Really interesting article on authenticity of Thomas Jefferson 2nd Amendment Quotes

[holdencm9]

A while back I tried to get a thread going where we could share good quotes that could be substantiated, as well as point out quotes that are "fake" or at least misquoted or misrepresented as being said by that person. So that others don't use those quotes and embarrass themselves.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=714393&highlight=quotes

It didn't work out too well.

 

[JTHunter]

Frank - I was only questioning that a "liberal" media source would be "unbiased" when it comes to either pro-2A or similar conservative viewpoints.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank - I was only questioning that a "liberal" media source would be "unbiased" when it comes to either pro-2A or similar conservative viewpoints.

On the other hand, mainstream media doesn't always get things wrong, and it can often be good on academic type topics. At the same time, I've notice some conservative sources embellish things from the other end.

The bottom line is that there is a lot of bad information floating around and as I pointed out in this post in the thread holdencm9 linked to:

...Far as I'm concerned, who cares who said it or whether they said it at all. Most of these sayings make perfect sense and explain our argument very well..

Supposed argument based on slogans or cliches can not ultimately be effective. It must be based on verifiable data.

...They can stand on their own merits without having some old guy's name under them....

Not really. Attributing a quote to someone who has established credibility and stature lends credibility to the quote. People will pay more attention to something George Washington or Jesus said than something Algernon Liptsitz said.

But when it's discovered that George Washington or Jesus actually didn't say it, whoever attributed it looks like, at best, a fool -- and at worst, a liar.

In any case, even verified quotation from well known and respected individuals have limited value in an argument. People tend to toss them around as if they settle everything, but best they (1) tell us something about the thinking of the person who said it; and (2) may help illustrate a point.

 

[herrwalther]

On the other hand, mainstream media doesn't always get things wrong, and it can often be good on academic type topics. At the same time, I've notice some conservative sources embellish things from the other end.

I am sure if we went back to Roman times, a messenger relaying the results of a battle would say in their favor and the opposite for another messenger. I have found the best way to get as close to the truth as possible is to read the story on a right based news site, and the same story on a left side. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

 

[JustinJ]

If we're debating gun rights and the topic is intent or meaning of the second amendment then quoting founding fathers can be a valid strategy. However, saying a position is the right one because so and so said something that appears in favor, also known as "appeal to authority", can be a double edged sword. If one says, "it's correct because Jefferson agrees with it" it may come back and bite them when the topic changes. As of late, the political right has been making concerted efforts to marginalize Jefferson historically, largely due to his religious views.

 

[Frank Ettin]

If we're debating gun rights and the topic is intent or meaning of the second amendment then quoting founding fathers can be a valid strategy....

Even if to some extent it can be valid strategy (and I don't fully accept the premise), if we can't establish that that Founding Father actually said something, or there's good evidence he did not say it, any possible benefit goes down the drain.

 

[Cee Zee]

Even if to some extent it can be valid strategy (and I don't fully accept the premise), if we can't establish that that Founding Father actually said something, or there's good evidence he did not say it, any possible benefit goes down the drain.

Those are the people that set up our government. I can't think of any better source for what their intentions were than their own words. And their intentions, and the words they wrote down in the constitution, mean everything to our struggle. That's why I previously tried to show that good evidence does exist on what they said and what they thought.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Those are the people that set up our government. I can't think of any better source for what their intentions were than their own words....

There was considerable disagreement among the Founders. Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton disagreed on a variety of points.

Indeed fifty-five delegates attended the Constitutional Convention in 1786-87. Thirty-nine signed the proposed Constitution. Thirteen left without signing, and three refused to sign. There was then a bitter fight over ratification by the States. And it indeed looked like the Constitution would fail ratification until the Massachusetts Compromise was hashed out -- giving us the Bill of Rights after the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution came forth out of a political maelstrom. How can we possibly imagine that all of the thirty-nine Founders who signed the proposed Constitution intended the same thing? And how can we possibly imagine that every delegate who voted to ratify the Constitution in each state or commonwealth assembly intended exactly the same thing?

