Remember me
▼ Content

One reason for social distancing/isolation



Page 9 of 20<<<7891011>>>
25-05-2020 05:21
James___
★★★★★
(3170)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Neighborhood Watch, receive training from the local police department. It wasn't the dispatcher. It wasn't about the 2nd amendment. Neighborhood Watch are not vigilantes, nor are they trained to act as such. Every townhouse in that gated community, was almost exactly the same, The HOA keeps the exterior very consistent, the landscaping, everything throughout the community. Even Zimmerman had to get out of his truck to check the street sign, while talking to 911. He lived there for a couple years, patrolled daily, and still didn't know. As you pointed out, looking is not a crime. Why is it okay for Zimmerman to follow Trayvon around, looking at him. But it's not okay for Trayvon to look at townhouses, trying to figure out where he was? That's what Zimmerman called into 911, a black man on a sidewalk, looked at a building. George wasn't following at a discreet distance. He even stated on the 911 call, that Trayvon had spotted him following. He wasn't observing at that point, but actively pursuing. Again, his Neighborhood Watch training is ignored. Looking at a building, is not a crime.



You are right on all aspects. With the recent killing, it seems to be more 2 racist individuals than anything else. But as gasguzler would say, the pop and his son felt threatened by a jogger. Like if someone liked killing Norwegians like what happened to Christopher Bergan. His father in law did nothing wrong by killing him. Someone knocked on pops door and pops shot him.
Kind of like that Norwegian jet stream that gas guzzler talks about. Someone bothers us, we deal with it. Problem solved.



C'mon guys, aren't you going to defend an American for killing his Norwegian son-in-law who only wanted to wish pops a Happy Birthday? Pops lives in Florida and stood his ground and rightly so.
How about it Harvey55? Should Mr. Bergan have done what he was told? That's your advice to me. And that's what the 3rd Reich told my father. We need to learn to be obedient. I guess Mr. Bergan learned his lesson the hard way, right? Just sound like an American, no mistake about it.
Gulf Breeze man shot and killed son-in-law in case of mistaken identity
https://www.pnj.com/story/news/crime/2019/10/03/gulf-breeze-man-shot-and-killed-son-law-case-mistaken-identity/3846781002/

Actually, the 3rd Reich had firearms and had Norwegians watch their movies. They were told what to do. Attendance was mandatory if caught in town. If not, being sent off to camp was probably the next step. It promoted capitalism like they do in China.
If you're wondering Harvey, my dad and his friend got caught trashing a Norwegian's doctor's house. The doctor treated Nazis. They caught my father's friend but not my father.
Consider this Harvey, if my father couldn't run faster than a guy holding a gun, would I be here today? Chris Bergan wasn't given the chance to run. See how simple life is?
If my atmospheric chemistry experiment works, is it because my dad basically out ran a bullet? We all know that it's not easy to hit a moving target.
Edited on 25-05-2020 06:19
25-05-2020 06:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote: How do you define "regulated"?

It can be defined any way We the People want to define it. The inclusion of the word "regulated" was to prevent a tyrannical government from prohibiting We the People from bearing arms and training and doing drills and practicing and marching up and down the square in our vigilance to effectively prevent or thwart a tyrannical goveernment that would try to prohibit We the People from bearing arms and training and doing drills and practicing and marching up and down the square.

We are allowed to train. We are allowed to remain "well regulated" ... with We the People defining exactly how we are to be well-regulated. Ergo, it is not appropriate for there to be any sort of government definition to be imposed on We the People.

tmiddles wrote: The 2nd amendment does not say:
A well regulated militia. Also, unrelated to the militia, an unregulated private right to bear arms.

There are infinite ways in which the 2nd Amendment does not read.

It remains very clear, despite your confusion.

tmiddles wrote:The 2nd amendment is clearly directed to only a militia. It's one sentence, not two.

I studied English as a child and I got pretty good at it. It is actually possible to include multiple points in a single sentence. That comma as a separator functions as an "and" and makes it a compound sentence with two distinct clauses.

Part 1: Allows We the People to train as militias, however we see fit
Part 2: Prevents We the People from being disarmed

It's all very straightforward.

