Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Libretarians?

Libretarians? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
The Court's opinion didn't change. In real terms the Court ruled for the very first time on the substance of the amendment this year, and it ruled correctly.
I wasn't referring to rulings on solely this issue. Court opinions, in general, change. On this issue, the court's decision to rule on this now vs. in the past is in itself a change.

Are you saying it's not possible that 100 years from now, 9 completely different court members could look at this, interpret it differently, and rule differently? Believe me, if that happened, you would get people saying it was the 'correct' interpretation.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 12:03 PM
 
Anything is possible, although 100 years from now Heller would be considered strong precedent. The fact is that this opinion was based on sound, historically accurate legal reasoning of what the Constitution states. If you want to abolish the 2nd Amendment then you need to get a Constitutional convention together to do it; you can no longer get away with outrageously unconstitutional statutes and ridiculous judicial fiats that attempt to deny the truth. The left-wing also can no longer point to the Court's inaction to deal with the question as some sort of weak validation of their defective, statist reading because the Court acted and ruled decisively against them.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Arkham_c View Post
Government has to pay for services that cannot be profitable in the private sector, or that would cause harm to the health of the country if not made available to everyone.
I would add that the government should regulate certain essential industries to ensure continuous and reliable service, e. g. electricity and water.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 12:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
The fist part of the sentence is a qualifier on the second.

I edited this a touch for brevity. Note that Copperud disagrees with the notion that "well-regulated" means disciplined, however he further states this lacks relevance to whether the first part is a qualifier or not. Question 3 specifically relates to what you say above.



http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award...


[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."
( Last edited by subego; Oct 22, 2008 at 12:22 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 12:28 PM
 
@subego
I'm not sure I follow: in question 5, Copperup says that `well-regulated militia' means `subject to regulations of a superior authority.' So qualifications by a `superior authority' (= civil government) are possible.

Edit: It was point 5, not point 6.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Oct 22, 2008 at 12:53 PM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 12:33 PM
 
The point is, while the militia is subject to civilian authority, the right to keep and bear arms is not contingent on being part of an armed militia.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 12:46 PM
 
Point 5 means that you can impose restrictions (e. g. on the types of weapons or mandatory registration of guns).

Edit: It was point 5, not point 6.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Oct 22, 2008 at 12:53 PM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Dakar V
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 12:49 PM
 
What is "civilian authority"?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
@subego
I'm not sure I follow: in question 6, Copperup says that `well-regulated militia' means `subject to regulations of a superior authority.' So qualifications by a `superior authority' (= civil government) are possible.



Isn't point 3 saying "No such condition is expressed or implied"?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post


Isn't point 3 saying "No such condition is expressed or implied"?
What about point 5?
(I'm not arguing one way or the other, I'm just quoting from the text you've linked to.)

I think the two points are just like Freedom of Expression: there are some qualifications when rights of others are concerned (e. g. that you need to apply for permits if you plan a large demonstration). So fundamentally, you have the right to bear arms, but for high explosives, you need a special license and you need to store them properly. Because improper handling and storage potentially endangers the lives and property of others.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
What about point 5?
(I'm not arguing one way or the other, I'm just quoting from the text you've linked to.)

Both of those points allow for regulation of the militia, but isn't that trumped by "[n]o condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 01:28 PM
 
I don't think you can cherry-pick in the analysis. Point 5 does not put a condition on the Right to Bear Arms, it allows the civil government (as opposed to military, I guess) to regulate procedures. Point 3 says that the Right to Bear Arms is independent of whether the American people form a militia. Put yet another way, you don't have to `join a militia' or found one to be allowed to `bear arms.'

Also, back to the analogy of Free Speech: it is also unconditional (in the sense that it cannot be suspended). But you can qualify it. Mandatory registration of cars and drivers' licenses also do not overturn freedom of movement. They merely regulate it. In the same sense, the sale of certain arms to civilians is prohibited and handling explosives require a license.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 01:29 PM
 
Hey, look! An 'expert witness' says it's OK to ignore the first part of the sentence. Guess it must be so, and all other interpretations and/or applications to modern technology are moot.