We of course have some records of what some of the key figures might have intended, but projecting their intentions on the rest of the Founders might well be a stretch.

And while the Founders aren't here to fully explain the depth and breadth of their intentions and expectations, they did leave us an amazing legacy -- The Constitution of the United States of America. And from the Constitution, we can infer that they intended us to have, among other things:

• A system of checks and balances achieved through a separation of powers among the Congress (legislative), the President (executive) and the Courts (judicial);
  
  
• Of these three branches of government, the legislative was most directly subject to the influence of the body politic, and the judicial was the least subject to the direct influence of the body politic;
  
  
• Judicial power vested in a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress might establish, and this judicial power would extend to all cases arising under, among other things, the Constitution and the laws of the United States;
  
  
• A Constitution that could be changed, albeit with difficulty.

...And their intentions, and the words they wrote down in the constitution, mean everything to our struggle...

I'll agree that the words of the Constitution and the 200+ years of constitutional jurisprudence are central, but I don't necessarily fully accept the rest of your claim.

 

[Cee Zee]

I'll agree that the words of the Constitution and the 200+ years of constitutional jurisprudence are central, but I don't necessarily fully accept the rest of your claim.

We have nothing else to argue our case. And accepting the rulings of the court since the days of the writing of the constitution has left us with a hodgepodge of precedents that robbed us of a great deal of our rights. We have to stop believing the courts have been infallible on these issues. They certainly have issued contradictory rulings. We need to get back to the original intention of the framers of the constitution (yes I know what I just said) because those that came after that have made it into a "living" document that can be altered in any way they see fit. The main reason for that was that we allowed the courts to take on a role never granted them by the constitution which was final arbiter of what is constitutional and what isn't. That was supposed to be governed by the 3 branches equally (checks and balances) but in fact there are no checks on the courts whatsoever. There is the amending of the constitution but that has been shown to not work perfectly either and the bar is set ridiculously high to achieve that anyway. Even where the constitution was altered it was often ignored and then sanctioned by the court in the way it was ignored. I don't want to get too far off the subject but I'll point out that the ratification of the 14th and 15th amendments in particular were grossly ignored by government and by the courts. That's the reason we all harken back to the intent of the founding fathers. Too many times the will of the people and the constitution itself has been thwarted by men in robes. Those men (and women) have done a terrible job of governing this country and it's about to get much worse based on some of their recent rulings (are you listening Chief Justice Roberts?).

Arguing based on court rulings, as you seem to be suggesting, is a losing proposition for us or it has been for the most part. Too many times we have lost rights based on court rulings. Yes we have had a major victory in recent years too (Heller) but that had caveats that allowed for continued control over our rights. The only way to counter something like that is to bring up the fact that the people who voted for the constitution (and that bill of rights) felt certain things in common. Yes there were certainly struggles over issues between Hamilton and Jefferson. I posted about those issues several times here. But Jefferson had a major influence on the constitution even though he did not write it. He had even more influence over the bill of rights even though he didn't write them either. Of course Madison wrote both the constitution and the amendments for the most part but it was a communal effort because there was a great deal of influence by Adams and Jefferson in particular even though both were absent when the constitution was written. It's generally agreed that they still had a limiting factor on Madison and the other Federalists. Madison would have been quite content to approve the constitution without the bill of rights at first because he was a strong federalist at the time but it was the influence of Jefferson and Adams that caused the bill of rights to become an issue (and one that Madison embraced completely - he was known for wavering back and forth wanting a strong federal government then strong state governments then a balance between the two etc.).

At any rate the thinking of Jefferson in particular is a key element in the passage of the second amendment and of the bill of rights period. Many states had a bill of rights in their constitutions before the federal government did it too. Virginia, the home of Jefferson of course, had their Declaration of Rights which BTW included language about the militia being the best form of defense and how people should be trained in the use of arms. That's where we got the idea for the bill of rights and where the part of the 2nd amendment came from referring to the militia.

