Lets have a Poll...... Is our Constitution a taboo subject on T-Net?

[Crispin]

Your previous posts just pointed to limiting the 2nd. A bit off topic, but in the banned thread, you commented on my phrase "Crispin and other liberals." Your name was just the easiest to put and the first one to come to mind as a liberal in this discussion. I dislike using abbreviated names, as someday, someone will take offense, but your name is short, and easy to use.

So...you are saying I don't get to be the leader of the liberals? Darn...I was getting all excited for a while.

Clarification: I don't want to limit the 2nd amendment. I think it is fine in its current form. I do think we need some restrictions on types of firearms and ammo...but that tends not to go over very well when I bring it up. Hence, I find better luck when my opinion, is humorous, illogical, or sarcastic.

Best,

Crispin

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Treasure_Hunter]

Quoting Scalia as the final word on the Constitution is like pointing to Marx and the final word on Democratic Socialism. If you point to the most radical extreme and use that as the example or definition, you are not adding much to your argument.

I pointed out that one of the 9 highest judges in the country has the same view I do on the constitution as being a foundation not a living document that we should interpretate it through the eyes of those who wrote it. I don't believe I said it was the final word.

 

[dejapooh]

I pointed out that one of the 9 highest judges in the country has the same view I do on the constitution as being a foundation not a living document that we should interpretate it through the eyes of those who wrote it. I don't believe I said it was the final word.

Ok, I can accept that. At least one Justice agrees with you. At least one disagrees with you. So your point was that Someone who knows more than both of us agrees with you. My point is that someone who knows more than us disagrees with you, so there is no point to your post.

 

[dieselram94]

The point is it's a foundation.....not to be messed with by some control freaks.....................

 

[dieselram94]

So...you are saying I don't get to be the leader of the liberals? Darn...I was getting all excited for a while.

Clarification: I don't want to limit the 2nd amendment. I think it is fine in its current form. I do think we need some restrictions on types of firearms and ammo...but that tends not to go over very well when I bring it up. Hence, I find better luck when my opinion, is humorous, illogical, or sarcastic.

Best,

Crispin

Crispin, we already have restrictions on type of guns one can own. Like no fully auto without a class 3 permit.
Humorous is always good though....

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Ok, I can accept that. At least one Justice agrees with you. At least one disagrees with you. So your point was that Someone who knows more than both of us agrees with you. My point is that someone who knows more than us disagrees with you, so there is no point to your post.

Excuse me, but there is a point to my post, you may not like it, but there is still a point to my post....I happen to believe very strongly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they were written and have believed the same way all my life, well at least the last 55 years or so since I am 64 it didnt mean much to me till I started studying it in school...

 

[Crispin]

Crispin, we already have restrictions on type of guns one can own. Like no fully auto without a class 3 permit.
Humorous is always good though....

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. I am fully allowed to drive my auto and I don't have a Class 3 do-hickey.

 

[dieselram94]

I guess I go against the grain Crispin, when I bought my jeep I made sure to get the six speed manual as to avoid the class three fiasco...

 

[0121stockpicker]

Crispin, we already have restrictions on type of guns one can own. Like no fully auto without a class 3 permit.
Humorous is always good though....

If we already have restrictions on gun ownership - like class 3 for fully auto - than why would having any additional restriction be "unconstitutional" all of a sudden? Doesn't the existence of the many restrictions, rules and regulations on firearms fly in the face of the "shall not infringe" - need I saying argument that we are also seeing. Obviously an awful lot of different infringements have been happening for a long time? I realize that many people don't like it and many if these might have no positive impact etc etc but it is certainly not "unconstitutional".

 

[0121stockpicker]

Excuse me, but there is a point to my post, you may not like it, but there is still a point to my post....I happen to believe very strongly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they were written and have believed the same way all my life, well at least the last 55 years or so since I am 64 it didnt mean much to me till I started studying it in school...

But as you can see what you guys are talking about is people's beliefs / opinions. As is much of the discussion in this section. I think at least most of us believe that everyone is entitled to a belief / opinion even if it is counter to our own. For me, much of what I believe is based upon as much information / facts that u can find - but in the end it is still a belief. But it is incorrect to try and claim that a belief / opinion is a fact. A fact is something completely different than a belief or opinion.

 

[Crispin]

But as you can see what you guys are talking about is people's beliefs / opinions. As is much of the discussion in this section. I think at least most of us believe that everyone is entitled to a belief / opinion even if it is counter to our own. For me, much of what I believe is based upon as much information / facts that u can find - but in the end it is still a belief. But it is incorrect to try and claim that a belief / opinion is a fact. A fact is something completely different than a belief or opinion.

