Hollis Wayne Fincher

[Bartholomew Roberts]

so, kentak, as long as a court says that such and such law is indeed not a violation of the constitution, then all is perfectly well and good?

I think that misses the point doesn't it? In a land of 300 million people, there are going to be varying interpretations of the Constitution. Heck, I bet there are plenty varied interpretations of what is constitutional just on THR... so who is the ultimate arbitrer of what is or is not constitutional? The one that the most people agree with?

Didn't America stop being a "Republic" sometime around the late 50's and early 60's?

No, the United States of America meets just about every definition I've seen of a representative republic. The whole point of a republic is that the elected representatives are supposed to give a voice to the people; yet by being an independent and hopefully thoughtful human being, not give in to the baser moods of the mob. To that degree, a representative is only as good as who you put in the job. This protects the minority from oppression by the majority in theory; but even under a republic, oppression of the minority by the majority isn't unheard of (ask Rosa Parks how well a representative republic was protecting her rights in the 50s).

If I was going to narrow down the problem, I would say that it is not that we don't have a republic, it is that we have too many citizens who do not have the time or inclination to monitor what their representatives are doing. I don't say that as criticism - it is a fairly daunting task for a single individual to follow everything that goes on. By contrast, corporations and businesses DO stay involved and can afford to hire people to pursue just that end. So over time, our representation tilts that way because that is who is involved in the system.

This is one reason the NRA is so powerful. They are like a corporation that can deliver not only money; but 4 million votes.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I think that misses the point doesn't it? In a land of 300 million people, there are going to be varying interpretations of the Constitution. Heck, I bet there are plenty varied interpretations of what is constitutional just on THR... so who is the ultimate arbitrer of what is or is not constitutional? The one that the most people agree with?

unfortunately, the one that I hear the most, nowadays, is that the USSC is the arbitor of what the constitution means. Sadly, the ones that should be, don't really get to say anymore.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

OK, so who should be the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means in your opinion and how does that work in a practical sense?

 

[ar10]

I just can't see how it's a republic. Presidents are elected by Electorial College, not by the people or popular vote. Our country has a lot of problems that can be worked out, however I have yet to see a single elected official that has not been corrupted in some form or another, and most are muliti-millionaires. I also see major legislation being passed that hurts majority of Americans. I also see election games played in key states where the loser actually is the winner. This is not government by the people it's government by a very, very small minority.
I also think most voters realize this and just give up voting or "go with the flow" in the false hope their jobs will be secure. I read somewhere Nations fall from within long before they're conquered from without. And I've seen that process ever since deregulation of business during the Reagan Administration. I don't think that's what the majority of Americans want now or what they wanted in 1776.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I just can't see how it's a republic. Presidents are elected by Electorial College, not by the people or popular vote.

That is pretty much what a Republic is... instead of direct democracy by the people, they elect representatives who exercise that authority for the people. If the people become sufficiently displeased with their representative, they can replace them. After all the electoral college didn't come about in the 1960s, it has been here since the country was formed precisely because it represents the basic principle of a republic.

 

[DKSuddeth]

OK, so who should be the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means in your opinion and how does that work in a practical sense?

It is 'we the people'. We wrote it, we enumerated certain powers, and we are the ones with the ability and power to amend it. Granted, we do this through our elected reps, but the courts only job is supposed to be deciding via the letter of the supreme law of the land, whether something goes beyond the enumerated powers of the constitution or not and not to decide that someone doesn't have this specific right in this specific circumstance.

 

[WeedWhacker]

The short answer is this:

Wayne Fincher built some Constitutionally-protected machines for his own use within one state... and the authorities chose an arbitrary time to come and haul him away, Mr. Fincher having harmed no one, all based on the tenous claim to the only possibly legitimate reason they have for such a farce: the interstate commerce clause.

Remember, the feds can do nothing unless explicitly authorized by the Constitution, which is why a few choice "weasel phrases" get stretched to such insane proportions.

Whether or not federal authorities arrested Wayne Fincher is of no consequence because the supreme law of the land (Constitution) protects such weapons as Mr. Fincher made, regardless of what some black-robed tyrants may or may not have said.