.
Attached image:

25-05-2020 08:23
James___
★★★★★
(3170)
deleted post. It's in your mailboxes. But know when I can, I will leave your country with a smile on my face. People need to know that there is opportunity in other countries besides the US.
People coming here to pursue PhD's might decrease because they might not want to make you guys richer because of their labour.
Edited on 25-05-2020 08:27
25-05-2020 11:23
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Neighborhood Watch, receive training from the local police department. It wasn't the dispatcher. It wasn't about the 2nd amendment. Neighborhood Watch are not vigilantes, nor are they trained to act as such. Every townhouse in that gated community, was almost exactly the same, The HOA keeps the exterior very consistent, the landscaping, everything throughout the community. Even Zimmerman had to get out of his truck to check the street sign, while talking to 911. He lived there for a couple years, patrolled daily, and still didn't know. As you pointed out, looking is not a crime. Why is it okay for Zimmerman to follow Trayvon around, looking at him. But it's not okay for Trayvon to look at townhouses, trying to figure out where he was? That's what Zimmerman called into 911, a black man on a sidewalk, looked at a building. George wasn't following at a discreet distance. He even stated on the 911 call, that Trayvon had spotted him following. He wasn't observing at that point, but actively pursuing. Again, his Neighborhood Watch training is ignored. Looking at a building, is not a crime.



You are right on all aspects. With the recent killing, it seems to be more 2 racist individuals than anything else. But as gasguzler would say, the pop and his son felt threatened by a jogger. Like if someone liked killing Norwegians like what happened to Christopher Bergan. His father in law did nothing wrong by killing him. Someone knocked on pops door and pops shot him.
Kind of like that Norwegian jet stream that gas guzzler talks about. Someone bothers us, we deal with it. Problem solved.



C'mon guys, aren't you going to defend an American for killing his Norwegian son-in-law who only wanted to wish pops a Happy Birthday? Pops lives in Florida and stood his ground and rightly so.
How about it Harvey55? Should Mr. Bergan have done what he was told? That's your advice to me. And that's what the 3rd Reich told my father. We need to learn to be obedient. I guess Mr. Bergan learned his lesson the hard way, right? Just sound like an American, no mistake about it.
Gulf Breeze man shot and killed son-in-law in case of mistaken identity
https://www.pnj.com/story/news/crime/2019/10/03/gulf-breeze-man-shot-and-killed-son-law-case-mistaken-identity/3846781002/

Actually, the 3rd Reich had firearms and had Norwegians watch their movies. They were told what to do. Attendance was mandatory if caught in town. If not, being sent off to camp was probably the next step. It promoted capitalism like they do in China.
If you're wondering Harvey, my dad and his friend got caught trashing a Norwegian's doctor's house. The doctor treated Nazis. They caught my father's friend but not my father.
Consider this Harvey, if my father couldn't run faster than a guy holding a gun, would I be here today? Chris Bergan wasn't given the chance to run. See how simple life is?
If my atmospheric chemistry experiment works, is it because my dad basically out ran a bullet? We all know that it's not easy to hit a moving target.


Basically, your father, a felon, fled Norway, to the US, and lied to get citizenship. You are basically the fruit, of a bad seed... No wonder you're so screwed up.
25-05-2020 12:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
Regulation does not mean banning.
Nope, true. It means regulated. And they are.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: How do you define "regulated"?

It can be defined any way We the People want to define it.
I agree and we have.

IBdaMann wrote:The inclusion of the word "regulated" was to prevent a tyrannical government from prohibiting
hmmm, not following you there. If the words "well regulated" were omitted how would that help a tyrannical government to oppress a state or locality?

I believe in practice citizens were part of a militia and the location of their weapon was registered and they could be fined if they did not report with a well maintained weapon. That there was discipline and control. It wasn't just a bunch of yahoos with guns.

IBdaMann wrote:We the People defining ...well-regulated. Ergo, it is not appropriate for there to be any sort of government definition to be imposed
Ah! so you are saying it's strictly informal, not "written down" kind of a cheering to booing organic response from the crowd.

Yet the 2nd amendment is a law, written down. If you doubt that the country and constitution included the practice and expectation that We the People would cause laws to written down and enforce by We the People through our representative government I'd be fascinated to hear that.

IBdaMann wrote:
Part 1: Allows We the People to train as militias, however we see fit
Part 2: Prevents We the People from being disarmed
A reasonable breakdown.

Your own interpretation lacks the justification for a right to any and all arms without regulation.

