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 3)
Thread Tools
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 08:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post


As Doofy pointed out, it is absolutely Democratic party policy when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, and as Chongo implied, the 10th.

Likewise, taking issue with the 1st and the 4th Amendments is a time-honored Republican tradition.
(Sorry for coming back in so late...)

As has been noted, Democrats are not anti 2nd amendment. We simply believe the second amendment does not say what the Conservatives say it says. It allows for militias, and it allows for people to have firearms, but it says nothing about what types of arms, and it also refers to a group (the people), not an individual.

In other words, it allows for the general public to defend themselves against the government, but it doesn't necessarily mention the individual or what types of weapons "the people" are allowed to keep.

Not to mention, the constitution does allow for the repealing of the second amendment. If you are against the system of amending the constitution, does that make you pro constitution or anti constitution?
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 09:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
It is indeed nonexistent.

I will agree that the answer to the question "what would the FF thought about nukes?" is nonexistent.

The only way this question is valid however is if you make the assumption the FF didn't intend the Amendment to cover weapons that hadn't been invented.

I'd need some serious convincing to believe this was true. Even the most cursory knowledge of history makes the direction of weapons development pretty clear. As I said in the other thread, that direction is towards killing more people in faster and cheaper ways.

As I understand things, the fact that the individual states could make laws in violation of the Bill of Rights, up to and including leaving the Union wasn't even a question until the Civil War.

So if the question is "how would the FF think the Amendment should apply to the general and broad class of 'weapons that have yet to be invented'?" (of which your nuke question is a subset), I think their answer would be "that is up to the individual states to decide, just like it is when it comes to every single other Amendment in the Bill of Rights".
( Last edited by subego; Oct 23, 2008 at 10:13 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 09:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
(Sorry for coming back in so late...)




Originally Posted by goMac View Post
or what types of weapons "the people" are allowed to keep.

See my answer to CD above.


Originally Posted by goMac View Post
Not to mention, the constitution does allow for the repealing of the second amendment. If you are against the system of amending the constitution, does that make you pro constitution or anti constitution?

It makes you anti-constitution, but I'm not sure of your point. We can repeal the 1st Amendment and it would be just as stupid a thing to do.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 09:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
As has been noted, Democrats are not anti 2nd amendment. We simply believe the second amendment does not say what the Conservatives say it says. It allows for militias, and it allows for people to have firearms, but it says nothing about what types of arms
Sure, it says nothing about what type of arms. What it actually says it that the government can't say what type of arms either. Shall not be infringed.

Infringe: encroach upon. Government shall not encroach upon anything to do with people owning arms.

Originally Posted by goMac View Post
and it also refers to a group (the people), not an individual.
A militia is an ad-hoc group of individuals. That's kind of the point in them, else said folks would be reservists.
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 23, 2008, 09:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Crook View Post
Isn't it highly convenient that the "only" permissible interpretation of a long document is yours?
We're talking about the 2nd Amendment here, which isn't a long document - it's only 26 words, easily memorized. The interpretation isn't in dispute; it has only ever been disputed by those who want to change its plain meaning in order to disarm the citizenry. The proper understanding has always been known by the intellectually honest, and it has now been affirmed by the SCOTUS. You guys lost. Get over it. Don't worry, there are other sections of the Constitution you'll be able to continue to misconstrue, until the Court slaps you down there, too.

"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 23, 2008, 11:30 PM
 
Apparently some people in here missed the day in 6th grade (or whatever it was) when students are taught to distinguish between fact and opinion.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 11:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So if the question is "how would the FF think the Amendment should apply to the general and broad class of 'weapons that have yet to be invented'?" (of which your nuke question is a subset), I think their answer would be "that is up to the individual states to decide, just like it is when it comes to every single other Amendment in the Bill of Rights".
Actually, that's not entirely true.
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2008, 11:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
We're talking about the 2nd Amendment here, which isn't a long document - it's only 26 words, easily memorized. The interpretation isn't in dispute; it has only ever been disputed by those who want to change its plain meaning in order to disarm the citizenry. The proper understanding has always been known by the intellectually honest, and it has now been affirmed by the SCOTUS. You guys lost. Get over it. Don't worry, there are other sections of the Constitution you'll be able to continue to misconstrue, until the Court slaps you down there, too.
Plain meaning is actually another way to interpret the Constitution.

