Lawsuits possible from Va. Tech shooting

[JohnBT]

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

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

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

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

- today's Richmond Times-Dispatch

_______________________________

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

- today's Richmond Times-Dispatch

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Anything under the Constitution does not include the Constitution itself

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

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

None. I read the Constitution all by myself!

Woody

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

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

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

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

More tonight.

Woody

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

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.

 

[Cosmoline]

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

 

[JohnBT]

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

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

John

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I read the Constitution all by myself!

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

More tonight.

Woody

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

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

 

[Cosmoline]

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

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

 

[ServiceSoon]

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

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

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

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

Followed with:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The simple fact that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and has not ruled against itself in doing so does not make it right. That's a paradox. Would you expect a king to say he cannot rule his land?

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

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

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

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

I'm merely defending my initial supposition in my comment - number 6 in this thread - and JohnBT's rebuttal of my rebuttal of his claim that a lot of the victims weren't old enough to get a Virginia carry permit. It all follows from there.

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

Woody

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

 

[1x2]

To begin with, the First Amendment prohibits abridgment of free speech but does not protect speech as a right. If a person were to possess a right to free speech, there could be no crime of perjury.

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

1x2

 

[Robert Hairless]

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

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

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

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

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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

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

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

 

[JohnBT]

"Words mean things"

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

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

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

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

John

 

[Kharn]

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

Kharn

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

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

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

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

1x2, For Clarity

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

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

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

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

JohnBT

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

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

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

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

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

Woody

 

[1x2]

Yes, but we've been "protecting" the freedom of speech, not any right to free speech. If I had a right to free speech, I could say anything to anyone and what I was to say or to whom could not be challenged nor could I be held accountable for whatever I said.

OK (I think). Your "right to free speech" is a freedom without regard to the "truth or consequences". As important as terms are, I can't differentiate between these two.

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

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

1x2

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

1X2.

You've got the gist of it.

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

Woody

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

 

[MASTEROFMALICE]

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

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

 

[phaed]

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


this is all headed in the wrong direction.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

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

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

Have a better day!

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

Woody

 

[JohnBT]

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

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

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

John

 

[209]

Back to the lawsuits:

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

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

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

The Supremes also said:

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

The Court also said:

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

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

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