policy created a state enhanced danger which caused the state to have a “duty to protect”. It’d be an interesting argument.

I agree.

I'd add that there is another side of the "Due Process Clause" wherein the government has a duty to engage in and complete due process before anyone can be denied life, liberty, or property. The prohibition on individuals to carry defensive weapons on their person would be a denial of due process. What had these people been charged and convicted with that they had been denied the liberty of providing for their own well-being and had been denied the right to keep and bear arms; all of which cost 32 of them their lives?

Woody

As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

[Double Naught Spy]

When taken in context, there is only one meaning for any of the phrases or words in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were quite adroit, terse and blunt in the way they wrote the Constitution in order to avoid any confusion. Here is a funny thing you might find interesting: The words in the Constitution pretty much mean the same thing today as they did back then.

Woody, it would be nice if that were so, but your perspective has not proven true with time. Even the first words of the Constitution did not mean then what they would mean today.

We the People...

This basically translated to be "We, the white land owning men of means..." Such text did not refer to non-land owning white men, women, children, servants, slaves, or Native Americans.

If you haven't noticed Woody, you seem to be the only one here with your views.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Woody, it would be nice if that were so, but your perspective has not proven true with time. Even the first words of the Constitution did not mean then what they would mean today.

We the people

This basically translated to be "We, the white land owning men of means..." Such text did not refer to non-land owning white men, women, children, servants, slaves, or Native Americans.



"People" (Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1755)


1. A nation, those who compose a community


2. The Vulgar


3. The commonality; not the princes or nobles


4. Persons of a particular class


5. Men, or persons in general. In this sense, the word people is used indefinitely, like ou in French.


"People" (Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary(current))


1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest

2 plural : human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons<salespeople> —often used attributively <people skills>

3 plural : the members of a family or kinship

4 plural : the mass of a community as distinguished from a special class <disputes between the people and the nobles> —often used by Communists to distinguish Communists from other people

5 plural peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized group

6: lower animals usually of a specified kind or situation(This is a new one on me!)

7: the body of enfranchised citizens of a state

There appears to be a close parallel to the definitions then and now. I suppose you could fit your definition in there somewhere, and I do recognize that your definition fit the circumstances, but the definitions haven't changed(except for the inclusion of the lower animals??? What's up with that!).

What HAS changed is the character of the Constitution as it pertains to "people" via the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth amendments! Ain't the Fifth Article a great thing? Gotta love it!

If you haven't noticed Woody, you seem to be the only one here with your views.

That's OK. I'm all into sharing them, though, and in the process, maybe educating some people. But, I'm not so arrogant to think I'm the only one who understands this stuff. You give me too much credit. I learned a lot of this stuff from people like me, and yes, from people with views like yours.

Woody

"There is nothing to fear in this country from free people. But, when freedom is usurped, there is something to fear for people will revolt to remain free. To all usurpers, do the math. But don't wonder the outcome when you miscalculate." B.E.Wood

[JohnBT]

"When taken in context, there is only one meaning for any of the phrases or words in the Constitution."

You have obviously missed over 200 years of constitutional arguments over the meanings of many of the words.

John

[brickeyee]

So you are saying blacks were not slaves when the constitution was signed?
That only white males had a right to vote?

Even without the elastic crap from the libs about a 'living document' there are still over 200 years of attempts to interpret and apply the Constitution.

The telephone did not exist at the signing. Does the first amendment apply?
Even the telegraph was in the future.

Does 'freedom of the press' mean newspapers cannot charge?
It is not free to me. I have to pay for a copy!

Should newspapers be REQUIRED to post and distribute free copies to meet the standard of the first amendment?

Does the first amendment apply to radio? television? cable television? the internet?

Am I free to call you a despicable coward?
To accuse you of anything I wish in public without consequence?
Do you still beat your wife?

Your arguments are grossly oversimplified and fail to account for 200 years of jurisprudence.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

You have obviously missed over 200 years of constitutional arguments over the meanings of many of the words.

