[Michigander]

Wildalaska, in the "why cops get a bad rap" thread at the Rountable, indicated that he believes that the AWB is constitutional.

What say you?


Sorry people,
I worded the title differently than the poll question. It's corrected.

[Barbara]

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

It infringes on my right to bear arms.

[Rebeldon]

The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to insure that the people are armed with weapons that primarily have a military purpose, for the "security of a free state".

But the Second Amendment does not say that the "right to keep and bear arms" is contingent upon the "militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." It recognizes that the right to keep and bear arms exists, and should not be infringed because it is necessary for the security of a free states.

It carefully does not say, "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be granted." It says "...shall not be infringed."

What the Bill of Rights didn't do is create rights. The rights already exist. I remember when I was in high school, our teacher asked, "What rights does the Bill of Rights give us?" We all thought we had given him a very comprehensive list of all the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights and then he said we were all wrong, because the Bill of Rights doesn't give us any rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to restrict government from infringing upon our rights. It's about what the government can't do, not what we can do.

[Foreign Devil]

The title of your thread is "is the AWB unconstitutional" while the question in your poll is "is the AWB constitutional". That might throw some people off here.

[Bill St. Clair]

The AWB is unconstitutional. The Brady Bill is unconstitutional. The 1968 Firearms Act is unconstitutional. The National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional. Every law requiring a permit or a license to carry openly or concealed is unconstitutional. Every law requiring a firearms owner ID is unconstitutional. Every law requiring registration of handguns is unconstitutional. Every law forbidding the carrying of a loaded firearm readily accessible to a passenger in a motor vehicle is unconstitutional. And every legislator who ever voted for such a law and every cop who ever enforced one is guilty of treason and should be hanged (after due process and a speedy trial, of course).

[Nightfall]

The title of your thread is "is the AWB unconstitutional" while the question in your poll is "is the AWB constitutional". That might throw some people off here.
It got me. By lack of attention to detail, I voted that the AWB is constitutional. :what: I was wondering why THR of all places was voting that the AWB was constitutional! :D

[Michigander]

Moderator(s), please close this thread or edit the poll to start over again.

In the title I asked if the AWB was unconstitutional, but in the poll question I asked if the AWB was constitutional.

My bad. Sorry.

[whistlepig]

Here's Prof. Eugene Volokh, speculating (from a while back) about how the Supremes might consider Silveira (http://volokh.com/2003_11_30_volokh_archive.html#107029431602901065) The trouble is that, even if there are five votes for finding that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, I highly doubt that there'll be that many votes for finding that assault weapons bans violate this right. This is because assault weapons are actually not materially different from other semiautomatic weapons; they are neither materially more harmful, nor are they materially more beneficial. If you can't own an assault weapon, you can still buy another weapon that's just as dangerous, and also just as effective. So I think this makes assault weapons bans pointless -- but it also makes them not very burdensome.

My guess is that at least some of the Justices who might be inclined to take an individual rights view of the Second Amendment would also be willing to give the government a lot of room to regulate gun ownership, so long as the government doesn't ban guns. Their view would be "Whether or not we find an individual right, the assault weapons ban is a permissible regulation, because it's not very burdensome." (Think of this as the "substantial burden" test from the right to abortion, the right to marry, the pre-Employment Division v. Smith Free Exercise Clause cases, and some other fields, as applied to the right to bear arms.) So on the one hand they might find it appealing to grant certiorari, hear the case, and decide in favor of the individual right while reaffirming that the individual right position still leaves the government considerable power. But on the other hand, they may be reluctant to decide the theoretical question (individual right vs. collective right) when nothing ends up really riding on the subject;
Not burdensome enough to be an infringement. Interesting argument.

[Wildalaska]

On a strict constitutional law basis, Volokh makes an excellent point.... one that is shared by such luminaries as myself. Reference my point in the cops thread...

Keep in mind that it is stupid. It is useless. I dont like it. Its a silly excersize in liberal touchy feely legislative masturbation...feels good but ya really want the real thing (complete ban)...

Keep in mind that the assault weapons ban bans nothing except cosmetic features...witness the caterwauling of the gun banners....

Analyze it outside emotions

WildvotedyesitsconstitutionalAlaska

[Wildalaska]

And every legislator who ever voted for such a law and every cop who ever enforced one is guilty of treason and should be hanged (after due process and a speedy trial, of course).

O god here we go again...out of the woodwork...

WildimwaitingtogetputupagainstthewallAlaska

[Brasso]

I agree, and I'm a cop. Sorry, but if you can show me that any ban on arms is not contrary to the 2nd I'm listening?

[madcowburger]

Of course it's not constitutional, but it doesn't matter at all, because we're not living under constitutional government or the rule of law anymore. The Constitution -- supposedly the supreme law of the land -- is for all practical purposes a dead letter, of no more than antiquarian interest. And the only law of the land anymore is gun law, pure and simple. (The IRS has a SWAT team.)

Nobody would fight for the Constitution, so now it's dead. No one will fight for anything except maybe their good-payin' union jobs. The few pathetic rags of freedom we retain will be stripped from us one by one, and no one will fight as long as they can watch soap operas and "reality" shows on their giant flat-screen TVs, and drive to sports events in their new cars. Ah, who am I kidding? They wouldn't fight even if those things were to be taken away from them.

MCB

[cropcirclewalker]

Bill St Clair said:
The AWB is unconstitutional. The Brady Bill is unconstitutional. The 1968 Firearms Act is unconstitutional. The National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional. Every law requiring a permit or a license to carry openly or concealed is unconstitutional. Every law requiring a firearms owner ID is unconstitutional. Every law requiring registration of handguns is unconstitutional. Every law forbidding the carrying of a loaded firearm readily accessible to a passenger in a motor vehicle is unconstitutional. And every legislator who ever voted for such a law and every cop who ever enforced one is guilty of treason and should be hanged (after due process and a speedy trial, of course).
He is right.

WildI'llAskHer is wrong.

[Telperion]

Wildalaska,

Have you read Dave Kopel's analysis (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/rational.htm) of the AWB, which looks at it only from the standpoint of the rational basis test?

I'm very curious what a luminary like you thinks about it. :D :D

[cordex]

If you accept the government of ... oh ... the past eighty years or so as constitutional, yes the AWB is constitutional.

Is it right? No.
Is it moral? No.
Is it logical? No.
Is it a product of a healthy government or society? No.

Is it in line with the direction the government has been heading for longer than most of us have been alive? Entirely.

[Jac]

Banning the importation, sale, purchase or possesion of any weapon is unconstitutional... regardless of the reason given for said ban. Even if that reason is "cosmetic" in nature.


O god here we go again...out of the woodwork...
What?...

Attempting (or succeding) to revoke someone's rights by force is illegal; by legislation, it is treason. Either of which deserves death... preferbly a sentence that is executed by the (intended) victim(s).

[Molon Labe]

All gun control laws are unconstitutional.

Even more important, all gun control laws are contrary to Natural Law...

[Michigander]

O god here we go again...out of the woodwork...

WildimwaitingtogetputupagainstthewallAlaska


Wildalaska, you and I differ on a couple of issues, albeit very important ones.

But did I ever tell you that I really like your style? :D

ROFLMBO!!!

[Michigander]

You know, until it came up when we were all peacefully sitting at the Roundtable having a gentlemenly discussion (:D) about cops getting the short end all the time, I assumed everyone here at THR (asside from the trolls and some newbies who may be lost) knew that the AWB was completely, indisputably unconstitutional.


This is totally un_______believable to me! I am shocked! Dumbfounded! :eek:

I guess we are not all on the same side. (?) :rolleyes:

(as I repeat to myself, "NEVER ASSUME, NEVER ASSUME, NEVER ASSUME...")

[Wildalaska]

I'm very curious what a luminary like you thinks about it

Thats for the compliment :)

I have read Koppels treatise and I find it very persuasive, especially as it relates to State Laws...

I do think that ultimatley, the Court will be forced to lolk at GC measures by way of strict scrutiny since I am convinced that the Court will ultimately incorp the 2nd via the 14th...

Be that as it may Koppel skirts I think the major issue, that is, the AWB (Federal wise)...doesnt ban guns..it proscribes features. I can still buy an AR 15, an AK 47, a Tec 9, a Fal...cosmetically it may be different, but essentially its the same weapon...

Analogy...the First Amendment...and maybe a little loose..The publishers of my fav magazine....German Latex Hard Core Scat Babes could be going to jail...thats assault 1st amendment lit... but the publisher of Lady Chatterly's Lover isnt..it has reeedeming social value...the assault features are taken off...

See what I mean

WildthepornpolicearhereAlaska

[Wildalaska]

Attempting (or succeding) to revoke someone's rights by force is illegal; by legislation, it is treason. Either of which deserves death... preferbly a sentence that is executed by the (intended) victim(s).


Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh help help another one...o my god Im going over to Stormfront where its safe....:)

WildnightynightAlaska

[Ellery Holt]

Wildalaska writes:
...one that is shared by such luminaries as myself.

Oh geez...

:rolleyes:

somebodyiswaytoofullofhimself

[Bill St. Clair]

I, too, like Wildalaska's style, and would probably enjoy a trip to the range with him. He and I differ, and correct me sir if I'm misremembering an earlier discussion, in that he believes that no law is unconstitutional until the courts rule it so. I, on the other hand, believe that an unconstitutional law is null and void from the minute it is signed by the president or governor, that it is the duty of a true patriot to disobey that law, with extreme prejudice if necessary, and the duty of a police officer to honor his oath by refusing to enforce any unconstitional law.