And yes, we did lose.

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 12:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post

I'm not sure what you're trying to point out. That someone questioned it in 1833? Though I note they upheld the interpretation I have given you. Or you are talking about the 14th Amendment? Which I'll note was the point behind me saying "before the Civil War".
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 12:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Apparently some people in here missed the day in 6th grade (or whatever it was) when students are taught to distinguish between fact and opinion.
Apparently some other people missed 12th Grade Government when students are taught about SCOTUS judicial review and the force of law. At least The Crook is honest enough to admit what occurred in Heller.

"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 24, 2008, 12:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm not sure what you're trying to point out. That someone questioned it in 1833? Though I note they upheld the interpretation I have given you. Or you are talking about the 14th Amendment? Which I'll note was the point behind me saying "before the Civil War".
Ah, my bad. Missed the connection between your last and 2nd to last paragraph.

I think it's notable, though, that the application of the 14th amendment has changed over time and remains under debate today. Even the SCOTUS changed its mind about some of it. Sound familiar?
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 12:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Apparently some other people missed 12th Grade Government when students are taught about SCOTUS judicial review and the force of law. At least The Crook is honest enough to admit what occurred in Heller.
Please point to where I refuted it. And how exactly have you demonstrated that the ruling isn't based on opinion?

You're right about one thing. In a way, the founding fathers did put provisions in the Constitution telling us how to find the 'correct answer' in unclear situations. The 3 branches of government, with full checks and balances in force, decide. That's exactly what happened here.
It's also notable that the opinions contained in the 3 branches of government are fluid.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 09:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
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.
Once again, I'm very sorry to tell you that you are incorrect.

Words have meanings. These meanings sometimes have changed over time, which creates the confusion that you're experiencing. Nonetheless, we know without doubt what these words meant when they were used. We don't have to divine intent or fabricate interpretation, we know factually what the amendment says, and it's very very clear, as I wrote above.

Infringement is a very specific word. There is no 'taking a narrow view' of it. Well-regulated means 'maintained in proper working order.' General Washington used it with that meaning. That you would try and take his words to mean something other indicative of the same problem you're having reading the Constitution.

This isn't opinion. This is fact. There is a clear difference, but the whole point of words is to communicate. The point of a government based in rule of law is so that everyone may know we are governed equally without worrying about whose emanations/penumbras/weasel-words will change the enforcement of a law without doing the proper thing and changing the law itself.

Let's use an example to illustrate this. Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be "living"? Depending on "evolving standards," maybe my two pair could beat your flush.

Which is why you say my 'interpretation' is 'narrow.' Instead, I'm reading it as strictly as it must be read.

What happens when it isn't read as strictly?

Kelo v. New London, where the court decided it could just change the meaning of the words "public use" to "public purpose." "Public use" means the public gets to use whatever the resulting construction is from the takings of private property. "Public purpose" meant that New London could take private property, hand it over to private entities that would bring in more tax money and claim that was for the public benefit. The law says these takings have to be for "public use" and it must be read that narrowly - can you or I use it? No? Then no deal.

Or Gonzales v Raich. For decades, judges have allowed the federal government to expand its powers by saying that it was authorized by the Constitution to regulate "interstate commerce." But how can something that happens entirely within the borders of one state be called "interstate commerce"? Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent that the people involved in this case "use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana." But the majority of the court decided wrongly, by deciding that that a man who grew something for himself on his own land was somehow "affecting" prices of goods in interstate commerce and so the federal government had a right to regulate him. Sorry, the correct reading is simply, "does it cross state lines? then we can regulate it. Is it only within a state? Then it isn't within federal authority."