And in each of those arguments there must have been someone standing up for what the Constitution said. Otherwise, those cases wouldn't have had to go before the Court when those unlawful or unconstitutional acts were perpetrated. Only liberal judges would have ruled contrary to the Constitution. At any given time, there are more of either liberal or conservative justices on the Court and you must take your chances, right? All that aside, it doesn't change what the Constitution says. Only an amendment can do that.

Why are you so adamant in allowing the Court so much sway with your rights and freedoms? I'm truly curious.


Brickeyee,

Whom are you addressing?

Woody

[brickeyee]

You Woody.
You appear to have an extremely shallow understanding of the Constitution and how it came about.
You need to read the Federalist papers, the Anti-Federalist papers, and at least the major decisions of the past 200 years.
A detailed understanding of both sides of the arguments around the adoption of the Constitution is needed to understand what was finally agreed to by all parties.
Keep a copy of Blackstone around to provide definitions of words from a contemporary legal source.

You can argue what YOU think Marbury vs. Madison means all you want, it decided (and has not been overturned) that the Supreme Court can review all acts of congress to decide if they are in conformance with the Constitution.
It has since been extended to the general concept that the Supreme Court is the arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution and its application to all the questions that have evolved in the past ~200 years.

A few texts on the Constitution (Tribe is a good place to start) would give you a better understanding of what has been decided.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

You can argue what YOU think Marbury vs. Madison means all you want, it decided (and has not been overturned) that the Supreme Court can review all acts of congress to decide if they are in conformance with the Constitution. I agree with this. If you review what I have said on the subject you can see for yourself. Those acts of Congress can only be reviewed on appeal, though.

It has since been extended to the general concept that the Supreme Court is the arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution and its application to all the questions that have evolved in the past ~200 years.

You mean it is a power the Court has usurped, don't you? If you can show me in the Constitution where the Court has been granted power to interpret the Constitution, I'd be appreciative. No one has been able to show me yet. You could be the first!

Woody

This crap will continue until the Court stops allowing itself to be misused as a legislative branch of government, or as an alternative to amending the Constitution. B.E. Wood

[JohnBT]

"Why are you so adamant in allowing the Court so much sway with your rights and freedoms? I'm truly curious."

Why? Uh, they didn't ask my opinion when they set up the system. IOW, I'm dealing with reality and you're dealing with fantasies - how you think or wish it should work.

John

[brickeyee]

"You mean it is a power the Court has usurped, don't you? If you can show me in the Constitution where the Court has been granted power to interpret the Constitution, I'd be appreciative. No one has been able to show me yet. You could be the first!"

Try reviewing the intervening 200 years of jurisprudence.
You might have to actually do it yourself.

[Double Naught Spy]

You know Woody, between my government and law classes, we never learned your version of the Constitution. So I am at a loss for what you are claiming as being the right view.

Just curious, where does it say that the Constitution cannot be interpreted by SCOTUS? You want to know where it says that it can, and I want you to show me where it can't.

You never did show me where the Constitution allows for case law. You have cited case law to make your points, but by your stand, if the Constitution does not say it is so, then it isn't so.

I will say this, your views remind me of the guys who were part of the Republic of Texas incident in the 1990s where they claimed that Texas was an independent nation, not a state of the United States, based on their interpretation of various texts and history and as such, they were seizing control of the Republic. They ended up being a bunch of loonies who were charged for various crimes in a reality they failed to recognize as being valid. Strangely, the invalid reality put them in very valid jails.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

"You mean it is a power the Court has usurped, don't you? If you can show me in the Constitution where the Court has been granted power to interpret the Constitution, I'd be appreciative. No one has been able to show me yet. You could be the first!"

Try reviewing the intervening 200 years of jurisprudence.
You might have to actually do it yourself.Oh, it can be found in jurisprudence many times over the last 200+ years. I want you to show me the grant of power to the Supreme Court to interpret what the Constitution says in the Constitution. If you claim the Court has that power, you must have seen it in the Constitution somewhere. Otherwise, it is nothing less and nothing more than an usurpation.