I find it hard to believe how anyone can misinterpret "shall not be infringed". It's the strongest language in the Constitution. ANY regulation of any kind is an infringement.

But, unless patriots support and defend it, with their lives when necessary, a constitution is only a piece of paper, toilet paper if the state is allowed to have its way.

[Foreign Devil]

I think it is onerous enough to be unconstitutional.

It completely bans combinations of features that you would expect to find on modern military weapons. Flash hiders are marginally useful for keeping your night vision. Collapsing stocks are used on some military/police guns. Bayonet mounts can attach other devices like flashlights. These are the features that are found on militia(light infantry) weapons, the very kind of weapons the founders wanted the people to be armed with.

Maybe a registration system would not be unconstitutional(I don't support that either btw). Or a safe storage law. But an outright prohibition? That crosses the line.

Of course it doesn't matter what I think. If the court rules constitutional a law that makes everything above a .22 is illegal than for all intents and purposes it is constitutional.

[Augustwest]

How long, I wonder, until lands and grooves are viewed as "features" in the eyes of our friends in Washington?

When blunderbusses are outlawed, only outlaws will have blunderbusses!

Considering the impetus of Amendment II (the people's right to a defense against tyranny), military-style arms would seem to me the ones that would be most protected.

Kinda Milleresque of me, eh?

[The Real Hawkeye]

I, on the other hand, believe that an unconstitutional law is null and void from the minute it is signed by the president or governor, that it is the duty of a true patriot to disobey that law, with extreme prejudice if necessary, and the duty of a police officer to honor his oath by refusing to enforce any unconstitional law.Exactly right, Bill, otherwise the Constitution would be worthless and, instead of living under the rule of law, we'd be living under the rule of men, as men, divorced from the plain meaning and original intent of the framer's words, can disingenuously declare that the Constitution means anything they want. This is precisely why the Constitution was written in plain English, not legalese. It was intended that if our representatives did not defend it, we would, which is also why a free state depends on us being armed and willing to use them to check corruption at the highest levels of government, if necessary, thus the Second Amendment.

As between the two, i.e., the words of the Supreme Court and the words of the Constitution, whenever they are clearly and plainly in conflict, it is the words of the Constitution that establish the rule of law in our nation. It is from the Constitution that the Supreme Court derives its authority, not the other way around. If the Supreme Court were empowered to reduce or redefine our Constituionally guaranteed liberties and rights, we would have the rule of men, not law. They must answer to it, not it to them. Every unconstitutional law is, therefore, no law at all. The law which violates the Constitution is, therefore, null and void ab initio, and holds zero legal authority in the system established by the Founders. Every patriot ought, therefore, to violate every gun control law ever passed, as they are no laws at all, and have as their purpose the enslavement of The People by piecemeal.

PS: The purpose of the Constitution was to place limits on the power of the Federal Government, not just on Congress or the Executive. Therefore, the Supreme Court, being a part of that Federal Government, cannot logically have been intended to possess the power to place any limits on our rights and liberties defined in said document. That would be like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. No, it was intended that the States would retain the power to check the whole Federal Government (Supreme Court included), and that this power would ordinarily be exercised through the agency of State Senators (chosen by the legislatures of each state, not elected by the people of each state). When States were denied direct representation (See the XVII Amendment), the only remaining real check on the Federal Government became the general militia, i.e., you and I (See Second Amendment). This was not the system intended, i.e., the Founders intended that the general militia would only be a last resort fail-safe to resolving Federal usurpation, and believed that the States' chosen Senators would adequately represent States in the Federal Government (the ordinary means for the States to hold the Federal Government in check was eliminated by the XVII Amendment). Having only this last ditch fail-safe check remaining (See Second Amendment) creates a very volatile situation, unfortunately.

[Dave Markowitz]

The AWB is definitely unconstitutional.

1. It targets arms suitable for militia use. Just as political speech has the most protection under the First Amendment, the right to keep and bear military arms -- those necessary for securing a free state -- is the right that should receive the most protection under the Second. E.g., if we look at U.S. v. Miller , the S.Ct.'s decision largely hinged on the fact that no evidence had been submitted that short-barrelled shotguns were arms suitable for military use. Conversely, SCOTUS would have found for Miller had evidence supporting military use of short-barreled shotguns been submitted (or the Court would have found some other reason for upholding the NFA).

2. Even assuming that the AWB concerns only certain features, it's still unconstitional. Bayonet lugs? Yep, definitely a militarily relevant feature. Flash hiders? Ditto. Folding stocks? Uh huh. I could go on.

Unfortunately, the meaning of the entire Constition and BoR was pretty much turned on its head under FDR. :fire:

[cordex]

WildAlaska,
I think a better analogue would be the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act of '02.

You and I can still speak out against a Federal candidate, but registered lobbies (professionals hired to do just that) can not do so during a certain critical period leading up to elections. News outlets are still allowed to criticize government figures, but groups like the NRA are not.

The basic elements of the First Amendment are protected as long as you aren't excluded by McCaine-Feingold.

Close enough, right? And the courts agree - the First only applies during certain times to certain people (and it is definitely not designed to protect organized political speech). But, because the Supreme Court said that portion was okie-dokie, it's Constitutional.

Which proves my earlier point exactly. The AWB (and M-F CFR) are perfectly in line with the American government (and people!) that would, will and does tolerate each of them. Anything can be declared constitutional as long as you can get enough justices and congresspeople to agree.

[Wildalaska]

somebodyiswaytoofullofhimself

Reread the thread, and check the batteries in your irony meter...:D

For you guys advocating the rule of man (individual intepretaion) vis a vis the rulle of law (jusdicial intepretation) thats is the scaries thing I have seen since Hitler. You are the guys ready to hang people, not Sarah brady.

As I have done in the past, I invite you absolutists to make your stand one and for all. Parade down the streets with a machine gun, and when they come to arrest you, arrest them and hang em for trying to take your guns away. Call up Larry Craig and ask him to submit legislation taking off all gun laws from the books..if he refuses, try him and hang him.

Set up your own little governemt, have some treason trials, and start hanging.

Hang the enemy, hang the enemy, hang the enemy.

OK, now unless you are joining our tinfoil hart wearing ridden hate filled friends on the Stormfront Board who actually beleive that stuff...I say to you...

Look...outside...take eyes of computer....real world out there..........reeaaaaaaaaal woooooooooooorlllllllld...


And to the meat of the matter, I would like to hear from folk who recognize of course that rights are alwys subject to restrictions in our system and ask them to analyze under established constituional standards as to how the AWB is unconstitutional. I think it is not, as dumb as the law is, and quite frankly, recourse to the old "shall not be infringed" argument has a much merit as saying that the Jews control the universe and anybody who aint white is a mud person (note well that there is frequently, but not always, a shared beleif systewm between those folk and the "shall not be infringed crowd", noone here being painted with that tar brush.

WildandicantbeleivewearestillattackingfranlindelanorosenfeldAlaska

WildrealitycheckAlaska

[WilderBill]

OK, my take on this is that the 2nd does not mention any exceptions for certain cosmetic features.
Otherwise, see sig line.

Wilderiftheconstitutiondosen'tsayit'sOK,thenwhywoulditbe?Bill

[Brett Bellmore]

The federal AWB wouldn't be constitutional even if there were no 2nd amendment. It exceeds Congress's delegated authority.

Yes, Congress can regulate interstate commerce. But the AWB doesn't say that the specified arms can't be sold across state lines. It says they can't be sold. Period. And that's not a power Congress was delegated by the Constitution. In fact, that was the Federalists' argument AGAINST the 2nd amendment; That it was redundant, because the federal government had no power by which it COULD infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

Maybe you'll recall that dustup about banning alcohol, and how they had to amend the Constitution to make it permissible? The only reason the federal government gets away with banning ANYTHING, guns, drugs, you name it, today, is that FDR bullied the Court into giving up on enforcing the limits on Congress's delegated powers, and subsequent Presidents have made a point of not appointing Justices who'd resume enforcing those limits.

But there's a difference between something being constitutional, and the courts being corrupt.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Wildalaska said: For you guys advocating the rule of man (individual intepretaion) vis a vis the rulle of law (jusdicial intepretation) thats is the scaries thing I have seen since Hitler. You are the guys ready to hang people, not Sarah brady.I will leave your other inanities aside for the moment, but I had to comment on this bit of nonsense. The rule of law is not defined as the rule of the judiciary, as you have suggested, but rather that the judiciary, along with everyone else, is held to be inferior to the law itself, which is written in plain English and available for all to see and understand. The rule of the judiciary is the very essence of the rule of men, i.e., aristocracy, i.e., rule by a council of supposed wise-men elites.

[The Real Hawkeye]

The federal AWB wouldn't be constitutional even if there were no 2nd amendment. It exceeds Congress's delegated authority.

Yes, Congress can regulate interstate commerce. But the AWB doesn't say that the specified arms can't be sold across state lines. It says they can't be sold. Period. And that's not a power Congress was delegated by the Constitution. In fact, that was the Federalists' argument AGAINST the 2nd amendment; That it was redundant, because the federal government had no power by which it COULD infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

Maybe you'll recall that dustup about banning alcohol, and how they had to amend the Constitution to make it permissible? The only reason the federal government gets away with banning ANYTHING, guns, drugs, you name it, today, is that FDR bullied the Court into giving up on enforcing the limits on Congress's delegated powers, and subsequent Presidents have made a point of not appointing Justices who'd resume enforcing those limits.