Want to eliminate the possibility of any other interpretations? There's a way to do that. Get an amendment to the Constitution specifically stating that the right for individuals to keep and bear arms shall in no way be infringed, and remove the part about the well regulated militia.

Until then, you will encounter debate from those who read it differently.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Until then, you will encounter debate from those who read it differently.
And regardless, those who choose to read it differently will still be wrong.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Hey, look! An 'expert witness' says it's OK to ignore the first part of the sentence.

I apologize if you felt that the point of me posting that was to be definitive and stop further discussion with you. I was hoping it could lead to more discussion, the way it has with OC.

However, your response, which amounts essentially to you stating "WRONG!" gives me far less to work with than I gave you.
( Last edited by subego; Oct 22, 2008 at 02:28 PM. )
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
And regardless, those who choose to read it differently will still be wrong.
Your opinion is noted.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Put yet another way, you don't have to `join a militia' or found one to be allowed to `bear arms.'
Again, a militia is formed from the punters at times of need. All punters bring their own weaponry which they've owned since before the need for the militia arose. Essentially, if you ban the people from keeping arms, then those people cannot form a militia - because a militia without weapons is a "crowd", not a militia.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 02:23 PM
 
Plus hey, let's have a go with the first. Can someone show me where it says "separation of church and state"?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 02:26 PM
 
Nowhere. It's implied by the Establishment clause and comes from one of Jefferson's letters.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don't think you can cherry-pick in the analysis.

I don't think I should either, I'm just having trouble seeing that this is what I'm doing... a fact with which I hope you will be patient.


Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Put yet another way, you don't have to `join a militia' or found one to be allowed to `bear arms.'

Maybe I'm putting too much into your specific words here, but we aren't "allowed" to bear arms. That's the thrust of point 2. "The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed".

What point 3 is saying is that this right shall not be infringed.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I apologize if you felt that the point of me posting that was to be definitive and stop further discussion with you. I was hoping it could lead to more discussion, the way it has with OC.

However, your response, which amounts essentially to you stating "WRONG!" give me far less to work with than I gave you.
Where would you like to go with the discussion? I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into a debate about gun control - and if we did I'd suggest we start another thread. I was merely making the point that the 2nd Amendment, taken in full context, has multiple valid interpretations.

You quoted essentially an English professor and his way of parsing the language. That's fine and valid, but he's essentially saying the fist part of the sentence can be ignored.

A lot English professors would push for conciseness in writing - if a clause is unnecessary and can be ignored, why is it there? As I said - if you think it should be ignored, get an amendment and get it removed. Until then, I'd say it's equally valid for me to interpret the full context as saying:

The right to bear arms in a manner commensurate with that of a well regulated militia shall not be infringed.

I'm sure extremists might interpret it as only protecting the right to bear arms for the purposes of a militia. I mean, the clause mentions that purpose and that purpose only.

Bottom line - the presence of that clause is the evidence of why people have different opinions on what can be regulated, and hence why restrictive arms legislation can occur.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 02:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
I was merely making the point that the 2nd Amendment, taken in full context, has multiple valid interpretations.

I think I have misunderstood you somewhat.

I had gathered you were also commenting on the validity of the interpretation that has been given here by people such as myself.

I think this started with the whole "ignore" part. Again, there is a difference between ignoring something and finding it not to be relevant. In finding something not to be relevant, one is by definition not ignoring it (i.e. it is not just being discounted, it is being examined and then discounted).

Does that make sense?
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Where would you like to go with the discussion? I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into a debate about gun control - and if we did I'd suggest we start another thread. I was merely making the point that the 2nd Amendment, taken in full context, has multiple valid interpretations.
Done.