Let's look at language for other topics:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, "

Now see? That is super duper clear. NO LAWS

They could have said:
"Congress shall make no law regulating the right to bear arms "

Only they didn't. In fact, they talked about regulation inside of the sentence about arms. So I think we gotta have the ref call this one.

But that's what courts are for.
25-05-2020 14:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote: hmmm, not following you there. If the words "well regulated" were omitted how would that help a tyrannical government to oppress a state or locality?

If We the People can only drill and train and practice at the pleasure of the tyrannical government, then the tyrannical government simply prohibits that activity. When the tyrant refuses to answer to We the People and the tyrant refuses to step down, the tyrant knows that We the People can't do anything about it because we have no training and no practice executing plans.

The way you kill a militia without taking away their weapons is you prevent them from training. They are no longer a militia at that point with no ability to follow any command structure (the "well regulated" part).

By the way, your question reveals that you haven't ever served in the active duty military or any Guard unit otherwise this point would be obvious.

tmiddles wrote: I believe in practice citizens were part of a militia and the location of their weapon was registered and they could be fined if they did not report with a well maintained weapon. That there was discipline and control. It wasn't just a bunch of yahoos with guns.

That is what you would have if a tyrannical government could prohibit the militia from drilling and practicing and training ... just a bunch of yahoos with weapons they can't use effectively.

tmiddles wrote: Ah! so you are saying it's strictly informal, not "written down" kind of a cheering to booing organic response from the crowd.

Ummm, no. I'm curious, how did you get THAT from what I wrote?

tmiddles wrote: Yet the 2nd amendment is a law, written down.

Yes. It is a restriction imposed on the Federal government. Thous shalt not deny the militias and thou shalt not disarm We the People, the two parts of the 2nd Amendment.


tmiddles wrote: Your own interpretation lacks the justification for a right to any and all arms without regulation.

Which arms does my interpretation preclude?

tmiddles wrote: Let's look at language for other topics:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, "

Exactly. This is why Congress can make no law respecting Global Warming.

tmiddles wrote: Now see? That is super duper clear. NO LAWS

"shall not be infringed."

Now see? That is super duper clear. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." It is the strongest language of the entire Constitution.

Have a nice refreshing can of 2nd Amendment, on me.
.
Attached image:

25-05-2020 23:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: How do you define "regulated"?

It can be defined any way We the People want to define it. The inclusion of the word "regulated" was to prevent a tyrannical government from prohibiting We the People from bearing arms and training and doing drills and practicing and marching up and down the square in our vigilance to effectively prevent or thwart a tyrannical goveernment that would try to prohibit We the People from bearing arms and training and doing drills and practicing and marching up and down the square.

We are allowed to train. We are allowed to remain "well regulated" ... with We the People defining exactly how we are to be well-regulated. Ergo, it is not appropriate for there to be any sort of government definition to be imposed on We the People.

tmiddles wrote: The 2nd amendment does not say:
A well regulated militia. Also, unrelated to the militia, an unregulated private right to bear arms.

There are infinite ways in which the 2nd Amendment does not read.

It remains very clear, despite your confusion.

tmiddles wrote:The 2nd amendment is clearly directed to only a militia. It's one sentence, not two.

I studied English as a child and I got pretty good at it. It is actually possible to include multiple points in a single sentence. That comma as a separator functions as an "and" and makes it a compound sentence with two distinct clauses.

Part 1: Allows We the People to train as militias, however we see fit
Part 2: Prevents We the People from being disarmed

It's all very straightforward.

.


Correct. The term 'regulate' stems from the term 'regular', or uniform, as in to make 'regular'. A trained militia is 'regular'. The State it supports is 'regular'. 'Regulate' does not mean 'oligarchy'.

As I've told him before, the 2nd amendment discusses two rights, both inherent.
* the right of a State to defend itself (simply by being a State, or a group of people), using militias.
* the right of the people to defend themselves, simply by being living, breathing, things.

Neither rights comes from the 2nd amendment. They are inherent. The 2nd amendment specifically directs the federal government and State governments to not mess with it.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-05-2020 23:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Regulation does not mean banning.
Nope, true. It means regulated. And they are.

No. 'Regulate' does not mean 'oligarchy' or 'dictatorship'. I have already discussed with you what 'regulate' and 'regular' mean. Go learn English.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: How do you define "regulated"?