But there's a difference between something being constitutional, and the courts being corrupt.Brett, I could not have said it better. A true gem of wisdom, there. Also, to reinforce your point, take a look at the too often ignored 10th Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is a power reserved, according to the 10th Amendment, to the people, and the Federal Government lacks Constitutional authorization to regulate firearms production, intra-state sales or private ownership. The Second Amendment is the icing on the cake, prohibiting even regulation of interstate, or international, trade in firearms, as those would constitute infringments on the right to keep and bear them.

[Brett Bellmore]

And to underline this, look at the NFA. They wanted to ban civilian ownership of machineguns. Instead, they just taxed it VERY heavily. Why? Because they knew damned well that they didn't have the authority to ban things, and did the best (Worst, actually.) they could with the powers they DID posess.

[Jac]

folk who recognize of course that rights are alwys subject to restrictions in our system
WHOA, WHOA, WHOA!!!

How can a RIGHT be subject to government imposed restrictions?!?!?!?! They don't grant rights, so they have no authority to restrict rights.

The only restrictions on a right is that you can't infringe on someone else's rights. That's it. And the 2nd Amendment is written in such a way that it is impossible to infringe on anyone else's rights by excersising it; so, any law attempting to restrict my (or your) right to keep and bear arms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Period.

Be that as it may Koppel skirts I think the major issue, that is, the AWB (Federal wise)...doesnt ban guns..it proscribes features. I can still buy an AR 15, an AK 47, a Tec 9, a Fal...cosmetically it may be different, but essentially its the same weapon...
Pardon my ignorance, but what the bloody hell does that have to do with anything?!?

For congress to ban a gun with certain features (AR with folding stock, flash hider, and bayonet, for example) is for congress to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. I may be able to get a similar rifle that is simply "cosmetically" different, but it's not the same freakin' rifle! I'm an American, dammit, and I have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, regardless of my arms' "cosmetic features.":cuss:

So there!:neener: :D

[Wildalaska]

OK, my take on this is that the 2nd does not mention any exceptions for certain cosmetic features.

So your position is that if it isnt in the constitution it either doesnt exist or isnt prohibited?

Wildandwhatdoesthe14thsayAlaska

[Wildalaska]

Yes, Congress can regulate interstate commerce. But the AWB doesn't say that the specified arms can't be sold across state lines. It says they can't be sold.

Have you read the AWB? Isnt there a fining in there about IC (viz the GCA )

WildatlastagoodpointAlaska

[Wildalaska]

I will leave your other inanities aside for the moment, but I had to comment on this bit of nonsense

Ah yes the old attack the messenger argument.

The rule of the judiciary is the very essence of the rule of men, i.e., aristocracy, i.e., rule by a council of supposed wise-men elites.

Class warfare! I feel like Im on DU....
:D

Anybody here is free to join the aristocracy. Go to law school, get involved.....

Id rather have someone trained in our laws and traditions make a reasoned judgement based on well settled principles then have an untrained mind influenced by the l;ast thing he or she read..

Thats not to say of course that all of the black robes are paragons of virtue.


WildbutbeatsthealternativeAlaska

[Wildalaska]

How can a RIGHT be subject to government imposed restrictions?!?!?!?! They don't grant rights, so they have no authority to restrict rights.

Your right! Hopefully they will have copies of German Latex Hard Core Scat Queens in your supermarket soon.

Now excuse me while I sell heroin to your son and go take photos of those pretty 12 year olds down by the park. Its hot today so I think I will walk around nude with a gun on my hip.

:neener:

Ya know guys for 200 plus years we have taken a piece of paper and used it to balance (I repeat balance) oursleves into one of the freest places on earth. All this stuff is fine for internet debating..

But..

Look out there...out there...real world...reeeeallllllll world.......

WildeverythingisacompromisebetweenfreedomandtyrannyAlaska

[Jac]

So your position is that if it isnt in the constitution it either doesnt exist or isnt prohibited?

"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."

Seems pretty clear to me. The Constitution does not grant Congress the right to proscribe certain cosmetic features on firearms; therefore, NO SUCH RIGHT EXISTS!

--Jac

[Wildalaska]

Doesnt regulate kiddy porn either, get your camera..

PS...where did ya go to law school:what:

PPS..ya old enough to even buy a gun?

WildtotalmisreadAlaska

[Foreign Devil]

Compromise is essential in any liveable society. Even our most important rights are subject to some restrictions.

Take religion. Laws restricting religious practices have been upheld - polygamy and drug use for example (I'm not saying that this is right, only that it's been done). The court ruled that these laws are constitutional as long as the intention was not to restrict religion, that any infringement was only an incidental effect of an otherwise secular law. Furthermore there has to be a compelling state interest at stake, and no alternative forms of regulation are available to accomplish this interest.

Take that logic and transfer it to the gun issue. I think we would all agree there is a compelling state interest in stopping violent crime. But the evidence for gun control as a crime control measure is inconclusive at best, and there is some statistical evidence that armed citizens can held fight crime. That coupled with the fact that there are fundamental freedoms at stake here means that the right to bear arms should be subject to considerable protection. Crime is a complex phenomenon, and there are many other policies that would address crime better than gun confiscation (the alternative forms of regulation just as in the case of religion).

Now, the restrictions of the assault weapons ban are mostly non-sensical. The purpose of the ban cannot seriously be to stop crime because the ban has no effect on crime. As was pointed out functionally identical guns are available. Even many of the ban's supporters like those in the VPC and Charles Krauthammer admit that it is only a stepping stone to total prohibition. Otherwise it makes no more sense to keep you from putting a bayonet on your gun as it does to keep you from putting up a shrine to Baal in your living room. Neither restriction would have any measureable effect on violence, and both restrict your freedom.

So that's why I would argue it is unconstitutional.

Now do I think there should be no gun laws? No. There should be a few, but only a few, and they've got to make some sort of sense, and respect the constitutional rights of law abiding Americans.

[The above represents my cursory understanding of the court's treatment of religious cases, I'm not a lawyer or a legal scholar.]

edited for clarity

[Wildalaska]

functionally identical guns are available.

And that is the crux right there...

The law basically....does nothing!

WildthebottomlineAlaska

[porciniman]

The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to insure that the people are armed with weapons that primarily have a military purpose, for the "security of a free state".

You got that right brother!!!!!!!!!



The people who constructed these words, what??? not clear enough??

"The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..."
Alexander Hamilton

"...to disarm the people (is) the best and most effective way to enslave them..."
George Mason


"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry


And, a later person of common sense:

"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it."
Albert Einstein



Are not the people of Australia & England evidence enough, to give our elected officials a clue about unarmed citizens??!!!

I guess our elected leaders do not know how to read, nor understand what was said, by obviously wiser people.
Does common sense deteriorate over time??
Do our leaders believe in ADD amongst the populace, and believe it does not apply to them?!!!
Is there a reason these POS:cuss: keep getting elected?!!!


Mark Twain said..."Common sense is very uncommon"!

I'll bet..if one of these elected :cuss: were confronted by a BG,....you fill in the answer.

I could go on, but I have to fill out my election form.
Cheers, VB

[Foreign Devil]

And that is the crux right there...

The law basically....does nothing!

Right but would you tell someone they can't be a Methodist because being a Lutheran is just as good?

To some people who collect examples of military weapons these little things are important. It might seem silly to you. But maybe to some people it's silly to pray, or hold certain religious beliefs and practice in a certain way. That doesn't mean it's okay to restrict their freedoms.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Take religion. Laws restricting religious practices have been upheld - polygamy and drug use for example (I'm not saying that this is right, only that it's been done). The court ruled that these laws are constitutional as long as the intention was not to restrict religion, that any infringement was only an incidental effect of an otherwise secular law.First of all, what "was upheld" is beside the point when the essence of the debate is that the Supreme Court is "upholding" unconstitutional regulations. Secondly, a state gun law that would be analogous to one of the laws you mention would be something to the effect of outlawing cow leather because of a discovery that it can carry and transmit Mad Cow Disease. Yes, I would not then be able any longer to choose to purchase a holster in this state made of cow leather, but the purpose of the law has nothing to do with firearms (even if it effects that right peripherally), and serves a compelling state interest. It also doesn't essentially interfere with the exercise of my right to keep and bear arms, even if it does effect it peripherally.

[Foreign Devil]

First of all, what "was upheld" is beside the point when the essence of the debate is that the Supreme Court is "upholding" unconstitutional regulations.

When evaluating whether a law is constitutional it makes sense to see how the court has treated other laws infringing on constitutional rights.

If they rule a law constitutional, it is in effect constitutional even if it's stupid, counterproductive or immoral. That's the system we've got.

[porciniman]

Don't worry... my priest will fix everything!!!! He tried with me!!!
Religion, at most points in our history, has made our lives a more miserable place to be.
I'm sure, with time, religion will continue to make it even worse.
After all, it only took a few hundred years for the pope to realize that Galileo was not wrong, and the church was in error
You mean..the Earth is not the center of the universe???!!!
Why should we believe are elected officials are any quicker to see the light??!!!!
VB

[The Real Hawkeye]

That's the system we've got.No, that's Orwellian Newspeak. If the Constitution says X and the Supreme Court says Y, Y does not become Constitutional. It only means that the Supreme Court has chosen to give its seal of approval on an unconstitutional law.