That had a lot to do with why we have a bill of rights. And many other state constitutions contained provisions about gun ownership that were much more specific about the role of guns for not only defense of the state but self defense.

Jefferson was a big proponent of the bill of rights because of Virginia's Declaration Of Rights. But that wasn't the full measure of where our rights would go. And Jefferson was right in tune with the other states that wanted amendments that gave us the right to own firearms. Some states were very explicit about why we needed guns. That is certainly something that needs to be mentioned in our struggle to maintain our rights. For example Pennsylvania had this in their state constitution bill of rights passed in 1790 which was during the time the bill of rights were being debated (proposed in 1789 and passed in 1791), "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." That seems pretty clear and remember that was the Quaker state. There were other states too. Vermont passed this in their 1777 constitution, "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State..." and then it goes on to talk about standing armies but never questions the right to self defense with arms.

Those things are important to our struggle and it is possible to find the evidence we need.

Jefferson wrote to Madison first proposing a bill of rights famously saying, "Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can." Madison embraced the idea not wanting to have a second constitutional convention that might break apart the compromises worked out in the original constitutional convention. Madison then became the champion of the bill of rights and wrote them for the most part although each one had to be hammered out for it's final form.

I can find direct quotes from reputable sources regarding the views of Jefferson this issue given enough time but it's late and I'm tired right now.

 

[12131]

On the internet..

Bon jour!

 

[kwguy]

We have nothing else to argue our case. And accepting the rulings of the court since the days of the writing of the constitution has left us with a hodgepodge of precedents that robbed us of a great deal of our rights. We have to stop believing the courts have been infallible on these issues. They certainly have issued contradictory rulings. We need to get back to the original intention of the framers of the constitution (yes I know what I just said) because those that came after that have made it into a "living" document that can be altered in any way they see fit.

Too many times we have lost rights based on court rulings.

This seems to keep it in very simple terms. It seems to me that many people 'overthink' a lot of this. To me, the 2A seems to be one of those "Self Evident" things that really doesn't need explanation or interpretation.

 

[Cee Zee]

It seems that way to me too kwguy. Too bad a lot of other people don't agree with us. The plain language reading of the 2nd certainly makes it clear that the government can't limit gun ownership. But they are still doing it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

We have nothing else to argue our case. And accepting the rulings of the court since the days of the writing of the constitution has left us with a hodgepodge of precedents that robbed us of a great deal of our rights. .... We need to get back to the original intention of the framers of the constitution (yes I know what I just said) because those that came after that have made it into a "living" document that can be altered in any way they see fit....

And exactly how do you expect to make that happen? In the real world, things get done in court, in the legislatures and in the voting booth.

The ruling of courts affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Laws enacted by legislatures are the bases upon which courts make their rulings (as well as prior court decisions). And the representatives voters put into office will do the things in legislatures which will get them elected and re-elected.

And those who tend to be the most dissatisfied with the way the process is working are forgetting their own role in the process. We select the government. How effective are you at influencing your neighbors, the people in your community, your co-workers, etc., to join you in selecting representatives who will further the goals and values important to you?

....The main reason for that was that we allowed the courts to take on a role never granted them by the constitution which was final arbiter of what is constitutional and what isn't. That was supposed to be governed by the 3 branches equally (checks and balances) but in fact there are no checks on the courts whatsoever....

And you're sure wrong about that.

The Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

Section 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,...

And thus disagreements concerning the application of the the Constitution to the resolution of particular disputes is the province of the federal courts. The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the decision in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803):

....It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.....

Judicial review effectively flowed naturally from the application of Common Law (the foundation of our legal system) principles in the natural course of the exercise of judicial power assigned to the federal courts by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. Judicial review was not pulled out of the air by Marshall. Its application was necessary to the deciding of the case then before the Court. This is likely what many of the Founding Fathers would have envisioned, because many were lawyer and understood the exercise of judicial power in such terms (although Jefferson did not). So --

• In its ruling in Marbury the Supreme Court was merely exercising its explicit authority given it in the Constitution to exercise judicial power to decide cases arising under the Constitution. In doing so and reaching its decision in Marbury it was applying established Common Law principles -- just as courts were, and are, expected to do.
  