That's it. That's all. These are the correct and only correct readings. To do otherwise creates a fundamental problem where millions of ordinary citizens, without legal training, have a hard time figuring out when they are or are not breaking the law.
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 10:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Nonetheless, we know without doubt what these words meant when they were used.
No, we don't.

And frankly it's more than a little incredulous that anyone would claim the document is a paragon of clarity, free from ambiguity. Clearly, your interpretation of the amendment is more or less what the Heller court decided. But it's not an honest argument that there aren't very good arguments from multiple sides about what the amendment actually means.

Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
To do otherwise creates a fundamental problem where millions of ordinary citizens, without legal training, have a hard time figuring out when they are or are not breaking the law.
You're joking.

(1) If the nation passes a handgun bill that the Supreme Court upholds, then I'm pretty sure people will be aware of it.

(2) Even under a plain-meaning interpretation of the Constitution, most people wouldn't be able to pick up the document, read it, and have anything more than a cursory understanding.

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 10:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Once again, I'm very sorry to tell you that you are incorrect.

Words have meanings. These meanings sometimes have changed over time, which creates the confusion that you're experiencing. Nonetheless, we know without doubt what these words meant when they were used. We don't have to divine intent or fabricate interpretation, we know factually what the amendment says, and it's very very clear, as I wrote above.

Infringement is a very specific word. There is no 'taking a narrow view' of it. Well-regulated means 'maintained in proper working order.' General Washington used it with that meaning. That you would try and take his words to mean something other indicative of the same problem you're having reading the Constitution.

This isn't opinion. This is fact. There is a clear difference, but the whole point of words is to communicate. The point of a government based in rule of law is so that everyone may know we are governed equally without worrying about whose emanations/penumbras/weasel-words will change the enforcement of a law without doing the proper thing and changing the law itself.

Let's use an example to illustrate this. Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be "living"? Depending on "evolving standards," maybe my two pair could beat your flush.

Which is why you say my 'interpretation' is 'narrow.' Instead, I'm reading it as strictly as it must be read.

What happens when it isn't read as strictly?

Kelo v. New London, where the court decided it could just change the meaning of the words "public use" to "public purpose." "Public use" means the public gets to use whatever the resulting construction is from the takings of private property. "Public purpose" meant that New London could take private property, hand it over to private entities that would bring in more tax money and claim that was for the public benefit. The law says these takings have to be for "public use" and it must be read that narrowly - can you or I use it? No? Then no deal.

Or Gonzales v Raich. For decades, judges have allowed the federal government to expand its powers by saying that it was authorized by the Constitution to regulate "interstate commerce." But how can something that happens entirely within the borders of one state be called "interstate commerce"? Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent that the people involved in this case "use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana." But the majority of the court decided wrongly, by deciding that that a man who grew something for himself on his own land was somehow "affecting" prices of goods in interstate commerce and so the federal government had a right to regulate him. Sorry, the correct reading is simply, "does it cross state lines? then we can regulate it. Is it only within a state? Then it isn't within federal authority."

That's it. That's all. These are the correct and only correct readings. To do otherwise creates a fundamental problem where millions of ordinary citizens, without legal training, have a hard time figuring out when they are or are not breaking the law.
Once again, this entire diatribe is your opinion. I realize that in your mind, you take your opinion as indisputable fact, but that doesn't mean that I do.

Yes - the Constitution is made up of words. Language is imperfect, and any statement, when dissected, can be taken to mean different things. The differences are typically subtle, but they're there.

I think the Constitution is a living document, in the sense that it is constructed in such a way that it can be applied to changing times and circumstances. These applications are 'living', because we the people are tasked with interpreting it into new situations (free speech and the internet, etc.). That doesn't mean we don't have a Constitution.