[Wildalaska]

Right but would you tell someone they can't be a Methodist because being a Lutheran is just as good?

Bad analogy

Secondly, a state gun law that would be analogous to one of the laws you mention would be something to the effect of outlawing cow leather because of a discovery that it can carry and transmit Mad Cow Disease. Yes, I would not then be able any longer to choose to purchase a holster in this state made of cow leather, but the purpose of the law has nothing to do with firearms (even if it effects that right peripherally), and serves a compelling state interest. It also doesn't essentially interfere with the exercise of my right to keep and bear arms, even if it does effect it peripherally.

You just proved my point....

If the Constitution says X and the Supreme Court says Y, Y does not become Constitutional. It only means that the Supreme Court has chosen to give its seal of approval on an unconstitutional law.

No actually, if the constitution says X, and the Sup Court 9inteprets it, it says X.

My point is the law is constituional till a court says it aint. Thats what a system of justice and rule of law is about.

The converse is that people like me get hung for treason, simply becasue I dont agree with those who think THEY are the law.

[Jac]

PS...where did ya go to law school:what:
Heh... ph34r my mad debating skillz!:cool:

PPS..ya old enough to even buy a gun?
According to my parents, yes. According to the government, I can buy a rifle, but not a pistol. Who're you gonna trust?;)

[Foreign Devil]

The concept of judicial review is hardly "newspeak", it has survived the test of time fairly well.

If not for them, then who decides what laws are and are not constitutional? You? Me? Do we hold a referendum?

And ...

Of course no analogy is going to be perfect but why is the religion guns analogy such a bad one

The are both constitutional rights, fundamental to many people, restricted by the government in a few cases.

[Wildalaska]

Who're you gonna trust?

Sorry, the government.

Wildgottohavesomestandards

[orangeninja]

Holy crap.:uhoh:

here it comes:banghead:

[Wildalaska]

Of course no analogy is going to be perfect but why is the religion guns analogy such a bad one


There is no compelling state interest involved in choosing someones religion vis a vis regulating how a gun lucks.

Heres the analogy..

Anybody can own an M16. However it has to be marked in big letters on the side "this is not government property" and has to be anodized pink.

What say you?

WildbangreengunsAlaska

[Foreign Devil]

Aren't you a lawyer? You know that you can find a compelling state interest in damn near anything if you're clever enough.

Under alcohol prohibition there could be a compelling state interest in interferring with taking wine in communion.

Or I could find a compelling state interest in prohibiting a Rastafarian (sp) from using marijuana. Or I could find a state interest in preventing animal cruelty to stop a Santeria ceremony that involves animal sacrifice.

[cordex]

Wild,
Maybe it's just me, but I'm having trouble following you here.

You argue:
The AWB is okay since you can still buy weapons similar in operation to those banned, therefore it does not conflict with any protections intended to be offered by the 2nd amendment.

Okay, a fair argument. I disagree, but okay.

Then Foreign Devil says:
Okay, well let's apply this same logic to religion as protected by the 1st. One religion is banned, but another religion with similar basic beliefs is still allowed. Thus the 1st is not violated, right?

You then say:
There is no compelling state interest involved in choosing someones religion vis a vis regulating how a gun lucks.[sic]
I assume you mean "looks". I'm not seeing the compelling state interest involved in either decision. Why should gov't have a compelling interest in what my guns look like, what clothes I wear, what church I go to, etc? They strike me as equally valid things to regulate.

You go on to say:
Heres the analogy..

Anybody can own an M16. However it has to be marked in big letters on the side "this is not government property" and has to be anodized pink.

What say you?
I say: "what mean you, white man?"
Are you trying to make a better analogy than the religion one? Or are you trying to make an analogy to compare to Foreign Devil's?

Foreign Devil might have been better off comparing the AWB to banning certain religious features (for instance, banning hymn singing, steeples or crosses displayed outside of churches, a ban on special robes for the clergy, elimination of praying out loud or teaching children during services. also, no bayonette lugs on crosses). Some religons remain unaffected. Some would have to modify their format or teachings to continue to practice.

Is that better?

[Brett Bellmore]

Have you read the AWB? Isnt there a fining in there about IC (viz the GCA )

I believe there might have been, yes. Utterly irrellevant. A finding that this or that effects interstate commerce gets you nowhere, when the Constitution gives Congress authority to regulate the commerce itself, not everything that might effect it.

[Wildalaska]

Or I could find a compelling state interest in prohibiting a Rastafarian (sp) from using marijuana. Or I could find a state interest in preventing animal cruelty to stop a Santeria ceremony that involves animal sacrifice.

Hmmm I think the case is Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave. , Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993), Ill try to find the link

WildsacrificeAlaska

[Foreign Devil]

No need for a link I've got it in front of me - it's in Sullivan & gunther's 14th edition of Constitutional Law.

[Wildalaska]

Utterly irrellevant. A finding that this or that effects interstate commerce gets you nowhere, when the Constitution gives Congress authority to regulate the commerce itself, not everything that might effect it.

Au contraire, the Commerce Cause is a good example of the expansion of congressional power...it is checked sometimes of course...see, eg Lopez...

WildatlastareasoneddebateAlaska

[Wildalaska]

I say: "what mean you,

Just what I wrote..curious...Is a law that mandatess that certain guns be pink violate the 2nd am.

WildriddlemethisjokerAlaska

[geekWithA.45]

I could be pursuaded that a certain amount of regulation around 2A might be constitutional, depending on circumstances. (Remember, regulation means, "to make regular". It doesn't mean "to prohibit with a proclamation bearing the word "regulation" in its title!)

That being said, the very premise of the AWB, that military type weapons are not for the people is directly in confrontation with the premise of 2A, that the right of military weapons is specifically reserved to the people.

Ergo, the awb is unconstitutional.

{Wow, that's the briefest I've ever done that!}

[Hawkmoon]

I agree with Bill:
The AWB is unconstitutional. The Brady Bill is unconstitutional. The 1968 Firearms Act is unconstitutional. The National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional. Every law requiring a permit or a license to carry openly or concealed is unconstitutional. Every law requiring a firearms owner ID is unconstitutional. Every law requiring registration of handguns is unconstitutional. Every law forbidding the carrying of a loaded firearm readily accessible to a passenger in a motor vehicle is unconstitutional.
Except you'll notice that I left off his closing sentence about treason. I suggest those who like to throw around the term "treason" open a dictionary and read the definition, because voting for a stupid and unconstitutional law does not, IMHO, rise to the level of treason.

[Chris Rhines]

This is almost a study in the dynamics of arguement. One side makes a nonsensical statement, and is forced to resort to ever-more-tortureous logical scramblings to defend it, rather than back down.

Of course the AWB is unconstitutional - it is directly in violation of the second amendment. The second amendment (unlike, for example, the fourth) makes no allowence for a "reasonable" infringement. As such, any legal restriction placed upon my purchase or private ownership of weaponry is unconstitutional.

I won't get into the whole treason thing right now, except to note that the main reason that the BoR is ignored so blatantly nowadays is that no means of enforcement was ever written into it.

- Chris

[The Real Hawkeye]

I won't get into the whole treason thing right now, except to note that the main reason that the BoR is ignored so blatantly nowadays is that no means of enforcement was ever written into it.

- ChrisWell, in a sense, you are mistaken there. The original Constitution, i.e., the one ratified in 1789, did have at least a check (if not an enforcement mechanism) on the usurpation of powers by the Federal Government, and that was found in the first sentence of Article I, Section 3. This, however, was obliterated by the 17th Amendment, so that States no longer could function as a check on Federal usurpation. All Federal checks, after that point, were entirely internal, not subject to outside influence.

It is like a police department, after being accused of corruption in its highest offices, declaring that we can all rest assured now that they have begun an internal investigation of themselves. Letting the US Supreme Court constitute the only check on Federal Power is just like allowing the police to internally investigate themselves. That's not the system established by the Founders. As established, the States had representation in the Federal Government, and could wield an enormous amount of power as a check against usurpation through the agency of their chosen Senators. The only other check was the militia, i.e., you and I. The militia, however, was intended as a last ditch doomsday check, in case, catastrophe of catastrophes, the primary check failed. After the 17th Amendment, the only external check remaining has been the militia (See 2nd Amendment). This is a disastrous situation, as the only real way for the militia to apply its check on the Federal Government is to overthrow it, and institute new government.

[The Real Hawkeye]

You just proved my point....I did nothing of the sort. Your point is that restrictions on certain characteristics of firearms were Constitutional. My analogy to a hypothetical state ban on cow leather was premised on the fact that the ban was not directed at holsters or firearms, but only peripherally and coincidentally effected those things. A ban on folding stocks, for example, is directed precisely at firearms. Just the opposite situation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Au contraire, the Commerce Cause is a good example of the expansion of congressional power...it is checked sometimes of course...see, eg Lopez...

We really do have to distinguish between the powers the Constitution gives Congress, and the powers the courts allow Congress to usurp. The commerce clause, on it's face, rather unambiguously delegates to Congress the power to regulate certain classes of "commerce". "Commerce" is not the same as "Everything that might effect commerce".

I'm not a legal realist, obviously, and I find this business of defining "Constitutional" as "Whatever the Court says is constitutional" to be rather offensive. There's a difference between being beyond appeal, and being automaticaly right.