Let's allow this topic to get back to talking about Libretarians.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
I was merely making the point that the 2nd Amendment, taken in full context, has multiple valid interpretations.
No matter how many times you say that, it doesn't become any less false. Thank you for noting my opinion, btw; it would do you well to take it to heart.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 02:54 PM
 
To put this another way, Copperud says the militia part is irrelevant, but he's certainly not ignoring it.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 03:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
No matter how many times you say that, it doesn't become any less false. Thank you for noting my opinion, btw; it would do you well to take it to heart.
I will when you do the same to mine.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 03:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To put this another way, Copperud says the militia part is irrelevant, but he's certainly not ignoring it.
In the context of guiding policy, rendering something irrelevant is giving permission to ignore it.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 03:46 PM
 
Let me ask you this question, CreepDogg. Based on your construction of the 2nd Amendment, do you think it only preserves a right of the government or government forces (a government militia) to keep and bear arms, rather than the people?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 03:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Let me ask you this question, CreepDogg. Based on your construction of the 2nd Amendment, do you think it only preserves a right of the government or government forces (a government militia) to keep and bear arms, rather than the people?
The people. Where did I ever say militia had to be government? They have manifested in the form of state and local government entities, but it doesn't have to be limited to that if they can demonstrate being 'well regulated'. For that matter, even a SWAT team is not part of the federal government...
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 04:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

Incorrect. The correct answer is, "none of the above."

It's from the verb transitive form, meaning to control or maintain in good working order. A well-regulated clock is one that is maintained to keep time well. A well-regulated firearm is one that is cleaned and oiled and maintained so as to be ready to be fired. A well-regulated militia is one that is armed and ready to stand in defense of the country.

The adjustment of a multi-barrel firearm (e.g., a double
barrelled shotgun) so that the barrels shoot to the same point-of-aim. If such a gun (a double-barrelled shotgun or a three barreled "drilling") fails to shoot properly, it is considered to be "out of regulation" and needs to be "re-regulated".

"The distinction between a well-regulated army and a mob is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behavior of the latter." -- General George Washington, 1776.

While it's nice that Copperud did try and tie the notion back to civilian authority superseding governmental authority, that's not what this phrase means.

It simply means, 'in good working order.'
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
"the distinction between a well-regulated army and a mob is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behavior of the latter." -- general george washington, 1776.




Originally Posted by subego View Post
Originally Posted by george washington
the distinction between a well-regulated army and a mob is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behavior of the latter.




Edit: Interestingly, I guess because my initial post was all smileys, the "all caps" filter decapitalized the whole post.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 05:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
In the context of guiding policy, rendering something irrelevant is giving permission to ignore it.

Though I am of course loathe to admit it, you are giving me way too much credit.

I'm not rendering anything. If something was rendered, it was the Founding Fathers who did so. If they didn't render it, that makes me mistaken, which places me in no position to give permission.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 06:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Though I am of course loathe to admit it, you are giving me way too much credit.

I'm not rendering anything. If something was rendered, it was the Founding Fathers who did so. If they didn't render it, that makes me mistaken, which places me in no position to give permission.
You didn't. Copperud did. You quoted Copperud. What difference does it make? One opinion is that it's irrelevant, another is that it's not.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 01:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
One opinion is that it's irrelevant, another is that it's not.

Are you rejecting the idea that there is value in pursuing the correct opinion?

Correct in this context meaning "what the FF intended".
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 10:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Are you rejecting the idea that there is value in pursuing the correct opinion?

Correct in this context meaning "what the FF intended".
Pretty much - yes. Because that pursuit is quixotic.

You'll never get consensus on 'what the FF intended'. The inevitable argument is around the fact that technology has changed. Some will say the FF would have modified the statement in a different technology landscape, others will say they could foresee the technology changes and would keep it the same. Both are valid opinions and (can be) based on sound reasoning.

Until we can go back in time, show the FF the current technical landscape, and ask them what they think, it will be up for debate.
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Also, back to the analogy of Free Speech: it is also unconditional (in the sense that it cannot be suspended). But you can qualify it. Mandatory registration of cars and drivers' licenses also do not overturn freedom of movement. They merely regulate it. In the same sense, the sale of certain arms to civilians is prohibited and handling explosives require a license.
This is minor semantic quibbling on my part.