It can be defined any way We the People want to define it.
I agree and we have.

You cannot redefine the word 'regulate' or 'regular' to mean 'oligarchy' or 'dictatorship'. No State or government has the authority to attempt to remove an inherent right.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:The inclusion of the word "regulated" was to prevent a tyrannical government from prohibiting
hmmm, not following you there. If the words "well regulated" were omitted how would that help a tyrannical government to oppress a state or locality?

Any militia that is not well regulated (uniform and disciplined) is ineffective, placing the State it is protecting at the mercy of a rogue federal government. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
I believe in practice citizens were part of a militia and the location of their weapon was registered and they could be fined if they did not report with a well maintained weapon. That there was discipline and control. It wasn't just a bunch of yahoos with guns.

It was a bunch of yahoos with guns. It still is. Those yahoos with guns bested a uniformed, well regulated, army from the UK, TWICE. Why do you think the redcoats were called 'regulars'?

You are surrounded by a bunch of yahoos with guns. You can be paranoid and agoraphobic now, even though all those yahoos with guns aren't out shooting the place up. When I work security at my local airport, I am not shooting at everyone. You do not get to disarm people because of your hoplophobia.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:We the People defining ...well-regulated. Ergo, it is not appropriate for there to be any sort of government definition to be imposed
Ah! so you are saying it's strictly informal, not "written down" kind of a cheering to booing organic response from the crowd.

It is formally specified that the government is not allowed to mess with this inherent right. It is formally specified that not all rights listed in the Bill of Rights is a listing of all such rights.
tmiddles wrote:
Yet the 2nd amendment is a law, written down.

Yup. The law applies to any government attempting to mess with this inherent right of self defense, either by a State (using militias), or by any individual. The right of self defense does not come from the 2nd amendment. That right is inherent.
tmiddles wrote:
If you doubt that the country and constitution included the practice and expectation that We the People would cause laws to written down and enforce by We the People through our representative government I'd be fascinated to hear that.

This is not a democracy. This is a federated republic. The people cannot grant the government any more power than what is specifically laid out in a constitution. The 2nd amendment does not grant the federal or any State government the authority to ban or limit guns or any other weapon or any accessory to any weapon.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Part 1: Allows We the People to train as militias, however we see fit
Part 2: Prevents We the People from being disarmed
A reasonable breakdown.

Your own interpretation lacks the justification for a right to any and all arms without regulation.

It does exactly that. Learn English.
tmiddles wrote:
Let's look at language for other topics:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, "

Now see? That is super duper clear. NO LAWS

Yet YOU are arguing for them to do just exactly that. The Church of Global Warming is a religion. YOU want the federal government to establish this religion as a state religion.
The Church of Green is doing the same thing. The Church of Karl Marx is doing the same th ing.
tmiddles wrote:
They could have said:
"Congress shall make no law regulating the right to bear arms "

Learn English.
tmiddles wrote:
Only they didn't. In fact, they talked about regulation inside of the sentence about arms. So I think we gotta have the ref call this one.

The people are the ref, and their States that represent them.
tmiddles wrote:
But that's what courts are for.

No court has the authority to change or interpret the Constitution.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-05-2020 00:23
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
ITN,
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has the duty to "guard and interpret" the Constitution. It's a pretty clear sentence in the constitution telling about that fact.
I'm surprised you missed that sentence!

Tmid,
Sorry to disagree here on the "right to bear arms". Sometimes when you interpret the constitution you have to go back to the state of mind of the people who drew up the constitution. Back then (and to some extent now) people in general carried or owned arms, at least rural people (and even city dwellers). It was a way of life.
Part "B" of the 2nd amendment says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It's really a part "B" and it applies to people in general. Part "A" refers to a militia, which is different thing than people in general. Life wasn't as regulated back then, but nothing has changed as far as the right of the people to bear arms.

ITN, get your act together and read the part of the constitution that says "the duty to guard and interpret" the Constitution. Your credibility seems to be eroding in my humble opinion.
26-05-2020 01:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has the duty to "guard and interpret" the Constitution.

Nope. The Supreme Court has no authority to interpret or change the Constitution.
keepit wrote:
It's a pretty clear sentence in the constitution telling about that fact.
I'm surprised you missed that sentence!

No such sentence. See Article III.
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
Sorry to disagree here on the "right to bear arms". Sometimes when you interpret the constitution you have to go back to the state of mind of the people who drew up the constitution.