[The Real Hawkeye]

We really do have to distinguish between the powers the Constitution gives Congress, and the powers the courts allow Congress to usurp. The commerce clause, on it's face, rather unambiguously delegates to Congress the power to regulate certain classes of "commerce". "Commerce" is not the same as "Everything that might effect commerce."Brett, exactly right. I remember when I was first instructed in this Commerce Clause cr_p. We learned of the case where the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government could tell a farmer how much of a particular crop he could grow on his own property because even if he consumed the entire crop on his own land by feeding it to his own animals and consuming it himself, with his family, it was determined that it still effected interstate commerce because his consumption of it meant that he would not need to purchase it on the open market, and the supply of that crop on the open market was made up of crops which were purchased in interstate commerce, and thus there would be slightly less demand for out of state supplies of that crop in his state, thus interstate commerce was effected by his growing the crop, even if it never left his property. The professor went on to say that the Federal Government could Constitutionally regulate any activity you engage in on your property by the same reasoning. Somehow I don't think that this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they gave Congress the authority to regulate trade between the states.

[Foreign Devil]

That's a famous case - Wickard v. Filburn 1942

[Treylis]

That's a famous case - Wickard v. Filburn 1942

More like infamous and disgusting. If you want to twist things that far, utterly everything "effects interstate commerce".

[Wildalaska]

Somehow I don't think that this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they gave Congress the authority to regulate trade between the states.

But thats YOUR intepretation :D

Obviously, the Supreme Court differs...

And unless you change it, within our system, that interpetaion still controls

And as any of you INTERPRET the second amendment from your own political and social weltanshauung, I can find someone to do it the opposite

And until the Suprtemes decide what and who is correct, we have to deal with uncertainty

WildandhthatsthecruxisntitAlaska

[The Real Hawkeye]

But thats YOUR intepretation.No, fortunately for me, I was born in a nation for which the native tongue is English, and therefore require no interpretation of documents written in that language. The Constitution, by its plain English words, authorizes Congress to regulate (i.e., make regular) interstate commerce (i.e., trade between the states), not the power to control every activity that "effects interstate commerce." This, taken in conjunction with the plain English words of the Tenth Amendment, tells those of us conversant in the English language that it's a case of usurpation of a power not granted.

[Wildalaska]

The Constitution, by its plain English words, authorizes Congress to regulate (i.e., make regular) interstate commerce (i.e., trade between the states), not the power to control every activity that "effects interstate commerce." This, taken in conjunction with the plain English words of the Tenth Amendment, tells those of us conversant in the English language that it's a case of usurpation of a power not granted.

Well I suggest you study up a bit more :) All is not what it seems in amatuer constituional scholar land

But this is America, you are entitled to be wron. In fact I will defend your right to be wrong..hell Ive done it before....

WildandwiththatgonnagogetspiffandblastAlaska

[The Real Hawkeye]

Well I suggest you study up a bit morePerhaps if I do, I will one day rise to your stellar heights of intellectual prowess and Constitutional expertise. :rolleyes:

[The Real Hawkeye]

I don't believe it was ever a secret that the Interstate Commerce Clause route to regulating in-state activities was a disingenuous "interpretation" of said clause. Were it otherwise, it would not have required a sudden epiphanic discovery of said power in the 1940s. It would have been known and exercised from the beginning.

[Bill St. Clair]

I was definitely properly remembering Wild Alaska's worship of the power of the Supreme Court. Actually, I doubt that he worships them. I think that what's actually important to him is that there is a final arbitrer, a place where the buck stops. I like that idea, too, as long as the arbitrer remains rational and respects the obvious limits of the constitutional cage. Being forced to rely on the cartridge box is not an appealing idea.

It has been a difficult thing to realize, that the world's freest constitutional republic is dead. It's far from dead in American culture, in the hearts of the many patriots on this board and elsewhere, but it died in Washington during FDR's reign, or maybe Lincoln's.

It's been a subtle change, however. Our Masters have learned well from history to make the transition slowly. I hope that before regular "papieren bitte" and "may I search your vehicle, sir" stops are established at state lines, and then at freeway entrances, the folks who are clinging to the dead-in-all-but-name American republic will realize what's up. I hope they still have their guns when that happens.

[The Real Hawkeye]

It's been a subtle change, however. Our Masters have learned well from history to make the transition slowly.Excellent point. Most people identify Caesar's crossing the Rubicon with his army as the ending point of the Roman Republic. Romans, however, didn't seem to think so. Most of them continued to believe they lived in a Republic, even as the Caesars usurped continually more power from the Senate, decade by decade. For the Roman citizen, it was so gradual that by the time the Emperors had concentrated all power in their own hands, hardly anyone noticed. Lincoln was America's Julius Caesar, and he crossed a Rubicon of his own. We've been in a steady transition from a Republic to an Empire ever since, always maintaining the superficial form of a Republic, of course, just as the Roman Senate continued to meet and discuss Roman affairs well beyond the point in history that they had any power to actually do anything about them. It made Romans feel like they still lived in a Republic, even though the Emperor made all important decisions on his own authority, upheld with the backing of the military.

[deanf]

The Constitution is a contract between the People and the government. In this contract, the People delegate certain powers to the government. Of course the people retain all powers so delegated. Also, the government has no powers not so delegated.

If you agree with the above then the AWB is UNconstitutional on two points:

1) We have delegated military powers to the government. This includes the authority to purchase and use such arms as are necessary to maintain an effective military. Of course the People retain the powers delegated, so all people have a legitimate power (right, authority, whatever you want to call it) to purchase the same military arms.

2) The government has only the powers delegated to it. No other government powers exist. Since there is no power delegated by the people to regulate guns, the AWB in UNconstitutional.

As you can see, the 2nd Amendment isn't even a factor in my argument.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Well said, deanf. This is why, in fact, the Federalists didn't believe a Bill of Rights was needed, as the government they were creating was one of few and enumerated powers. They figured that if the Federal Government wasn't given, by the Constitution, the power to violate our rights to start with, a Bill of Rights was redundant.

You are correct, in that the American understanding of government is that it is by the consent of the governed. All sovereignty originally belongs to the individual, and is loaned to government for the purposes of governing. As we are the source of its sovereignty, government can never rightly seek to restrict our liberties, as it is our creation and our servant, not our slave master.

[EWTHeckman]

I don't recall the Constitution explicitly stating ANY final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional. I suppose that that apparent "oversight" was intentional. (I haven't gotten far enough in my reading on the debate over the Constitution to find out if that is actually the case.) I suspect the reason that it wasn't an oversight was that the Founding Fathers wanted just about anyone to be able to challenge and nullify unconstitutional laws.

Yes, the Supreme Court must compare common law to Constitutional law. Interpreting the law is, after all, part of their job description and the Constitution is law which supersedes common law whenever there is a conflict. However, I don't think the founders intended the judicial branch to be the ONLY arbiter of what is and is not constitutional.

Consider the Virginia Resolution of 1798 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/virres.htm) and the Kentucky Resolution of 1799 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kenres.htm). Both resolutions were official notice by the legislatures of those states that the "Alien and Sedition Act" was unconstitutional.

Also consider the constitutional practice of trial by jury and the principle of "jury nullification" (http://www.fija.org/conrad_on_jury_duty.htm). The entire point of a jury trial is not simply to determine a defendant's guilt or innocence, the jury also has the right, even the obligation, to refuse to convict a defendant accused of breaking an unjust/unconstitutional law.

For example, if I was on the jury for a person accused of violating the AWB, I would refuse to convict because I consider the AWB to be a violation of the Constitution. And no one could do a thing about it because that would be my obligation as a jurer.

WildAlaska, I challenge you to show me where in the Constitution or supporting documents by the authors of the Constitution that the Supreme Court was intended to be the one and only arbiter of what the Constitution means. For if the Supreme Court truly is the one and only arbiter of the Constitution, then only 5 men would be needed to make it possible for Arnold Schwartzanegger (sp?) to run for POTUS even though the Constitution clearly prohibits that possibility. In that event, we truly do not have "rule of law," rather we have a government which is "devoid of all responsibility or accountability to the great body of the people, and that so far from being a regular balanced government, it would in practice a permanent ARISTOCRACY.*" [Emphasis in the original.]

*Letter published in the Independent Gazetteer (Philadelphia), October 5, 1787 written by "Centinel" [Samuel Bryan]

[Wildalaska]

Perhaps if I do, I will one day rise to your stellar heights of intellectual prowess and Constitutional expertise.

Thank you...been a long time since I did a petition for certiorari or briefed to a Circuit Court...

Life is far simpler now. The pressing questions are just academic..:)

WildbeutifuldayattherangetodayAlaska

[Wildalaska]

However, I don't think the founders intended the judicial branch to be the ONLY arbiter of what is and is not constitutional.

Your correct, if Congress is disatisfied with a supreme court ruling Congress and the states can amend the constituion

The resolutions you speak of were protests...sort of like Berkley protesting the patriot act.

WildAlaska, I challenge you to show me where in the Constitution or supporting documents by the authors of the Constitution that the Supreme Court was intended to be the one and only arbiter of what the Constitution means

Why dont you start with Federalist paper no 81...also read the CITATIONS in Marbury vs Madison...note also that Marbury remains the law of the land, unchallenged by Congress or the states (who have the power to amend the constiuion) for almost 200 years....