Take your poker example, and add in 'changing times'. Shift the content of the deck of cards - add a new suit or a new face card. Now, you have to adjust the rules because another variable has been added. It doesn't mean there are no rules, and there aren't interpretations that make no logical sense, but to say that there's only one logical interpretation, and it happens to be yours, is your opinion.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 01:21 PM
 
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.

Once again, for rules to have any meaning, they must be fixed.

I have demonstrated that my understanding of the words of the 2nd Amendment is the only logical and valid interpretation.

If you want to change the rules or reinterpret them differently in light of a changing variable, you need new rules. You cannot twist an existing rule to mean something new.

If you want the Constitution to mean anything other than what I have said the plain reading of it must mean, you need an amendment. You cannot simply say, 'oh, now it means something new.'

The reason why people with contempt for the Constitution and what it says try and use these weaselly re-interpretations to twist the clear meanings of the words of the law is because they wish to change the law without doing the hard work of actually following the amendment process to amend the Constitution. I have shown the fundamental problems that doing this creates. It creates an environment where no one can know if they're acting within accordance with the law.

The amendment process is hard for a good reason: to prevent giving powers and authority to Congress that it is not authorized to have.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.
Let me make this simple. I respect the fact that you disagree with what I'm saying. I do not respect or accept your representation that yours is the only correct answer. I'm representing my opinion as just that. You're representing yours as indisputable fact. Guess what - I'm disputing it.

Once again, for rules to have any meaning, they must be fixed.

I have demonstrated that my understanding of the words of the 2nd Amendment is the only logical and valid interpretation.
You have demonstrated your opinion. I fail to see where you've demonstrated that every other interpretation is invalid.

If you want to change the rules or reinterpret them differently in light of a changing variable, you need new rules. You cannot twist an existing rule to mean something new.
OK - for this to make any sense, I think I need to parse this statement into parts, since there's an 'or' in there:

Originally Posted by vmarks, Parse 1
If you want to change the rules, you need new rules.
Duh.

Originally Posted by vmarks, Parse 2
If you want to reinterpret them (the rules) differently in light of a changing variable, you need new rules.
This makes no logical sense.

If you want the Constitution to mean anything other than what I have said the plain reading of it must mean, you need an amendment. You cannot simply say, 'oh, now it means something new.'
I take exception with the underlined part of this statement. Who made you the final authority on the 'correct' interpretation and application of the provisions in the Constitution?

The reason why people with contempt for the Constitution and what it says try and use these weaselly re-interpretations to twist the clear meanings of the words of the law is because they wish to change the law without doing the hard work of actually following the amendment process to amend the Constitution. I have shown the fundamental problems that doing this creates. It creates an environment where no one can know if they're acting within accordance with the law.
No, the reason is that people have different, and valid, interpretations. You don't like interpretations that aren't consistent with yours. I get that. You claiming it's 'incorrect' doesn't make it so.

If something is unclear and showing it can be interpreted different ways, you can also get an amendment to clarify it to be interpreted as you want, if you like.

And how does it create an environment where no one knows if they're 'acting within accordance with the law'? Laws are created and passed, and if necessary, determined to be in accordance with the Constitution by the courts. I'd say that's pretty clear.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 02:37 PM
 
The fact that we're sitting here discussing it, that courts come up with 5-4 rulings, shows that these sorts of things are unclear. The words themselves are clear. The twisted nonsense that people try and read into it to suit their wishes is what creates the lack of clarity.

Your need to twist the words to mean something other than what they mean is possibly because you have some wish you're trying to fulfill. The Constitution does not give Congress the ability or authority to fulfill the gun control for which you're wishing.

Congress is expressly and absolutely prohibited from making any law regarding the people's right to arm themselves.

Congress is expressly and absolutely prohibited from spending money on anything other than what is listed in article 1 section 8.