You can't. They're dead. They cannot be used as a reference.
The States, which own the Constitution, are the ONLY ones capable of interpreting or changing it.
keepit wrote:
Back then (and to some extent now) people in general carried or owned arms, at least rural people (and even city dwellers). It was a way of life.

It is still a way of life. You are surrounded by people that own and carry guns.
keepit wrote:
Part "B" of the 2nd amendment says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It's really a part "B" and it applies to people in general. Part "A" refers to a militia, which is different thing than people in general.

This part is correct.
keepit wrote:
Life wasn't as regulated back then,

'Regulated' does not mean 'oligarchy' or 'number of laws'.
keepit wrote:
but nothing has changed as far as the right of the people to bear arms.

This part is correct.
keepit wrote:
ITN, get your act together and read the part of the constitution that says "the duty to guard and interpret" the Constitution. Your credibility seems to be eroding in my humble opinion.

Produce the Article that contains this phrase.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-05-2020 01:56
James___
★★★★★
(3170)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has the duty to "guard and interpret" the Constitution. It's a pretty clear sentence in the constitution telling about that fact.
I'm surprised you missed that sentence!

Tmid,
Sorry to disagree here on the "right to bear arms". Sometimes when you interpret the constitution you have to go back to the state of mind of the people who drew up the constitution. Back then (and to some extent now) people in general carried or owned arms, at least rural people (and even city dwellers). It was a way of life.
Part "B" of the 2nd amendment says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It's really a part "B" and it applies to people in general. Part "A" refers to a militia, which is different thing than people in general. Life wasn't as regulated back then, but nothing has changed as far as the right of the people to bear arms.

ITN, get your act together and read the part of the constitution that says "the duty to guard and interpret" the Constitution. Your credibility seems to be eroding in my humble opinion.


Sometimes when you interpret the constitution you have to go back to the state of mind of the people who drew up the constitution.


The right to bear arms probably comes from the US being able to defend itself against England. Fort Detroit was a British fort until after the War of 1812. It's that war that actually ended Britain's attempts at reclaiming the US as a British colony.
Also, they had flintlock pistols and muskets back then. I think everyone would agree that going by when the Constitution was written that it could be said to refer to those arms. Even during the Civil War they didn't trust revolvers but used flintlocks.
So if I agree with you that we need to consider what they were thinking when they wrote the Constitution, anything that uses a shell casing was not a consideration, then you would say that I am wrong if the types of arms needs to be limited in the hands of the general public. Sadly, most people are not trained how to use a firearm in a responsible manner.
26-05-2020 02:32
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
ITN,
In 1803 the Supreme Court itself established the doctrine of Judicial Review and has been exercising that power ever since. Marbury v. Madison.
My attorney says i deserve an Honorary Law Degree. I'm still waiting for it.
Judicial review is defined as the power to interpret the Constitution.

Also ITN. Maybe you can't interpret the frame of mind of the framers but i can.

ITN,
You're not kidding about being surrounded by guns and ammunition. In my location there are 1 and 2/3 guns for every single person.
Edited on 26-05-2020 02:50
26-05-2020 03:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: If the words "well regulated" were omitted how would that help a tyrannical government to oppress a state or locality?

If We the People can only drill and train and practice at the pleasure of the tyrannical government,...
Sounded totally backwards to me but I get it now. The term "regulated" has changed in it's meaning. (reference at bottom)

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: We the People defining ...well-regulated. Ergo, it is not appropriate for there to be any sort of government definition to be imposed
Ah! so you are saying it's strictly informal, not "written down" kind of a cheering to booing organic response from the crowd.
...how did you get THAT from what I wrote?
From the idea that "We The People's Definition" cannot be the "Government Definition". A regulation is formed by our representative government and written down into law. That is how We The Poeple establish regulations. Again the word "regulated" means something different in 2020 doesn't it?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Your own interpretation lacks the justification for a right to any and all arms without regulation.
Which arms does my interpretation preclude?
None, of course, that's your take on it. However the amendment can be followed to the letter by allowing some, but not all, arms.

IBdaMann wrote:"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." It is the strongest language of the entire Constitution.
Not sure how you find the 2nd amendment to be stronger than the 1st. Congress can't even make a law at the top of the 1st amendment and you have the right of the state to regulate in the 2nd. You also have language like "shall not be denied or abridged" elsewhere where it's made clear that not only can you not deny it outright you can't diminish it at all.