You know Woody, between my government and law classes, we never learned your version of the Constitution. So I am at a loss for what you are claiming as being the right view. Therein lies your problem. You took your teachers word over your own ability to study and discern this stuff for yourself. Your teachers have an agenda and succeeded in indoctrinating you to their desired way of thinking.

Just curious, where does it say that the Constitution cannot be interpreted by SCOTUS? You want to know where it says that it can, and I want you to show me where it can't.This is another example of your teacher's failure. It appears they didn't tell you that Congress, the Executive, and the Court only have those powers granted to them in the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers made that quite clear in the Tenth Amendment. "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."

You never did show me where the Constitution allows for case law. You have cited case law to make your points, but by your stand, if the Constitution does not say it is so, then it isn't so. I don't cite cases as case "law"(that usually ends up as legislating from the bench). I'm only interested in the opinions and decisions of the Court case by case. Each and every case is different and deserves the full attention of the Court. Falling back on precedent essentially robs the next litigant or defendant to come along with a similar case of his day in court. I'm not too concerned about stare decisis, though, because an appellate court can shoot it down(change it) when it is discovered to be bad. It can be ignored when it is shown that some supposed applicable precedent does not apply. And here is the big rub: All judges swear or affirm an oath to support the Constitution, not stare decisis.

I merely refer to certain cases and opinions to support my arguments for the Constitution.

I will say this, your views remind me of the guys who were part of the Republic of Texas incident in the 1990s where they claimed that Texas was an independent nation, not a state of the United States, based on their interpretation of various texts and history and as such, they were seizing control of the Republic. They ended up being a bunch of loonies who were charged for various crimes in a reality they failed to recognize as being valid. Strangely, the invalid reality put them in very valid jails

Sounds like they were a little misinformed, not to mention not bold enough to come up with their own reasons for taking over Texas. If they wanted it, they simply should have said they wanted it. At any rate, I don't intend to seize the United States. I only intend to espouse the virtues of the Constitution, and expose the usurpations of power. You've been a big help. Thank you!

Woody

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law....an oligarchy...the rule of few over many.

[glummer]

Cowboy,
"arising under this Constitution,..."

Anything under the Constitution does not include the Constitution itself.Says who?
I think you are misinterpreting the word “under”:
Oxford:
6 as provided for by the rules of; in accordance with.

And, since we cannot agree on the meaning of under, or its implications, who will decide what it means, legally, if not SCOTUS?

If I had a right to free speech, I could say anything to anyone and what I was to say or to whom could not be challenged nor could I be held accountable for whatever I said.
Hmm. Therefore, If I have a right to bear arms, I could bear them anywhere, under any circumstances, and I could not be challenged nor could I be held accountable for whatever I did. :what:
Like in your house, without your permission? :evil:
Interesting bit of interpretation there, Woody.


Actually, it's the power to interpret the law and declare it unconstitutional
And the Constitution is the supreme LAW of the USA.

[atblis]

Isn't there a precedent for institutions to be responsible for those under their care (mental institutions, prisons, etc.)? If they fail at that (e.g. prison rape), they are liable. By issuing that statement about armed police being all that students need, aren't they claiming some sort of stewardship over their students/employees similar to a prison, or similar institution?

Farmer v. Brennan maybe?

VT claimed responsibility for the defense of their students, and took actions to restrict students/employees.

They said they could. Took actions to make sure they were the only ones who could.
They couldn't/didn't.
Are they not responsible (liable)?

Again the prison rape thing.

If somebody is raped (not in prison), the police are not responsible/liable. Same for other violent crimes. This has been affirmed in court.

If somebody is raped in prison, it is different because the person is under the care of the institution, especially so because their rights are restricted. A university is a similar situation, and in this case VT took restrictive actions that are directly pertinent to the massacre.

I think they should be quite suable. Problem is, most people don't want to recognize the right to self defense. If you prod them enough, they usually will .

