Lawsuits possible from Va. Tech shooting

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Discredit: Comment # 26

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

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

Besmirch: Comment #31

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

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

Obfuscate: Comment #39

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

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

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

I agree.

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

Woody

As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:

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

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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

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

We the People...

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

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

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

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

We the people

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

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

1. A nation, those who compose a community


2. The Vulgar


3. The commonality; not the princes or nobles


4. Persons of a particular class


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

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

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

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

3 plural : the members of a family or kinship

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

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

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

7: the body of enfranchised citizens of a state​

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

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

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

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

Woody

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

 

[JohnBT]

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

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

John

 

[brickeyee]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

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

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

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


Brickeyee,

Whom are you addressing?

Woody

 

[brickeyee]

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

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

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

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

You can argue what YOU think Marbury vs. Madison means all you want, it decided (and has not been overturned) that the Supreme Court can review all acts of congress to decide if they are in conformance with the Constitution.

I agree with this. If you review what I have said on the subject you can see for yourself. Those acts of Congress can only be reviewed on appeal, though.

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

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

Woody

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

 

[JohnBT]

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

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

John

 

[brickeyee]

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

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

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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

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

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

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

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

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

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

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

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

Therein lies your problem. You took your teachers word over your own ability to study and discern this stuff for yourself. Your teachers have an agenda and succeeded in indoctrinating you to their desired way of thinking.

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

This is another example of your teacher's failure. It appears they didn't tell you that Congress, the Executive, and the Court only have those powers granted to them in the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers made that quite clear in the Tenth Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

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

I don't cite cases as case "law"(that usually ends up as legislating from the bench). I'm only interested in the opinions and decisions of the Court case by case. Each and every case is different and deserves the full attention of the Court. Falling back on precedent essentially robs the next litigant or defendant to come along with a similar case of his day in court. I'm not too concerned about stare decisis, though, because an appellate court can shoot it down(change it) when it is discovered to be bad. It can be ignored when it is shown that some supposed applicable precedent does not apply. And here is the big rub: All judges swear or affirm an oath to support the Constitution, not stare decisis.

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

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

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

Woody

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

 

[glummer]

Cowboy,

"arising under this Constitution,..."

Anything under the Constitution does not include the Constitution itself.

Says who?
I think you are misinterpreting the word “under”:

Oxford:
6 as provided for by the rules of; in accordance with.

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

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

Hmm. Therefore, If I have a right to bear arms, I could bear them anywhere, under any circumstances, and I could not be challenged nor could I be held accountable for whatever I did.
Like in your house, without your permission?
Interesting bit of interpretation there, Woody.

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

And the Constitution is the supreme LAW of the USA.

 

[atblis]

Hmm

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

Farmer v. Brennan maybe?

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

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

Again the prison rape thing.

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

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

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

 

[RealGun]

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

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

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Anything under the Constitution does not include the Constitution itself

Says who?
I think you are misinterpreting the word “under”:
Quote:

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

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

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

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

Johnson's Dictionary, 1755, gives the following adverbial definitions of "under":

1. In a state of subjection.

2. Less : Opposed to over or more.

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

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

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

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

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

Like in your house, without your permission?

That is a point where your RKBA bumps into my property rights. You need permission either expressly or by nolo contendere.

Interesting bit of interpretation there, Woody.

Naw, it's just reading.

And the Constitution is the supreme LAW of the USA.

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

Woody

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

 

[glummer]

Cowboy

Not on the same plane as the laws and treaties, not above the laws and treaties, but UNDER the laws and treaties

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

That is a point where your RKBA bumps into my property rights.

And exactly how can your rights be enforced if I cannot “ be challenged nor … held accountable”?

You got the emphasis in the wrong place.

It’s the same place you put it.

 

[RealGun]

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

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

 

[Rumble]

You have ruled out SCOTUS – who, then?

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

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

 

[glummer]

RealGun

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

I DO know what "most other people" think. And so do you. The topic of SCOTUS jurisdiction in Constitutional questions was settled, for most people, almost 2 centuries ago. Cowboy’s position is very much idiosyncratic. And you know it.

 

[glummer]

Rumble

Assuming for the sake of argument Woody's position is correct, then it is the People who have the right to interpret the Constitution

And that's the problem - it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for "the People" to interpret anything.

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

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

 

[Rumble]

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

Fair enough. I am not even close to a Constitutional scholar. My main point was simply that according to Woody's argument (I believe he cited "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" but it may have been someone else), if the federal government and state governments are not delegated (or are prohibited) the power to interpret the Constitution, the only remaining entity that might have that power is "the people." Although in fairness, the Constitution doesn't appear to expressly prohibit the States from doing so.

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

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

We are not speaking of physical position, but association, or relevance.

Yes, that's true. One of the functions of a preposition is to show the logical relationship(association, or relevance) - of the object of the preposition to the rest of the sentence.

1. In a state of subjection.

2. Less : Opposed to over or more.

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

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

More tonight.

Woody

 

[legaleagle_45]

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

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

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

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

 

[glummer]

Woody

"arising under this Constitution,..."
Anything under the Constitution does not include the Constitution itself.

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

There are no semantics in this;

Semantics is exactly what you are talking about.
Oxford:

the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.