The Federal government cannot take property from one person and give it to another without compensating the first person, and any taking has to be for public use (not a public purpose.)

Congress lacks the authority to rule on marriage, to prohibit substances, to found departments of energy, education, environmental protection, drug enforcement, firearm enforcement, healthcare, or a whole host of other things.

All powers not granted to Congress in the Constitution are expressly the authority of the people or states.

If you want to change any of that, you require a Constitutional amendment. Go and get one.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 02:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
The fact that we're sitting here discussing it, that courts come up with 5-4 rulings, shows that these sorts of things are unclear. The words themselves are clear. The twisted nonsense that people try and read into it to suit their wishes is what creates the lack of clarity.
Yes - these sorts of things are unclear. You can get upset with 'twisted nonsense' all you want. That doesn't change the fact that not all cases of multiple interpretations require 'twisted nonsense'. I'm sure there are a lot of cases where we'd agree a given interpretation is 'twisted nonsense'.

Your need to twist the words to mean something other than what they mean is possibly because you have some wish you're trying to fulfill.
And that is no different than what I can say to you. That is EXACTLY what you are doing, just as I am.

Congress is expressly and absolutely prohibited from making any law regarding the people's right to arm themselves.
Where does it say that? There is nowhere in the 2nd Amendment where the phrase 'Congress shall make no law...' appears. It is not 'expressly' stated. It's your interpretation. Logical? Yes. But not the only logical interpretation.

Congress is expressly and absolutely prohibited from spending money on anything other than what is listed in article 1 section 8.
Yes, and as I recall, there are some things in article 1 section 8 that have multiple interpretations as well.

The Federal government cannot take property from one person and give it to another without compensating the first person, and any taking has to be for public use (not a public purpose.)

Congress lacks the authority to rule on marriage, to prohibit substances, to found departments of energy, education, environmental protection, drug enforcement, firearm enforcement, healthcare, or a whole host of other things.

All powers not granted to Congress in the Constitution are expressly the authority of the people or states.

If you want to change any of that, you require a Constitutional amendment. Go and get one.
Well, we have a bunch of those things. I don't agree with all of them either, but if you want to say I'm incorrect because of what the SCOTUS said about guns, well, then I guess you're incorrect about the Department of Energy, Education, etc. If you want it clarified in the Constitution that they're not allowed, then go and get an amendment.

Look, I'm not trying to say you're not entitled to your opinion. You are. I respect that. But if you can't respect and acknowledge the opinions of others, you're not going to get very far.
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
You cannot twist an existing rule to mean something new.
You can easily have different interpretations of the same rule, even under the plain-meaning interpretive method, if the existing rule is ambiguous. That's a somewhat circular explanation on my part, since that's essentially saying you can have different interpretations of the same rule if the rule lends itself to different interpretations. But the point stands: people will have good-faith disagreements about the meaning of the document even using the same interpretative method.

Let's take the second amendment.

Some people will say "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" stands alone and absolutely bars any gun regulation whatsoever. Others will see that and conclude that to "infringe" the right means different things, which includes anything except outright banning guns. Others will see the "well-regulated militia" part of the amendment as qualifying the second part, so that an individual right to keep and bear arms isn't even guaranteed.

It seems that if you want to bulldoze over these ambiguities and clarify things, you should get another constitutional amendment.

Crooked Member of the MacNN Atheist Clique.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 03:10 PM
 
I don't have to do so. The meaning of the word 'infringe' is pretty specific, and doesn't lend itself to the sorts of wishes you wish to grant.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
I don't have to do so. The meaning of the word 'infringe' is pretty specific, and doesn't lend itself to the sorts of wishes you wish to grant.
Again, a statement loaded with opinion and speculation.
     
The Crook
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 03:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
The meaning of the word 'infringe' is pretty specific
Let me take a step back and ask a broader question:

Is there ambiguity anywhere in the Constitution?

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 07:07 PM.
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.,