As to the Governator he would make no worse a Pres thaN any of the rest of the bozos that run. bUT i THINK THE ISSUE IS SETTLED ALREADY BY THE cOURTS THAT HE CANNOT...cant find the case right now

WilddamncapslockAlaska

[Ant Mod]

1) We have delegated military powers to the government. This includes the authority to purchase and use such arms as are necessary to maintain an effective military. Of course the People retain the powers delegated, so all people have a legitimate power (right, authority, whatever you want to call it) to purchase the same military arms.

Under your assumption, then the US people also have the right to purchase tanks, jets, missle launchers, flame throwers, and nuclear bombs. But we dont have these rights. Is that unconstitutional as well?

I agree that any power we delegate to the government is also retained by the citizens. Thus a better argument would be that we have delegated military powers to the government to protect our country and its citizens as a whole. However we have also retained the right to defend and protect ourselves.

2) The government has only the powers delegated to it. No other government powers exist. Since there is no power delegated by the people to regulate guns, the AWB in UNconstitutional.

This is subjective. There are hundreds of rights and powers not specifially noted in the constiution however the courts have ruled that they are implied. Such as the right to privacy.

Under your first argument, we can say that the government has been given powers to protect the citizens of this country. The passing of anti gun laws is done because the law makers beleive its part of protecting citizens, not because they think they have the right/power as laid out in the consitution to control firearms.

[Ant Mod]

I challenge you to show me where in the Constitution or supporting documents by the authors of the Constitution that the Supreme Court was intended to be the one and only arbiter of what the Constitution means

I suggest youpick up a cop of the federalist papers.

For example, if I was on the jury for a person accused of violating the AWB, I would refuse to convict because I consider the AWB to be a violation of the Constitution. And no one could do a thing about it because that would be my obligation as a jurer.

Your choice during a jury trial is different then deciding lawfully if a law is unconstiutional. When you decide not to convict on the grounds of being unconstitutional, does that law suddenly become unconstitutional and is reversed? No. Its simply your choice and opinion until a supreme court judge rules on it.

And a state or governor can cry all he wants, pass all the resolutions and bills they want proclaiming that a law is unconstitutional. It doesnt mean anything until who vote on it? Yes you guessed it, the supreme court.

Besides that, who do you think is better to decide if a law is unconsitutional then professional judges who have been doing this their whole lives and know the laws in and out? Having E-knowlede of the law is nothing. Do you really think the common person can judge an issue as deep as this is?

[EWTHeckman]

Your correct, if Congress is disatisfied with a supreme court ruling Congress and the states can amend the constituion

Let's say 5 of the old men/women in robes say that Arnold S. is permitted to run for office. What is Congress and the states going to do? Amend the Constitution to say what it already says?

from Article II, Section 1:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Now this is only a theoretical example. But what you're saying is that as long as at least 5 of the Supreme Court Justices say that this really says that only those who have been citizens for at least 35 years can run for President, then that's what it means.

If that is the case, why do we even have a Constitution at all? If all it takes is 5 men to change the meaning of the Constitution, then why bother with a complicated and difficult amendment process? Just stack the court with 5 men who will rule however they're prompted and the "Supreme Law of the Land" becomes "Whatever Is Handed Down By The Almighty Five." That is the very tyranny the Founding Fathers struggled so mightily to avoid!

The resolutions you speak of were protests...sort of like Berkley protesting the patriot act.

On which side should the burden of proof be higher? On the federal government to prove that its actions are constitutional? Or on someone willing to crawl through the maze of red tape put into place by the very government which is supposed to be tightly restricted?

Let me put it this way. Would you control a deadly and unpredictable beast by giving it free reign in your house while you keep your guns locked in a safe and your ammo locked in another safe on the far end of the house? Or would you keep it tightly caged and quickly and aggressively react to every single attempt to escape its confinement?

The men who wrote the Constitution of the United States viewed government as just such a dangerous beast; one which is unfortunately necessary. It is illogical for their intent to be anything other than the tightest controls possible. Heck, consider the 9th and 10th Amendments:

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10. 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.

In other words, unless the Constitution explicitly says the Federal Government is given power to act in a particular area, they may not act in that area. Can it be any clearer that the authors' intent was to strictly limit the powers of the Federal government?

[Wildalaska]

Golly, where did ya go to law school :)

Let's say 5 of the old men/women in robes say that Arnold S. is permitted to run for office. What is Congress and the states going to do? Amend the Constitution to say what it already says?

Lets say a meteor hits Australia and kills all life on earth. Lets say that bats grow trunks and begin grazing on begonias. Lets say that Bill Clinton develops morals.

I suppose that ANYHTING in this world is possible. So anyway, to give you the answer you are looking for, if the Supreme Court rules that Arnie can be president then its up to the armed Patriots of this country to rise, overthrow the ZOG and hang the supremes for treason:barf:

If that is the case, why do we even have a Constitution at all? If all it takes is 5 men to change the meaning of the Constitution, then why bother with a complicated and difficult amendment process? Just stack the court with 5 men who will rule however they're prompted and the "Supreme Law of the Land" becomes "Whatever Is Handed Down By The Almighty Five." That is the very tyranny the Founding Fathers struggled so mightily to avoid!

Well the founding fathers should have thought of that when the made the supreme court the final arbiters...


The men who wrote the Constitution of the United States viewed government as just such a dangerous beast; one which is unfortunately necessary. It is illogical for their intent to be anything other than the tightest controls possible. Heck, consider the 9th and 10th Amendments:

Whatever.:rolleyes:

Read the Federalist papers. PS...your rhetoric has no basis in law.

PPS...if I may be so bold...you a student? If so, go get yerself the Maximoff edition of Bakunin, if yer gonna preach like an anarchist at least use the classical terms.

WildtrytofindsomekrorpotkintooAlaska

Wild

[EWTHeckman]

Under your assumption, then the US people also have the right to purchase tanks, jets, missle launchers, flame throwers, and nuclear bombs.

Absolutely. According to the Constitution of the United States, the power flows from The People to the government, not visa versa.

We the People of the United States… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I.

Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States…

Did you catch that? The Constitution was established by "the People of the United States" and that Constitution is what grants the "legislative Powers".

But we dont have these rights. Is that unconstitutional as well?

Wrong. We do have these rights. They have been infringed. Those infringements are unconstitutional.

This is subjective. There are hundreds of rights and powers not specifially noted in the constiution

See the 9th Amendment which is quoted in my previous message.

The passing of anti gun laws is done because the law makers beleive its part of protecting citizens, not because they think they have the right/power as laid out in the consitution to control firearms.

You are assuming that what they say is what they actually believe. What tyrant has ever justified his abuses by saying what they actually believe? Just like any criminal, they justify their actions through lies. Whether they actually believe those lies is irrelevant.

The Constitution expressly forbids infringing on the "right of the people" to own and carry weapons. Therefore, no justification (even if true) is sufficient to permit the government to engage in infringement. Only Congress and the states actually changing the Constitution can make such infringement legal and constitutional, but not moral.

I suggest youpick up a cop of the federalist papers.

I have a copy of The Debate on the Constitution, Part One (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0940450429/qid=1087798653/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-7823853-7455345). I've been working on it for quite a while. (Differences in writing style between now and then make comprehension much harder.) Can you be a little more specific?

When you decide not to convict on the grounds of being unconstitutional, does that law suddenly become unconstitutional and is reversed?

Congress can get the hint when it happens often enough.

who do you think is better to decide if a law is unconsitutional then professional judges who have been doing this their whole lives and know the laws in and out?

Ah, the old "leave it to the professionals" ruberic. Sorry, I'm not buying today. First of all, professionals are human and still make honest mistakes. Second, some "professionals" have nothing more than a piece of paper saying that they've sat in a classroom for a certain period of time, yet they still remain totally incompetent. And third, some "professionals" study so hard for the express purpose of undermining the Constitution, not upholding it.

John Kerry is one such "professional"—he's a lawyer. He hasn't yet met an infringement of the 2nd Amendment that he didn't like.

Do you really think the common person can judge an issue as deep as this is?

Why don't you ask those who specified that juries were to be made up of such "common people"? (In case you missed it, the answer is an emphatic "YES!")

[EWTHeckman]

Try and give a simple (and clear) example and what comes back?

I suppose that ANYHTING in this world is possible. So anyway, to give you the answer you are looking for, if the Supreme Court rules that Arnie can be president then its up to the armed Patriots of this country to rise, overthrow the ZOG and hang the supremes for treason

Are you really serious? It sounds like you're just throwing out a nonsense answer that you don't really believe.

Who in their right mind WANTS a shooting war? Who in their right mind would design a system whose ONLY safety mechanism is a self-destruct system?

Well the founding fathers should have thought of that when the made the supreme court the final arbiters...

I just checked the Constitution again. I still don't see where the Constitution says the Supreme Court is the ONLY arbiter of what the Constitution means.

Whatever.

Ah yes, the all purpose answer of the postmodernist.

if yer gonna preach like an anarchist at least use the classical terms.

How the heck do you get "anarchist" out of pushing for strict adherence to the law?

[Wildalaska]

How the heck do you get "anarchist" out of pushing for strict adherence to the law?

Read some and you'l figure it out....

I just checked the Constitution again. I still don't see where the Constitution says the Supreme Court is the ONLY arbiter of what the Constitution means.

Again read the Federalist Papers and the citations in Marbury..I also suggest Blackstones Commentaries....

Who in their right mind WANTS a shooting war? Who in their right mind would design a system whose ONLY safety mechanism is a self-destruct system?

Based on your understanding of the 5 men gone berserk, thats the only answer..