  
• And as Marshall pointed out, to decide the matter in Marbury the Court had to either sustain an act of Congress or conclude that the act of Congress was contrary to the Constitution, and thus sustain the Constitution. Either the act of Congress was valid, yielding one result, or it was invalid as conflicting with the Constitution, yielding a different result.
  
  
• In other words, the Court could not, in Marbury, decide the case without choosing either a law enacted by Congress or the Constitution.
  
  
• And without judicial review under the Constitution of acts of Congress or other actions of public officials, what would be the remedy for such a law or action that one believed was repugnant under the Constitution? Do we have a civil war over every disagreement about the constitutionality of a law? Does each person get to decide for himself whether a law is constitutional and therefore whether to abide by it?

Whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests. There has been, and probably always will be, a huge negative reaction by a large number of people to every important to the pubic Supreme Court decision. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.

Most of the time when folks call a decision of a court a bad decision, it isn't really because it didn't comport with the law and precedent. Most people tend to think a court decision is a bad decision because it did not achieve the result they wanted.

And sometimes when precedent and the law as applied by a court don't achieve a satisfactory result, a legislature can change the law -- checks and balances at work. Recently there was the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result.

We're getting rather far from the original topic of this thread. But it's important to remember that while there is much wisdom and inspiration to be drawn from the [authenticated] statements of the Founding Fathers, actually effectively conducting the business of real life in today's world requires a deep understanding of the judicial and political processes by which things actually get done.

 

[History.Doc]

I have a good deal more than a history degree and I'd rather see us talk about guns. I spend all day correcting bad history. I don't want to do it on the forum I read for fun! Because this is an anonymous forum I have no way of knowing who any of you are but in general Mr. Ettin's comments have been correct. I assume he is either a lawyer, a law professor, or both.

 

[SSN Vet]

I'm much more interested in mis-quotes attributed to John Adams than those attributed to TJ

 

[Cee Zee]

And exactly how do you expect to make that happen? In the real world, things get done in court, in the legislatures and in the voting booth.

Politics of course. We win by winning the hearts and minds of a lot more Americans. I think we're doing that pretty well actually. The opposition has gotten desperate and they are trying hail mary stuff which isn't working.

And you're sure wrong about that.

The Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

We could argue for a month over this. Marbury Vs. Madison is credited for giving the courts final say over what's constitutional. That isn't written into the constitution. For those that want a plain language reading of the constitution I think this is pretty solid. A whole lot of people would agree with me on what you said I was wrong about. It's pretty much a given that it happened that way for most people in fact. I never had a history class that taught it any differently.

But I'm not going that far into the mechanics of the government here. I don't have the time or the inclination. I know that my position is a very popular one. That's enough for me. I suspect you know it is the same position many take. I don't think Marbury gives the SC carte blanche to govern this nation the way it has. I don't think Blackstone does either. BTW Jefferson argued for common law interpretations a lot but you're right that he didn't see it that way on the issue of the courts deciding constitutionality. It destroyed the system of checks and balances just as Jefferson thought it would. Now we have the courts looking for precedents in other countries and establishing rights not mentioned in the constitution. I do agree that anything not given to the government is left to the states. But the SC hasn't done that. They interfere in state cases where they have no right to be particularly regarding gun rights. Let's face it the SC recently ordered Illinois to adopt concealed carry in spite of their conviction against it. I certainly liked seeing gun rights being expanded but I didn't like seeing the SC getting involved in forcing a state to pass laws. What's next is the question. The Feds have used their muscle to get their way too many times including such nuisances as the 55 mph speed limit. How they figured it was an interstate commerce issue is beyond me. They threatened to withhold highway funds in a clear violation of equal protection.