But really this is all silly because the constitution provided for interpretation in Article III.

"Article III of the U.S. Constitution
The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court,..."

There you have it.

The Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788

In 1803 it was the Superme Court that interpreted the constitution for the first time finding Congress had passed a law that was unconstitutional. This shows where the authority to do that is found. (not alter, interpret)

Now I agree completely that there is no question in the US there is a right be armed. If someone doesn't like it they'll need to get an amendment to the constitution, overturning the 2nd amendment passed. Just as we did with voting rights for women, prohibition and the repeal of it, and so on.

However, you, ITN, and any NRA advocate never want to clarify where you draw the line in a world with terrorism and nuclear weapons on the "Arms" spectrum of nuttiness.

Into the Night wrote: 'Regulate' does not mean 'oligarchy'.
You almost said 'Regulate' does not mean 'regulations' there didn't you ITN? Oligarchy meaning a small group control something, which has not at any point come up in the conversation. We are talking about the government: Federal, State, City. Those are not "oligarchies". True judicial activism to the point of courts making sh#t up certainly would qualify.

Anyway I found a reference (you should try that) and you guys are correct that "regulation" did not actually mean laws/rules/"regulations" at all at the time, but rather effective/ready.
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

So I was certainly wrong about that. The meaning of words does change over time and reading laws requires a historical context. Thankfully we have a court to do this important work and it's not up to us!

To clear, so you don't continue to claim I don't admit it, I STAND CORRECTED on my misreading of the 2nd amendment. No "regulations" are implied.
Edited on 26-05-2020 04:09
26-05-2020 04:15
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: If the words "well regulated" were omitted how would that help a tyrannical government to oppress a state or locality?

If We the People can only drill and train and practice at the pleasure of the tyrannical government,...
Sounded totally backwards to me but I get it now. The term "regulated" has changed in it's meaning. (reference at bottom)

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: We the People defining ...well-regulated. Ergo, it is not appropriate for there to be any sort of government definition to be imposed
Ah! so you are saying it's strictly informal, not "written down" kind of a cheering to booing organic response from the crowd.
...how did you get THAT from what I wrote?
From the idea that "We The People's Definition" cannot be the "Government Definition". A regulation is formed by our representative government and written down into law. That is how We The Poeple establish regulations. Again the word "regulated" means something different in 2020 doesn't it?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Your own interpretation lacks the justification for a right to any and all arms without regulation.
Which arms does my interpretation preclude?
None, of course, that's your take on it. However the regulation can be followed by allowing some, but not all, arms.

IBdaMann wrote:"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." It is the strongest language of the entire Constitution.
Not sure how you find the 2nd amendment to be stronger than the 1st. Congress can't even make a law at the top of the 1st amendment and you have the right of the state to regulate in the 2nd. You also have language like "shall not be denied or abridged" elsewhere where it's made clear that not only can you not deny it outright you can't diminish it at all.

But really this is all silly because the constitution provided for interpretation in Article III.

"Article III of the U.S. Constitution
The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court,..."

There you have it.

The Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788

In 1803 it was the Superme Court that interpreted the constitution for the first time finding Congress had passed a law that was unconstitutional. This shows where the authority to do that is found. (not alter, interpret)

Now I agree completely that there is no question in the US there is a right be armed. If someone doesn't like it they'll need to get an amendment to the constitution, overturning the 2nd amendment passed. Just as we did with voting rights for women, prohibition and the repeal of it, and so on.

However, you, ITN, and any NRA advocate never want to clarify where you draw the line in a world with terrorism and nuclear weapons on the "Arms" spectrum of nuttiness.

Into the Night wrote: 'Regulate' does not mean 'oligarchy'.
You almost said 'Regulate' does not mean 'regulations' there didn't you ITN? Oligarchy meaning a small group control something, which has not at any point come up in the conversation. We are talking about the government: Federal, State, City. Those are not "oligarchies". True judicial activism to the point of courts making sh#t up certainly would qualify.

Anyway I found a reference (you should try that) and you guys are correct that "regulation" did not actually mean laws/rules/"regulations" at all at the time, but rather effective/ready.
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

So I was certainly wrong about that. The meaning of words does change over time and reading laws requires a historical context. Thankfully we have a court to do this important work and it's not up to us!