The Constitution expressly forbids infringing on the "right of the people" to own and carry weapons.


Back to this again...in whose view...yours? And if the Court doesnt agree with you....ah yes but you are right and they are wrong yes..

Second, some "professionals" have nothing more than a piece of paper saying that they've sat in a classroom for a certain period of time, yet they still remain totally incompetent. And third, some "professionals" study so hard for the express purpose of undermining the Constitution, not upholding it.

O really? Tell me in your vast experience which Judges you feel are incompetant...here lets narrow it down...tell me which of our present Supreme Court Justcies are incompetant and why...reference your answer regarding the incompetant decisions they have authored by setting forth the ccontrasting decisions you feel illustrate the true nature of the law.


As to Mr. Kerry, traitorous liberal wishy washy jerkoff that he is, hes a politician, not a legal scholar. Callin a politician a legal scholar is like calling a whore a sex therapist.

And by the way, Professor Bailyn, whose work on the Constituion you are reading, is one of those Haaaaaaaaaahvaaad "professionals" aint he,.....??Perhaps as long as someone is in accord with your sociopolitical weltanshauung they are a competant professional, if they dont agree, they are incompetant, neh?

Wildanddontforget...realworldoutsideAlaska

[EWTHeckman]

Back to this again...in whose view...yours? And if the Court doesnt agree with you....ah yes but you are right and they are wrong yes..

That IS what the 2nd Amendment says in just so many words. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." If the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says, then where does that leave us?

I believe that leaves us with this statement you made earlier:

And until the Suprtemes decide what and who is correct, we have to deal with uncertainty

How does that statement mean anything OTHER than, "The 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says, it means what the Supreme Court says it means"?

Based on your understanding of the 5 men gone berserk, thats the only answer..

You keep saying that ONLY the Supreme Court can say what the Constitution means. Therefore, you are also the one saying that the ONLY alternative when the Supremes rule contrary to the Constitution is a shooting war.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Why don't you start with Federalist paper no 81Wildalaska, I have taken your advice and taken a look at Federalist 81. Here is what it has to say on the matter: "In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every state. I admit, however, that the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution." Therein, I also read: "...and the Supreme Court would have nothing but appellate jurisdiction, 'with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.'"

Now, as to the first quote, Hamilton is asserting that the Supreme Court is not Constitutionally empowered to construe the laws according to the "spirit of the Constitution," but, by logical inference, must conform to the letter of said document, otherwise be subject to the regulation of Congress (See second quote). He goes on to say that it is the Constitution (not the words of the Supreme Court) which ought, according to said Constitution, to be the "standard of construction for the laws," and that in the case of an evident opposition, the Constitution is to be given preference to the laws. Now, when the Supreme Court makes law which is in evident opposition to the Constitution, therefore, those laws must (according to Fed No. 81) "give place to the Constitution."

This makes the point that I have been making all along. When there exists a conflict in the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the Constitution itself, it is the Constitution which holds sway, not the decisions of the Supreme Court. It is at this point that Congress is authorised by the Constitution to "regulate" the Supreme Court in its exercise of appellate jurisdiction (See second quote). The Congress, therefore, is the "final arbiter" of what the Constitution ultimately means, not the Supreme Court.

As to the second quote, above, Hamilton is clearly acknowledging the superiority of the Congress with regard to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. The Congress is made up of two houses, one of which is the Senate. The Senate, in the "plan under consideration" was the representative body of the several states' governments, so that states themselves were in a position to be a check on Federal usurpation of state's rights and powers. However, the Seventeenth Amendment has thrown, as it were, a monkey wrench into the works of this delicately balanced machine, so that now there exists no external check on the Federal Government's power in relation to the states, except that extraordinary one referenced and guaranteed in the Second Amendment. All other checks are internal, therefore useless in regard to the balance between states' rights and the exercise of Federal power. There is no longer any ordinary external check on the power of the Federal Government. The Supreme Court was intended as an internal check only, i.e., to prevent the Congress from exceeding its Constitutional limits with regard to the other two branches of the Federal Government, or visa versa. With regard to Federal usurpation of state powers, the Supreme Court is no better than a fox in the hen house.

[The Real Hawkeye]

I suppose that ANYHTING in this world is possible. So anyway, to give you the answer you are looking for, if the Supreme Court rules that Arnie can be president then its up to the armed Patriots of this country to rise, overthrow the ZOG and hang the supremes for treason.That is the only means remaining to place an external check on the usurpation of power by the Federal Government as a whole. The original Constitution, however, had an ordinary check installed, and that was that state governments had their own representatives at the helm of the Federal Government, and could heavily influence the Federal Government's exercise of power. The Seventeenth Amendment obliterated this check, however. Now states, as separate sovereign entities, have no representation in the Federal Government. There is no longer an ordinary external check on Federal usurpation of states rights and powers. This throws out the window all the reassurances against Federal usurpation made in the Federalist Papers. The delicate balance has been done away with. Ever since, we have seen a steady growth of the Powers of the Federal Government, as the Supreme Court (which is a component of the Federal Government) regularly gives their stamp of approval to every Federal usurpation of states' rights and powers proposed by Congress (another component of the Federal Government) and signed by the President (another component of the Federal Government).

Hasn't anyone, other than your humble correspondent, ever made the connection between the year 1913 and the start of the steady progression of Federal usurpation of power? That is also, by the way, the same year that the Federal Income Tax amendment (16th) was supposedly ratified. I say "supposedly," because it never actually was ratified according to the method of ratification laid out in the Constitution, but that's another thread.

[cropcirclewalker]

Now states, as separate sovereign entities, have no representation in the Federal Government. True. Well said.

To further indicate how we have become an empire over a voluntary union of states, I ask you,

Would Washington, Jefferson or Robert E. Lee have said the "Pledge of Allegiance"?

They wouldn't have been arguing about "Under God". They would have just refused entirely because they were citizens of Virginia.

[EWTHeckman]

And a state or governor can cry all he wants, pass all the resolutions and bills they want proclaiming that a law is unconstitutional. It doesnt mean anything until who vote on it? Yes you guessed it, the supreme court.

It's wonderful how a good night's sleep can remind one of principles which were forgotten the previous night. Here is that principle:

The authority to enforce laws has not been given to the Federal government. Only states have that authority. Therefore, a state legislature has the authority to say that a particular law is unconstitutional and that it will not be enforced within its own borders.

Furthermore, the Sherrif of each county has the final authority on law enforcement matters within their own county. This means that other law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, may not act within a county without the Sheriff's approval.

I remember reading about the use of this principle about a year ago or so. The FBI was harassing a gun owner for some reason. That person was able to appeal to the sheriff who in turn informed the FBI, or maybe it was th BATFE, that they could no longer do any law enforcement activity related to this particular person without his explicit approval. As a result, the harassment stopped.

So theoretically, the Sheriff of any particular county could state that a particular law is unconstitutional and may not be enforced within his or her county.

[Molon Labe]

And if the Court doesnt agree with you....ah yes but you are right and they are wrong yes..When it comes to my natural rights, then yes... I am always right. If the Supreme Court has a conflicting viewpoint on the scope or definition of my natural rights, then I simply ignore it.

[The Real Hawkeye]

cropcirclewalker said: They wouldn't have been arguing about "Under God". They would have just refused entirely because they were citizens of Virginia.Very true. They would have refused because it says "One nation, indivisible." The Constitution says nothing about it being one nation, indivisible. Since the Constitution is silent on the matter, it must be assumed (according to the Tenth Amendment) that secession is a power and right retained by the states. But that was before Lincoln crossed his Rubicon, ending the Constitutional Republic established in 1789 and instituting a new totalitarian ragime having very little in common with the government it replaced. The Constitutional Republic lasted from 1789 to 1861. The Empire dates from 1861 to present.

[cordex]

Wild,
Is there any law that has been passed and not yet declared unconstitutional (or even upheld by the Supreme Court) that you think is unconstitutional? Has there ever been?

[DevilDog]

Not only is the AWB unconstitutional, but so is ever federal law concerning welfare, medicare, social security, etc. Every law ever passed by congress where congress mis-used the interstate commerce clause as its authority to pass the law is unconstitutional.

[SWMAN]

In my humble, simplistic view, any law restricting the right of a U.S. citizen to own, carry or use their small arms (hand and shoulder fired) in a lawful manner, (self-defense, hunting for food or sport) is unconstitutional. It really doesn't seem so hard to figure out. It seems like the Supreme Court made a royal mess in the 1934 Miller case. They had no clue what they were talking about, saying that weapons used by the military are okay to have but then saying that shotguns weren't used by the military, which was factually wrong. They were used in WWI and are still used used today by the military.

[Ant Mod]

Why don't you ask those who specified that juries were to be made up of such "common people"? (In case you missed it, the answer is an emphatic "YES!")

Check to see who made up the constitutional convention. These men were not commoners. They were the smartest, wealthiest, and most important people of the time. They were in no way common.

They agreed that any commoner who was tried should be tried by his peers, other common people. They even originally beleived that common people did not have the intelectual capability to decide on issues themselves, that only educated people should.

Any good bookstore has a copy of the federalist papers. Read through them all, they are not hard reading. You learn a lot about the forefathers intent and what they were thinking. They are explanations for why the consitution was drawn up the way it was. Explanations of different parts in terms that the common people of the time could understand.

[Mr. Clark]

They even originally believed that common people did not have the intellectual capability to decide on issues themselves, that only educated people should.

Yes, but those were honest, educated people.