The SC may have the right to strike down Ill. laws but do they have the right to force them to pass certain laws? I certainly don't think so. I see a lot of potential abuse there. I've seen lots of abuse already from the courts. That's why I think we need a check on the SC powers and there is none. If the framers thought the SC would be adjudicating constitutional law I really think they would have included more of a check than a constitutional amendment which as I said before has been routinely ignored by the courts themselves. Jim Crow was real and it certainly violated the post-Civil War amendments. The courts upheld those laws for a very long time even though they violated the amendments. There must be checks on their power.

It really seems odd to me that you were just arguing for the invalid nature of comments on the constitution by founding fathers because they disagreed so often. Yet the only thing that kept Marbury from being overthrown was the fact that many founding fathers accepted that common law did provide for the courts to have reign over the constitutionality of laws. What I find extremely disgruntling is that Marbury was about the way Adams packed the court system in such a way that Jefferson and his Anti-Federalist ideas would never be able to influence the court and it's decisions. In short it was a massive power grab by the court in essence and the court was given the ability to decide if it was legitimate or not. They ran scared from giving it a full approval because they knew how that would look. But they established the precedent in this country anyway.

I'm fully aware that many considered common law to give the power to the courts to decide certain issues regarding laws. But I can point to so many abuses of that power that it is downright sickening to me. If ever there was a time to stick to a plain language reading of the constitution, as you seem to suggest we should with the second amendment, it is with the nature of the court and the lack of any checks being included in the constitution despite the almost obsessive desire to include them for every other branch of government. In one case you argue for a plain language reading and in another you seem to take the side of those that caved to the courts. It was a huge mistake to leave any mention of this issue out of the constitution and should have been addressed rather than just caving to the court system to essentially allow them to write their own vision into our way of life. Marbury itself was about that very issue. Isn't it ironic that the courts used it as a giant power grab?

Let's look at some of the incredible abuses of the courts since then from the way FDR packed the court with extra justices to avoid having his programs declared unconstitutional. Yes eventually he was reined in but not until after a great deal of damage was already done to those precious common law interpretations of things. Then there's the issue of abortion and how it has split the nation. That should have been fought out in the public instead of in the cloistered chambers of the SC. That's where I think gun laws should be determined too. That is what I think the constitution intended for us to do. The fact that people later caved to the courts doesn't change that. Until I see it in the constitution, as the second is, then I won't accept that it was the will of the founders or the law of the land.

Politics has proven to be a more reliable measure of what is really constitutional anyway. The way Roberts caved on Obamacare is certainly evidence of that. He may have destroyed this nation in his mis-guided effort to seem fair minded. He caved in the worst way and now look at the situation. The people knew that a forced purchase was not a tax but Roberts reversed that thinking but only for his purpose of passing the law along despite it's obvious unconstitutional nature. A majority of people knew that it wasn't constitutional yet it became the law of the land anyway. The same things happened with the campaign finance reform laws. How could they limit political speech like they did and call it constitutional? The SC has proven itself grossly incompetent to interpret the law. It has become a political plaything with neither side assured their appointees will abide with their stated views as they portray them in their senatorial review about their fitness for office. Particularly the Republicans have been betrayed time and time again including now with Roberts. And we are stuck with his court for decades to come now. While he plays political god we will suffer the consequences. No sir I do not think the SC has the right or the ability to determine constitutionality. They have proven to be biased, power mad and political. Men in robes isn't the government we signed on for but it's the government we have. And it stinks that way.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...But I'm not going that far into the mechanics of the government here. I don't have the time or the inclination. I know that my position is a very popular one. That's enough for me...

Yes, no doubt your position is popular. But a lot of people believe things that aren't true, or don't understand how things actually are as well as they think they do, or are disinclined to learn to understand reality. And then those people are surprised and disappointed when things don't work out the way they expected.

...I'm fully aware that many considered common law to give the power to the courts to decide certain issues regarding laws...

It is in fact a reality. Courts are doing such things every day.