Guns are great, everyone should own a few. But if we let the democrats put limits on them, or define which guns we can and can not have, we will be denied any of those really cool, futuristic guns, that will ultimately be developed. We aren't likely to keep throwing lead around forever. We don't want a law, that states we can only own and use specific firearms, when better weapons will always be developed.
26-05-2020 07:52
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
There have been many cases through the decades and centuries which have decided that it is improper for one person's rights to infringe on another person's rights. For example, in the right to free speech, it is not acceptable to yell fire in a crowded theatre when there is no danger of fire. Such yelling would be excessive. Similarly, in the case of the right to a militia and the right to bear arms, if a person is in danger from someone, or a group of people, with excessive weaponry, that would be a case where a militia would be appropriate. If a person is in danger from a single person with modest weaponry, that would be a case for the right of an individual to bear arms such as a pistol or rifle or shotgun. An individual defending himself against modest weaponry with a tank, an automatic weapon, a bazooka, or a bump stock would be excessive (as in hollering fire in a crowded theatre would be excessive).
Bottom line, the word "reasonable" has great power in the law. One must have perspective and proportionality in all cases.
26-05-2020 08:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
keepit wrote:Bottom line, the word "reasonable" has great power in the law. One must have perspective and proportionality in all cases.

Exactly. It requires that all people who own tanks not use them unreasonably.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-05-2020 13:49
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(573)
Nice humanity Keepit
26-05-2020 14:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
keepit wrote:An individual defending himself against modest weaponry with a tank, an automatic weapon, a bazooka, or a bump stock would be excessive
We have a system now in which you cannot buy a bazooka. This is accepted by the NRA and nearly all gun enthusiasts (there's always a few cooks of course).

The weapons legally available would be nearly useless against a modern military.

About the only think the NRA fights for is a higher body count the next time there is a mass shooting.
27-05-2020 02:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
In 1803 the Supreme Court itself established the doctrine of Judicial Review and has been exercising that power ever since. Marbury v. Madison.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution. They do not have authority to usurp that authority either.
keepit wrote:
My attorney says i deserve an Honorary Law Degree. I'm still waiting for it.
Judicial review is defined as the power to interpret the Constitution.

No court has the authority to interpret or change the Constitution. That authority belongs only with the States, the owners of the Constitution, and through them, the people.
keepit wrote:
Also ITN. Maybe you can't interpret the frame of mind of the framers but i can

You don't get to speak for the dead. You only get to speak for you.
keepit wrote:
ITN,
You're not kidding about being surrounded by guns and ammunition. In my location there are 1 and 2/3 guns for every single person.

...and you seem to think that's a problem.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-05-2020 03:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: If the words "well regulated" were omitted how would that help a tyrannical government to oppress a state or locality?

If We the People can only drill and train and practice at the pleasure of the tyrannical government,...
Sounded totally backwards to me but I get it now. The term "regulated" has changed in it's meaning. (reference at bottom)

No, it hasn't. Not one iota. 'Regulated' does not mean 'oligarchy'.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: We the People defining ...well-regulated. Ergo, it is not appropriate for there to be any sort of government definition to be imposed
Ah! so you are saying it's strictly informal, not "written down" kind of a cheering to booing organic response from the crowd.
...how did you get THAT from what I wrote?
From the idea that "We The People's Definition" cannot be the "Government Definition". A regulation is formed by our representative government and written down into law.

An illegal law is not law. You don't get to dictate what guns people carry. The United States is not a democracy.
tmiddles wrote:
That is how We The Poeple establish regulations.

WRONG. The United States is not a democracy.
tmiddles wrote:
Again the word "regulated" means something different in 2020 doesn't it?

No.
tmiddles wrote:
None, of course, that's your take on it. However the amendment can be followed to the letter by allowing some, but not all, arms.

There is no clause in the 2nd amendment that discusses what type of arm, how many of them, or the manufacture or make of any arm. All guns are legal.
tmiddles wrote:
Not sure how you find the 2nd amendment to be stronger than the 1st.

Contextomy fallacy. Mantra 16b. He said the language is stronger, not the amendment itself.
tmiddles wrote:
Congress can't even make a law at the top of the 1st amendment and you have the right of the state to regulate in the 2nd.