I don't question the education or the intelligence of Supreme Court judges, or most senators or congressmen for that matter. I question their honesty.

They use their intelligence and education to put forth spurious and disingenuous opinions about these legal matters knowing the general population will defer to their judgment. With that being the case, their intelligence and education don't mean squat. They can't be trusted.

[Wildalaska]

Guys got to make this fast, really dont have time today which means I probably wont catch up...


How does that statement mean anything OTHER than, "The 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says, it means what the Supreme Court says it means"?

Thats correct as to the entire constituion, the resuklt is a million little constituional scholars with all that entails.

When it comes to my natural rights, then yes... I am always right.

Me too...got any young daughters...or young sons?..yum yum (rhetorical flourish only not top be construed as any deviance on my part since there are LAWS against it, together with my own morality):D

Is there any law that has been passed and not yet declared unconstitutional (or even upheld by the Supreme Court) that you think is unconstitutional? Has there ever been?

Never was a fan of Miranda myself.....my problem with the courts have always been with the lower courts actuially



Not only is the AWB unconstitutional, but so is ever federal law concerning welfare, medicare, social security, etc. Every law ever passed by congress where congress mis-used the interstate commerce clause as its authority to pass the law is unconstitutional.



Taxes! Dont forget taxes...Its all Rosenfelds fault!

Wildalaska, I have taken your advice and taken a look at Federalist 81.


No, I said... START ...there...not to be read in a vacuumHasn't anyone, other than your humble correspondent, ever made the connection between the year 1913 and the start of the steady progression of Federal usurpation of power? That is also, by the way, the same year that the Federal Income Tax amendment (16th) was supposedly ratified. I say "supposedly," because it never actually was ratified according to the method of ratification laid out in the Constitution, but that's another thread.

All right, now we got taxes in there...

Guess we are too polite, or two scared of being banned, to throw ZOG in their too:D

But at least we get to still rail about Lincoln :)

Well got to go. Be back later.


WildheythisislookingmoreandmorelikestormfrontAlaska

[cordex]

WildheythisislookingmoreandmorelikestormfrontAlaska
The only time I've been to Stormfront is to check out when they stole one of Oleg's images and he changed it to an image decidedly not in line with Stormfront's ideology. Got a kick out of that.

Anyway, point is I'm not an expert on their board and couldn't figure out exactly what you were trying to say. Since you're the only one I've seen on this thread reference ZOG conspiracies and the "eeeeeevil" Jew being responsible for the downfall of our country (and I understand you're doing so in a sarcastic manner to dismiss conflicting opinions), it took me a second to realize what you're really getting at, but I think I've figured it out. Tell me where I go wrong.

1. If you're against income tax for whatever reason ... you're a Neo-Nazi.
2. If you believe the 2nd Amendment offers any protections for firearms beyond maybe protections against a total ban ... you're a Neo-Nazi. And probably a bomb-thrower, too.
3. If you believe that the Supreme Court can be wrong, or is wrong on a regular basis ... you're a Neo-Nazi. As well as an anarchist.
4. If you believe that the current Federal government has exceeded the authority of it's Constitutional origins ... you're a Neo-Nazi. And a child molester.
5. If you disagree with WildAlaska on the purpose of government and the current execution of that concept ... you're obviously a Neo-Nazi. And an idealistic one at that.

;)

PS. I bet someone could find a Stormfronter who agrees with you on something. That doesn't, however, give me cause to label you a Nazi ... does it?

[buzz_knox]

No. Even under a balancing test rationale (used for various other fundamental rights), there must be an incredibly high state interest to actually prohibit the excercise of a right. Given that there is no evidence, nor has there been any evidence, that banning "assault weapons" would affect crime or bolster interstate commerce (in fact, it restricts it), the argument and justification for the AWB fails, and it is unconstitutional.

WildheythisislookingmoreandmorelikestormfrontAlaska

This comment by you speaks volumes as to how you see yourself and this board.

[Mr. Clark]

Guess we are too polite, or two scared of being banned, to throw ZOG in their too

I have watched your constant Ad Hominem attacks with increasing disgust. Accusing someone of being a closet anti-Semite crosses the line, however. You need to apologize. Putting a cutesy smiley face after it is not enough.

[blackrazor]

Golly, where did ya go to law school?
PS...where did ya go to law school?
PPS..ya old enough to even buy a gun?
Well I suggest you study up a bit more.
if I may be so bold...you a student? If so, go get yerself the Maximoff edition of Bakunin, if yer gonna preach
But this is America, you are entitled to be wrong.
Thank you...been a long time since I did a petition for certiorari or briefed to a Circuit Court...

You know what your problem is, Wildalaska? Despite your desperate attempts to convince us otherwise, you're not as smart as you think you are. You're not as witty as you think you are. Patronizing the people you're trying to convince doesn't work, didn't you learn that in law school? Most of us, who live in the reeeaaaaal world.... you know, the REEEAAAAALLL world... already understand this. :rolleyes:

Despite your constant rhetoric, we know that the Assault Weapon Ban does more than outlaw "cosmetic features." A flash suppressor is a functional part, not a "cosmetic feature." A pistol grip is a function part, not a "cosmetic feature." Who do you think you're fooling? To say that the AWB doesn't infringe on your right to keep and bear arms is totally absurd.

I've said it before and I'll say it again Alaska, you're out of place here. Now, we let anti's post here all the time so go ahead and keep posting, but don't try to pretend you're one of us. And the results of this poll prove it.

BlackputtinglittlequipsinmynamestoppedbeingcutealongtimeagoRazor

[Michigander]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there any law that has been passed and not yet declared unconstitutional (or even upheld by the Supreme Court) that you think is unconstitutional? Has there ever been?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Never was a fan of Miranda myself.....my problem with the courts have always been with the lower courts actuially


Can you answer the question directly, Wildalaska?



Michihopewildalaskaisplayingdevilsadvocategan.

[The Real Hawkeye]

The first time I've ever seen mention of "ZOG" was from wildalaska. Didn't know what it was, so haven't commented till now, but in recent posts I infer that it is some kind of insinuation of anti-Semitism. Out of curiosity, what is the origin of this term?

[Ant Mod]

ZOG = Zionist Occupied Government

WildAlaska uses it as a derogatory term, meaning the Jews control the government. He is obviously an anti-semite and probably would have loved Hitler.

[deanf]

Oh boy:rolleyes:

[cropcirclewalker]

I don't think WA is an antisemite.

I can't say fer sure, since I put him on my ignore list a few days ago.

Needless to say, with him on my IL, It's been lots better reading of the threads. I couldn't handle all those long, no space, cutsey, self serving little strings of characters between wild and I'llaskher

I think what he was doing was accusing somebody else of anti semitism. It is a common ploy by flaming liberal, big government, gun controller apoligists to use to try to marginalize justifiable opposition.

[Wildalaska]

Sigh... let the flames begin!

Anyway to answer the important issues, Michigander I'm not familiar with what is pending before the Supreme Court right now as to the consituionality per se of any statute....my best recollection is that questions as to constituionality qua constituionality are the rarest questions before the Supreme Court..

That being said, the one thats dissapointed me the most was the recent case regarding the Pledge of Alegience because I felt that the Sups ducked the issue. I also thought that the decision in the recent campaing funding case was just plain wrong in so far as it allowed too expansive a restriction on speech..

Other than that I havent gotten to worked up about the Supremes in a while..

Now as to the rest...

Cordex you come closest....the analogy I am drawing is that there is a distinct ideological tie in between some of the ideas I see in this thread and the loony Stormfront right....now of course everyone gets their panties bunch about it, but hey...fair comment....similarly, there is a ideological tie in between the Brady Bunch and the red radicals embodied by Stormfronts silly cousins Move ON...but I guess thats OK to point out becasue that there is "their" ideas......

Im waiting for someone to critisize flouridation btw....

ON the other hand Cordex, you draw the analogy too far...you are being to kind to the victims of my o so mean barbs...thus...

If you believe that the current Federal government has exceeded the authority of it's Constitutional origins ... you're a Neo-Nazi. And a child molester.

Now I never said either....read my comments carefully....the child molestation comment (actually I prefer to call it the "natural right" to love anyone you choose) isy ou classic slippery slope question to those who beleive that THEY IN AND OF THEMSELVES determine what "rights" we have and that the Courts ( and the system) be damned...

Im not the one advocating that btw....

PS....read up on the Posse Comitatus, and the Order....then reread this thread.....

Now Blackrazor, you are obviously entitled to all of your opinions, and as I am waaaaaaaay too busy working on some RKBA stuff (as opposed to ranting on the internet)I wont bother (nor is it my style) to say what I think of you. That being said, join your friend cropcircle and ignore me..Need;less to say, I sure as hell dont want to be "one of you"

WildlovethewaythecutesysigirritatessomefolkAlaska

[Foreign Devil]

On the issue at hand, the court's role in interpreting the constitution, I agree with wil alaska

But I do not agree with him comparing these other posters here to nazis and such.

That is wrong and could be very offensive to someone who lost relatives in europe, or who suffered from real anti semitism.

They have certain views on the constitution but that does not make them racists and nazis. These are very charged terms you are casually slinging around.

It was wrong when moveon.org compared Bush to Hitler in their infamous ad and it's just as wrong for you to do what you are doing. I think you owe these guys an apology.

[Art Eatman]

Between provocations and obvious misunderstandings, this thread is now in bye-bye mode.

Closed.

Art