The substance of your post, above, as well as other of your posts is that you don't like the way the system is working because you don't like the results it's producing. How is that the fault of the system? If it is the fault of the system, describe an alternate, workable system, in specific and concrete terms, that will guarantee the results you want.

The point is that no system will guarantee a particular result. Also, understand that there are many people in this country who are generally satisfied with the system and the results. You think certain laws are unconstitutional. Others think those same laws are constitutional. We've had disagreements on such points since the founding of our Republic. Neither you nor they have the final say on that question. The Founding Fathers assigned that responsibility to the federal courts.

I have a good deal more than a history degree and I'd rather see us talk about guns. I spend all day correcting bad history. I don't want to do it on the forum I read for fun! Because this is an anonymous forum I have no way of knowing who any of you are but in general Mr. Ettin's comments have been correct. I assume he is either a lawyer, a law professor, or both.

May I take it, then, that I might stand a fair chance of earning a passing grade in your class.

Anyway, yes, I'm lawyer -- retired now.

 

[Cee Zee]

The substance of your post, above, as well as other of your posts is that you don't like the way the system is working because you don't like the results it's producing. How is that the fault of the system? If it is the fault of the system, describe an alternate, workable system, in specific and concrete terms, that will guarantee the results you want.

It's very clearly the fault of the system because there is no check on the power of the courts. Surely a lawyer like yourself understands that people want such checks. The ability for the house and senate to override a court decision with a super majority comes instantly to mind as a method of fixing the problems. Yes it throws the whole enchilada back into the arena of politics. But that's exactly where our constitution puts it in the first place. Just like politics has given us back concealed carry it can and does work. Government of the people by the people should certainly have the people as the final arbiter. I don't think a simple majority would work and I don't believe a true democracy would work. I like having a representative government. I happen to think that if people didn't feel like their control over things through the election and re-election of representatives was severely compromised by the courts, which do not answer to anyone, then we would see a lot more participation in government as the constitution calls for. Like the founding fathers I trust the will of the people as a whole to do the right thing eventually. It shouldn't be easy but it should be possible. We wouldn't be stuck with highly unpopular governments and programs that strip people of their rights more and more often and operate to benefit the few instead of the many.

At any rate that is the common sense reading of the constitution. If people want the courts to decide their laws for them it should be part of the constitution. It's too important to be left to common law. Not only that but I think we would see a much more responsive government especially in regards to keeping our rights and the government not overstepping it's boundaries. That was the vision of the framers. We know that because it is what they wrote down in the compact we chose to accept as our form of government.

You act like you think I was unaware of the role of common law in the courts taking power. Wrong. I not only have "more than a history degree" I have made a living producing historical documentaries in recent years. In short I am a working historian. And my primary focus of my education was history of the era we are discussing. I've pursued my education throughout my life in addition to the 4 years I spent in college.

Maybe some are disappointed when their views don't turn out to be true but I would have to guess there are more than a few people that think we need checks on the court system. It's not a new idea. I happen to think the constitution never gave them that power given how great that power was and given their penchant for making sure every aspect of the government had a check in place. Why would I think it was the intent of the framers? I know all about the fact they later agreed to let the courts make decisions but keep in mind that politics played a role in that equation. The Federalists in particular were quite happy to have their stacked court, which is exactly what they had. And people did believe in common law as it came to us from the English system. But our constitution existed a long way outside of those boundaries in many ways. Like many people I think that leaving the determination of what is constitutional to the congress and president was spelled out in the constitution. We are given our methods of governance and they didn't include allowing the courts to run the show completely as they have come to do.