To say that the Constitution permits us to pass laws that qualify the freedom of speech is precisely to say that we can pass laws that condition the freedom of speech on something. To condition or to qualify a constitutional right both mean essentially the same thing. And yes, you're right, we can and do qualify/condition that right in several ways.

As far as suspending a constitutional right, this is possibly permissible through an inherent powers/emergency powers of the president argument. But the only time a similar issue came up (Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer), the court invalidated the President's actions. I'm skeptical that the Court would ever validate a President's actions to suspend free speech under his emergency powers, given how tenuous the relationship between the prohibited speech and whatever the President's goal would be.

So, in short, the Court probably wouldn't validate a suspension of a constitutional right like free speech, but in theory, in may be possible under the vague, seemingly extra-constitutional "emergency powers" argument.

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Pretty much - yes. Because that pursuit is quixotic.

You'll never get consensus on 'what the FF intended'. The inevitable argument is around the fact that technology has changed. Some will say the FF would have modified the statement in a different technology landscape, others will say they could foresee the technology changes and would keep it the same. Both are valid opinions and (can be) based on sound reasoning.

Until we can go back in time, show the FF the current technical landscape, and ask them what they think, it will be up for debate.

There are lots of gun arguments going on at the moment, so I think you may have conflated one with the other.

We haven't even gotten close to the part with our "current technological landscape", because we're still stuck in the past technological landscape.

You've been insisting a valid interpretation is that at the time of its writing the Framers intended for Congress to regulate the militia.

Where does modern technology enter the equation here at all?

If the Framers intended for Congress to regulate the militia, I don't think it's a quixotic argument to say the Framers would be okay with Congress regulating the militia's nuclear capabilities.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 05:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You've been insisting a valid interpretation is that at the time of its writing the Framers intended for Congress to regulate the militia.
Not exactly. I've been insisting that a valid interpretation is that Congress can see to it that arms are kept and borne in a manner consistent with a well regulated militia. That's different than regulating militia.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 05:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If the Framers intended for Congress to regulate the militia, I don't think it's a quixotic argument to say the Framers would be okay with Congress regulating the militia's nuclear capabilities.
This assumes there is consensus on the interpretation of the FF's intent that I put forth. Do you think that exists?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
This assumes there is consensus...

I don't think it does.

It's only assuming there's a correct answer.

Are the only correct answers those upon which there is a consensus?


Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Do you think that exists?

No.

P.S. I'm working on your other post.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 06:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's only assuming there's a correct answer.
There isn't.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 06:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
There isn't.

Why?
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 06:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why?
You first. Why is there?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 07:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
You first. Why is there?



The fact you asked me if there was a consensus on their intent.

Doesn't that question presuppose they had an intent?
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 07:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Not exactly. I've been insisting that a valid interpretation is that Congress can see to it that arms are kept and borne in a manner consistent with a well regulated militia. That's different than regulating militia.
And I'm telling you that your interpretation is invalid. Congress cannot see to anything on this matter at all, because to do so is to violate the amendment that prohibits them from infringing upon the right.

Congress has no authority to see that arms are kept and borne in a manner consistent with anything. The amendment says that because a collection of private citizens (militia) in good working order, ready to fight (well-regulated) is necessary to the security of the country, Congress cannot make any infringement (law, ruling) at all, whatsoever, on any private citizen's right to own and carry (bear) firearms.

I'm sorry to have to tell you, but this is simply the only valid interpretation of the amendment. Any other is invalid. That's the beauty of the document - it was written in the vernacular of the time so that there was little room for misinterpretation. It's only as the vernacular has changed that people have tried to create wiggle room and penumbras to make it mean what they wish, rather than do the proper thing and amend the document if they wish for changes.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 07:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post


The fact you asked me if there was a consensus on their intent.