[RealGun]

And the Constitution is the supreme LAW of the USA. - glummer

Only within federal court jurisdiction. It is not "supreme", if the case doesn't qualify, applicable power left to the State Court. One can get confused between the SCOTUS ACTING supreme and the Constitution actually BEING supreme in a given instance. They have been wrong often enough and badly enough for all to be suitably skeptical.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Anything under the Constitution does not include the Constitution itself
Says who?
I think you are misinterpreting the word “under”:
Quote:

Oxford:
6 as provided for by the rules of; in accordance with.
And, since we cannot agree on the meaning of under, or its implications, who will decide what it means, legally, if not SCOTUS?

Here the preposition "under" introduces the prepositional phrase "under this Constitution". This prepositional phrase is used as an adverb(adverbial phrase) modifying the verb "arising". The preposition "under" joining its object "this Constitution" to the rest of the sentence indicates the logical relationship of "this Constitution" to the rest of the sentence. It says where the arising is taking place - under the Constitution. Not on the same plane as the Constitution, not above the Constitution, but UNDER the Constitution. That same "under" also joins "the laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, ..." to the rest of the sentence indicating that prepositional phrase's relationship to the rest of the sentence, to wit: It again says where the arising is taking place - under the laws and treaties. Not on the same plane as the laws and treaties, not above the laws and treaties, but UNDER the laws and treaties.

("Under" is used in the same context elsewhere in that same sentence: "under their authority".)

"Under this Constitution", being used as an adverbial phrase, the Oxford definition "extending or directly below something" applies.

Johnson's Dictionary, 1755, gives the following adverbial definitions of "under":
1. In a state of subjection.

2. Less : Opposed to over or more.

3. It has signification resembling that of an adjective; inferior; subject; subordinate...

There, see? No Supreme Court needed to "interpret" the Constitution. I was able to explain it to you without any interpretation. All one need do is follow the rules of grammar.

If I had a right to free speech, I could say anything to anyone and what I was to say or to whom could not be challenged nor could I be held accountable for whatever I said.

Hmm. Therefore, If I have a right to bear arms, I could bear them anywhere, under any circumstances, and I could not be challenged nor could I be held accountable for whatever I did.

You were fine up to the point you jumped out of the bounds of the Second Amendment. The second Amendment does not prevent law prohibiting or restricting certain uses of your arms. You most certainly can be held accountable for what you DO with your arms!

Like in your house, without your permission? That is a point where your RKBA bumps into my property rights. You need permission either expressly or by nolo contendere.

Interesting bit of interpretation there, Woody.

Naw, it's just reading.

And the Constitution is the supreme LAW of the USA.

You got the emphasis in the wrong place. Its, "And the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the USA." (And the several states ,and any political subdivisions thereof.)

Woody

"Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to prevent crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood

[glummer]

Cowboy
Not on the same plane as the laws and treaties, not above the laws and treaties, but UNDER the laws and treaties
I assert that the preposition has no such implication in this case.
We are not speaking of physical position, but association, or relevance.
You are playing semantic tricks, definition switching and distorting the meaning, and INTERPRETING the Constitution to suit your preferences.
Since I, and most other people, disagree with your interpretation, who should decide what it really means?
You have ruled out SCOTUS – who, then?


That is a point where your RKBA bumps into my property rights.
And exactly how can your rights be enforced if I cannot “ be challenged nor … held accountable”?

You got the emphasis in the wrong place.
It’s the same place you put it.

[RealGun]

Since I, and most other people, disagree with your interpretation, - glummer


That would be a foul, attempting to borrow credibility. You don't know what "most other people" think. The only sample is from those who chose to post a comment.

[Rumble]

You have ruled out SCOTUS – who, then?

Assuming for the sake of argument Woody's position is correct, then it is the People who have the right to interpret the Constitution. Would you agree, Woody? Based on the part about powers not granted by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the States?

But that would seem to mean that if the people (or their representatives) enact a particular law or regulation on any right, it is a situation where the People have approved a particular interpretation of the constitution. This interpretation cannot later be overruled, since SCOTUS (as an entity) lacks the power to make its own interpretations.

[glummer]

RealGun
That would be a foul, attempting to borrow credibility. You don't know what "most other people" think. The only sample is from those who chose to post a comment
I DO know what "most other people" think. And so do you. The topic of SCOTUS jurisdiction in Constitutional questions was settled, for most people, almost 2 centuries ago. Cowboy’s position is very much idiosyncratic. And you know it. :D

[glummer]

Rumble
Assuming for the sake of argument Woody's position is correct, then it is the People who have the right to interpret the Constitution
And that's the problem - it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for "the People" to interpret anything.