And like many I also think that lawyers have had too much influence over our government too. Sorry. I don't mean to step on toes but too many of them think like you and I disagree with the premise of your argument totally. We were given a prescribed method of governing and it didn't include using the courts to throttle the will of the people. Too often laws have been perverted to mean things they never meant at all. Too many times we have had our rights taken away. My God we had our political speech almost completely curtailed and the courts sanctioned it to the shock of almost everyone. I have to say I think it takes a lawyer to think that system is a good system. Too often the government has been run for the benefit of lawyers just to be blunt about it. How can it be constitutional to limit someone's ability to talk about political issues in the days leading up to an election? That monstrosity alone is enough reason to end the current system of leaving it up to the courts. It shocked the nation when that law was allowed to stand. It robbed us of probably our most cherished right - freedom of speech. It's a good thing we have the second most cherished right IMO or we would lose all the rest of our rights. That second most cherished right (in my book) is the second amendment. Clearly without it congress with the blessings of the court would take away every right we have. Take the courts out of the mix and the people have a way of redressing such issues. That's the reason the courts are far too powerful. It's stunning how much power they have taken. It's far outside the realm prescribed by the constitution. It has done great damage to our society. I don't know how anyone could support it to be honest.

 

[Cee Zee]

BTW my comments have not been incorrect as has been implied here. I love it when people set themselves up as a judge. I haven't said one word that wasn't true in fact. I happen to know lots of history professors from several universities and they all seem to like my work including the PhD I have been working with on a historical documentary. He liked my work well enough to turn over his years of research to be used in the project. Together with my own years of research I think we have the makings of a very good project. Only some production problems have limited the completion of this project. The research is done. The interviews are done and recorded. The only thing missing is a narrator for the project. I had one lined up but they took a job where they are very busy and I'm now waiting for the right person to help me finish my work. BTW I have a publisher in line already too. I'm not new to this and I'm well past the point of needing to be graded. If you have a specific point you "think' is incorrect please speak up. I'm sure I can explain to you where you're wrong. You really think it's some surprise to me that Marbury revolved around the issue of common law? It's also considered a self serving decision by pretty much every professor I know. I never said it didn't have anything to do with common law. But let's put all our cards on the table if you want to be critical. After all, there are a number of "professors" masquerading as genuine scholars these days that think history gets to be rewritten at will. They're called "liberals" at most universities and very few of them garner much respect from me. You wouldn't believe the mishmash I've been handed as genuine historical data when it was completely off the wall in nature. So if you have some criticism of what I've said don't imply it as if you speak from on high. Show your cards or get out of the game. I'll put it right on the line and point out that lots of "living document" types like it that the constitution has been tortured into meaning whatever they want it to mean. Of course I can't say that about you because you didn't offer anything but vague criticism with no substance at all. It's hard to nail down smoke.

I could use your tactics and give you a failing grade for your post for "failing to show your thinking".

 

[blarby]

^^^^^

TJ said all that ?

No wonder there is so much confusion.

Thats a long quote, and I daresay mis-attributed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

BTW my comments have not been incorrect as has been implied here....

Actually, your comments have been mostly unintelligible, stream of consciousness, and unsupported by evidence. That's my view, and others can decide for themselves.

You've also stated a lot of opinion without support. You've certainly given me no reasons to take your opinions seriously, and I don't.

 

[Apuuli]

BTW my comments have not been incorrect as has been implied here. I love it when people set themselves up as a judge. I haven't said one word that wasn't true in fact.

Ok, I'll pick some low hanging fruit.

Now we have the courts looking for precedents in other countries and establishing rights not mentioned in the constitution.

My rights don't need to be mentioned in the constitution to exist, your implication notwithstanding.

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

 

[Cee Zee]

You've also stated a lot of opinion without support. You've certainly given me no reasons to take your opinions seriously, and I don't.

And your comments are pretty obviously self serving like most lawyers that think the world can't turn without them. I never claimed to be stating anything other than my opinion and the fact you can't follow my thinking says more about you than me.

My rights don't need to be mentioned in the constitution to exist, your implication notwithstanding.