Doesn't that question presuppose they had an intent?
Obviously they had an intent. Did their intent directly apply to [plug in any issue you care to discuss]? Not always. That's where interpretations and opinions come in. Any 'correct answer' you come up with will ultimately be based on interpretation and opinion.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 07:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Obviously they had an intent. Did their intent directly apply to [plug in any issue you care to discuss]? Not always. That's where interpretations and opinions come in. Any 'correct answer' you come up with will ultimately be based on interpretation and opinion.

You mistake the scope of my intent then.

I'd be satisfied with what they intended directly applied to what they intended it to be applied to.

Further, I've never argued that the answer I (or anyone else) would provide is based on something other than interpretation and opinion, what I'm arguing is that this fact doesn't mean the correct answer is nonexistent, which seems to be what you are arguing.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 07:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
And I'm telling you that your interpretation is invalid. Congress cannot see to anything on this matter at all, because to do so is to violate the amendment that prohibits them from infringing upon the right.

Congress has no authority to see that arms are kept and borne in a manner consistent with anything. The amendment says that because a collection of private citizens (militia) in good working order, ready to fight (well-regulated) is necessary to the security of the country, Congress cannot make any infringement (law, ruling) at all, whatsoever, on any private citizen's right to own and carry (bear) firearms.

I'm sorry to have to tell you, but this is simply the only valid interpretation of the amendment. Any other is invalid. That's the beauty of the document - it was written in the vernacular of the time so that there was little room for misinterpretation. It's only as the vernacular has changed that people have tried to create wiggle room and penumbras to make it mean what they wish, rather than do the proper thing and amend the document if they wish for changes.
So you really don't see that that's your interpretation? For starters, you took a narrow view of what constitutes 'infringement', not to mention George Washington himself used the term 'well-regulated' in a way different than you did. So in your statement above, you added your own flair. Sorry to say this again, but that's your opinion. It is absolutely based on sound reasoning, and obviously there are many who agree with it. There are also many who don't.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 08:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You mistake the scope of my intent then.

I'd be satisfied with what they intended directly applied to what they intended it to be applied to.

Further, I've never argued that the answer I (or anyone else) would provide is based on something other than interpretation and opinion, what I'm arguing is that this fact doesn't mean the correct answer is nonexistent, which seems to be what you are arguing.
OK - let me say this another way, using an obvious example. There is no "correct answer" as to how to apply the 2nd Amendment to nuclear weapons. It is indeed nonexistent. We'll never know if/how the FF intended it to apply to arms of that magnitude. Any answer we come up with is a matter of opinion.

Here's one possibility:

The government itself has regulations on how it keeps and bears nukes. Would it not be prudent to require the same care and accountability of anyone (militia/the people) who bears them? In fact, for nukes, basically, an individual citizen can't really provide the care and accountability needed to bear - it requires greater knowledge and protocol. So - individuals don't get nukes. In fact, this one is extreme, so essentially no one does.

Now replace 'nukes' with 'tanks' or 'assault rifles'. Same concept, obviously with varying levels of restriction and accountability. Some of these may still be bigger than any individual, but potentially an organization that can demonstrate the needed care and accountability can bear them - still on behalf of 'the people'. I would even say requirements like this aren't infringement, they're common sense.
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 08:30 PM
 
Throw me in with CreepDoggyDog:

Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
I'm sorry to have to tell you, but this is simply the only valid interpretation of the amendment.
Isn't it highly convenient that the "only" permissible interpretation of a long document is yours?

I tend to think that nearly *all* approaches to interpreting the Constitution have various degrees of merit. You happen to think your interpretation is the most valid. But to go a step further and suggest that all other approaches have no merit is not warranted by anything.

After all, the Constitution absolutely does not say "so and so is the only way to interpret the document." It does not explicitly establish a fixed method of interpretation. It's not even clear on who the final arbiter of the document is supposed to be. It seems to place authority to be the last word on the constitutionality of laws on several branches. So, I mean, your claim to know the sole valid method of interpretation is highly dubious.

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:52 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,