Facts are only opinions that have not been proved inaccurate.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

But as you can see what you guys are talking about is people's beliefs / opinions. As is much of the discussion in this section. I think at least most of us believe that everyone is entitled to a belief / opinion even if it is counter to our own. For me, much of what I believe is based upon as much information / facts that u can find - but in the end it is still a belief. But it is incorrect to try and claim that a belief / opinion is a fact. A fact is something completely different than a belief or opinion.

Here are 2 facts....

1.
Amendment II

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What is infringed? If your taken to court by your neighbor because your building on your neighbors property and a judge tells you "You will stop, you may not infringe on your neighbors property" does that mean it is okay to continue to grab small pieces of it at a time or does it mean leave your neighbor's property completely alone....?


2.
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

 

[BuffaloBob]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. See post #43 and beyond. Come up with logical counterpoints and we talk. Until then...everything is open to interpretation. There is indeed grey area, there is white matter as well. All thought is grey and white matter. Words are tools of the brain. Written by hands to carry out a translation. EVERYTHING is interpreted.

I look to Thomas Jefferson and the reasons for the 2nd amendment. Through experience before the United States was formed, was the reason we exist today. He understood exactly what we would someday be facing. Firearm confiscation leading to yet another dictatorship or kingdom like the ones we broke away from. If you are an American these were made for you. If not an American, big deal. Why do you care?
BB

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson

 

[Crispin]

I look to Thomas Jefferson and the reasons for the 2nd amendment. Through experience before the United States was formed, was the reason we exist today. He understood exactly what we would someday be facing. Firearm confiscation leading to yet another dictatorship or kingdom like the ones we broke away from. If you are an American these were made for you. If not an American, big deal. Why do you care?
BB

FYI: I studied for four years at UVA. I am very well versed in TJ. Lets just leave TJ out of the equation...I don't want to dig up his murky past. I respect the man too much for that.

 

[PYRATE]

But as you can see what you guys are talking about is people's beliefs / opinions. As is much of the discussion in this section. I think at least most of us believe that everyone is entitled to a belief / opinion even if it is counter to our own. For me, much of what I believe is based upon as much information / facts that u can find - but in the end it is still a belief. But it is incorrect to try and claim that a belief / opinion is a fact. A fact is something completely different than a belief or opinion.

I don't believe he or anyone else ever said that a belief was a fact and I'm wondering if you are bickering or trying to jerk some chains.

If I'm wrong and you are indeed making an argument, what is the specific point you disagree with?

For the record, this entire thread began as a discussion of beliefs and if a person honestly states a belief in the following or similar manner: " I believe ....... " well then their statement is indeed a fact since they are merely stating a belief that they hold. You can disagree with their belief or argue against that belief, but you can't successfully argue whether or not they hold that belief or whether their statement was a fact or not.

Facts are only opinions that have not been proved inaccurate.

Facts are indisputable truths.
Theories are unproven opinions.

 

[Crispin]

Nothing is indisputable. Not even gravity...simply high probability of being right.

Respectfully,
Crispin

 

[PYRATE]

Nothing is indisputable. Not even gravity...simply high probability of being right.

Respectfully,
Crispin

I've consulted with my elephants and they agree that your response is interesting

 

[scurvy_seadog]

As far as executive orders President Obama has issued 144 of them. his predecessor issued 338.

As far as I am concerned is not the number of executive orders are. It is the context of those orders we can have 144 of them upsurping the athority of congress and hence making a dictator and a tyrant. it is what he has written that is the concern not the number. Just writing one executive order that strips the rights of citizens is one two many.

 

[BuffaloBob]

FYI: I studied for four years at UVA. I am very well versed in TJ. Lets just leave TJ out of the equation...I don't want to dig up his murky past. I respect the man too much for that.

You know squat about Thomas Jefferson. I, on the other hand, know all about you. You enjoy all the rights and freedoms of the United States without a clue of real American history. Our founding fathers built a framework of the new nation to protect and defend the nation from people like you. Four years of education and that's what you learned? And you brag about it? I rest my case.
BB

 

[0121stockpicker]

As far as I am concerned is not the number of executive orders are. It is the context of those orders we can have 144 of them upsurping the athority of congress and hence making a dictator and a tyrant. it is what he has written that is the concern not the number. Just writing one executive order that strips the rights of citizens is one two many.

Why do you think a president uses an "executive order"? What is its purpose?

Which of the bush executive orders did you most disagree with?