But that would seem to mean that if the people (or their representatives) enact a particular law or regulation on any right, it is a situation where the People have approved a particular interpretation of the constitution. This interpretation cannot later be overruled, since SCOTUS (as an entity) lacks the power to make its own interpretations.
The People have no power to make laws.
And the Constitution grants their representatives no power to interpret laws.

[Rumble]

The People have no power to make laws.
And the Constitution grants their representatives no power to interpret laws.

Fair enough. I am not even close to a Constitutional scholar. My main point was simply that according to Woody's argument (I believe he cited "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" but it may have been someone else), if the federal government and state governments are not delegated (or are prohibited) the power to interpret the Constitution, the only remaining entity that might have that power is "the people." Although in fairness, the Constitution doesn't appear to expressly prohibit the States from doing so.

What I was trying to get at with the statement you quoted was that despite my lack of power to enact law, it seems that nobody else has the power to decide that my interpretation of the supreme law is erroneous. Of course, I didn't express it well.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

We are not speaking of physical position, but association, or relevance. Yes, that's true. One of the functions of a preposition is to show the logical relationship(association, or relevance) - of the object of the preposition to the rest of the sentence.


1. In a state of subjection.

2. Less : Opposed to over or more.

3. It has signification resembling that of an adjective; inferior; subject; subordinate...

There are no semantics in this; same as there are no semantics in the Constitution.

More tonight.

Woody

[legaleagle_45]

Originally Posted by Woody
"You mean it is a power the Court has usurped, don't you? If you can show me in the Constitution where the Court has been granted power to interpret the Constitution, I'd be appreciative. No one has been able to show me yet. You could be the first!"

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court

Originally Posted by Woody
"arising under this Constitution,..."
Anything under the Constitution does not include the Constitution itself.

Which means they can not declare the Constitution invalid. They can declare laws invalid if they are not "arising under this Constitution,..."

[glummer]

Woody
"arising under this Constitution,..."
Anything under the Constitution does not include the Constitution itself.
Your definition of “under” seems to me to lead to some nonsensical results.
By your logic, a case “arising under” the DC anti-gun laws could be truthfully referred to that way, only so long as the defendant did not challenge the interpretation of the law itself.
If he/she did, then, according to your analysis, at that point, it could no longer be accurately described as “arising under” that law, since “anything under the (that law) does not include (that law) itself."
I cannot see how your analysis is anything but unnecessarily confusing.

There are no semantics in this;
:what: Semantics is exactly what you are talking about. :what:
Oxford: the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.

[Double Naught Spy]

There, see? No Supreme Court needed to "interpret" the Constitution. I was able to explain it to you without any interpretation. All one need do is follow the rules of grammar.

But Woody, you have no power under the Constitution to interpret the Constitution, which is exactly what you did by trying to explain it (which you are not granted the power to do either, I might add) following the rules of grammar. There is no mention within the Constitution that grammar be used to explain or interpret it, you have a tautological problem.

[RealGun]

RealGun

That would be a foul, attempting to borrow credibility. You don't know what "most other people" think. The only sample is from those who chose to post a comment
I DO know what "most other people" think. And so do you. The topic of SCOTUS jurisdiction in Constitutional questions was settled, for most people, almost 2 centuries ago. Cowboy’s position is very much idiosyncratic. And you know it. - glummer

Seems like a contest to see who can be the most dogmatic. I think you are saying that Marbury v Madison is self justifying when it actually remains debatable, no mention of such a thing in the COTUS.

[glummer]

I think you are saying that Marbury v Madison is self justifying when it actually remains debatable, no mention of such a thing in the COTUS.
I'm saying MOST people are not interested in debating it; they accept it as settled. That is not dogmatism - it is just a factual, accurate description of the situation at present.

[Art Eatman]

Sure has wandered away from VaTech lawsuits...