When you're establishing special rights that are said to be guaranteed by the constitution you certainly do need to establish they are spelled out there. For example the right to privacy while clearly not a right mentioned in the constitution has been used to justify all sorts of things. Obviously everything not covered in the constitution is a right unless specifically denied by specific law. The problem lies in the fact that those special rights are used to take rights away from other people. When a person's right to privacy is used to force someone else to do something they are not inclined to do it is a clear bastardization of the principles of the constitution. So when a person's "right to privacy" is used to legitimize abortion which is the taking of another life especially in the case of late term abortions (specifically not covered by Roe V. Wade) and incredibly in so called 4th term abortions where children born alive after a botched abortion are killed anyway then that right to privacy most certainly doesn't apply IMO. That's the kind of muddle headed thinking that gets the courts in trouble very, very often. But I'm going to go ahead and guess that you support abortion just on a hunch and that things like the recent signing of a petition at George Mason University in support of 4th term abortions doesn't shock you one bit and doesn't make you wonder whether the court made a mistake. It should never have been a court case. It should have been a matter of law so that certain things could be controlled instead of being totally hidden from view because of the so called right to privacy. No one doubts that we have a right to a private life. It's the extension of that right to the point that it causes the end of another life that makes people view the court with incredible disdain. Surely you realize that a great percentage of the people think the courts got that wrong. Whatever the case the people should have the ability to address the issue and fix what the court did wrong. I don't know that it would happen in this case but it should be possible. When people see courts completely ignore precedents and actually declare amendments to state constitutions to be unconstitutional (which has happened in Calif. more than once) then there is a problem whether you want to admit it or not.

At any rate you have to really stretch it to imply that I have no idea about the 9th amendment. Good grief. Do you know it's a symptom of paranoia to think other people are incredibly stupid? At least the other participants (the ones that actually got past the "you're just wrong" phase) here expressed opinions that are not so mundane as to be on the level of asking someone if they know what congress is. That's about the level of this comment.

I'm outta here anyway. When I start seeing drive by cheap shots like this and the one the mighty professor dropped it's over anyway. At least with Frank there were issues worth debating. I'm not going to argue if 2 plus 2 is 4 with you. Even if Frank has a problem following my language I'd give him credit for bringing something to the table above the level of a basic knowledge of the constitution.

 

[History.Doc]

Yes, no doubt your position is popular. But a lot of people believe things that aren't true, or don't understand how things actually are as well as they think they do, or are disinclined to learn to understand reality. And then those people are surprised and disappointed when things don't work out the way they expected.

It is in fact a reality. Courts are doing such things every day.

The substance of your post, above, as well as other of your posts is that you don't like the way the system is working because you don't like the results it's producing. How is that the fault of the system? If it is the fault of the system, describe an alternate, workable system, in specific and concrete terms, that will guarantee the results you want.

The point is that no system will guarantee a particular result. Also, understand that there are many people in this country who are generally satisfied with the system and the results. You think certain laws are unconstitutional. Others think those same laws are constitutional. We've had disagreements on such points since the founding of our Republic. Neither you nor they have the final say on that question. The Founding Fathers assigned that responsibility to the federal courts.

May I take it, then, that I might stand a fair chance of earning a passing grade in your class.

Anyway, yes, I'm lawyer -- retired now.

Passing is pretty easy if you do the work; still pretty tough to get an A. I'm sure you could handle it though.

 

[Apuuli]

Wow, I'm shocked that this thread hasn't been locked! Perhaps that's just my paranoia speaking though.

Cee Zee, you can guess whatever you'd like about me or my opinions and I won't feel the need to confirm or deny anything. If you need me to be an absolute monster so I can fit into your world view, so be it.

I'm sorry if it seemed like I implied that you were unaware of the existence of the 9th amendment. That wasn't my intention. Sometimes, even people who aren't incredibly stupid need to be reminded of something they already know, especially when it challenges their deeply held beliefs.

My point was that rights do not gain special status simply because they are mentioned specifically in the constitution, and none can be legitimately legislated away with the stroke of an official's pen.

It's just a bit off topic, but even rights that we consider fundamental human rights differ depending on culture. Indeed, many of the things we consider fundamental human rights today would not have been when the constitution was written.

Take a deep breath. Relax.