'Regulate' does not mean 'right'. Redefinition fallacy. Mantra 10.
tmiddles wrote:
You also have language like "shall not be denied or abridged" elsewhere where it's made clear that not only can you not deny it outright you can't diminish it at all.

Divisional error fallacy. Mantra 16c.
tmiddles wrote:
But really this is all silly because the constitution provided for interpretation in Article III.

No court has the authority to interpret or change the Constitution.
tmiddles wrote:
"Article III of the U.S. Constitution
The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court,..."

Mantra 4c. Not Article III. Nothing in this portion grants the authority to interpret or change the Constitution.
tmiddles wrote:
However, you, ITN, and any NRA advocate never want to clarify where you draw the line in a world with terrorism and nuclear weapons on the "Arms" spectrum of nuttiness.

All guns are legal. You don't get to speak for the NRA or any member of the NRA. You only get to speak for you. Mantra 34a...
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote: 'Regulate' does not mean 'oligarchy'.
You almost said 'Regulate' does not mean 'regulations' there didn't you ITN?

'Regulate' does not mean 'regulations'. Regulations, however, MUST comply with the constitutions they are written under. No regulation can change a constitution.
tmiddles wrote:
Oligarchy meaning a small group control something, which has not at any point come up in the conversation.

Yes it has. You are advocating exactly that, liar.
tmiddles wrote:
We are talking about the government: Federal, State, City. Those are not "oligarchies".

You want to make them oligarchies, liar.
tmiddles wrote:
True judicial activism to the point of courts making sh#t up certainly would qualify.

Which is why no court can interpret or change the Constitution.
tmiddles wrote:
Anyway I found a reference (you should try that) and you guys are correct that "regulation" did not actually mean laws/rules/"regulations" at all at the time, but rather effective/ready.
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

CNN cannot define 'regulate' or 'regulations'. False authority fallacy. Mantra 4a...4b...
tmiddles wrote:
So I was certainly wrong about that. The meaning of words does change over time and reading laws requires a historical context.

The meaning of 'regulate' has not changed.
tmiddles wrote:
Thankfully we have a court to do this important work and it's not up to us!

No court has authority to interpret or change the Constitution. See Article III.
tmiddles wrote:
To clear, so you don't continue to claim I don't admit it, I STAND CORRECTED on my misreading of the 2nd amendment. No "regulations" are implied.

Lie. Your entire post is about justifying laws as 'regulations' of tyranny.

No argument presented. False authority fallacies. RQAA. Justification of tyranny.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-05-2020 03:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
There have been many cases through the decades and centuries which have decided that it is improper for one person's rights to infringe on another person's rights. For example, in the right to free speech, it is not acceptable to yell fire in a crowded theatre when there is no danger of fire.

The federal government has no authority to pass any law prohibiting yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. The States do, however, if and only if their constitutions grant them that authority. The 1st amendment does not apply to the States. Only to Congress.
keepit wrote:
Such yelling would be excessive.

It is also rude. So is use of a cell phone during a movie, talking during a play or a movie, and many other bad habits you see in theaters.
keepit wrote:
Similarly, in the case of the right to a militia and the right to bear arms, if a person is in danger from someone, or a group of people, with excessive weaponry, that would be a case where a militia would be appropriate. If a person is in danger from a single person with modest weaponry, that would be a case for the right of an individual to bear arms such as a pistol or rifle or shotgun. An individual defending himself against modest weaponry with a tank, an automatic weapon, a bazooka, or a bump stock would be excessive (as in hollering fire in a crowded theatre would be excessive).

Nope. There is no clause in the 2nd amendment that defines what is 'excessive'. All guns are legal. All weapons are legal. It is legal to own fully automatic weapons, tanks, and even bazookas. There are even clubs where such enthusiasts join to drive their tanks, shoot their machine guns, or shoot their bazookas. I know a nice gal that built her own flamethrower. The thing will shoot 50 feet.

It is also legal to own a bump stock. Some people don't even need a bump stock. They just use their fat gut.

keepit wrote:
Bottom line, the word "reasonable" has great power in the law.

There is no word 'reasonable' anywhere in the 2nd amendment. You cannot use 'reasonable' to overrule the 2nd amendment.
keepit wrote:
One must have perspective and proportionality in all cases.

There is no word 'perspective' or 'proportional' or 'proportionality' or even 'case' anywhere in the 2nd amendment. You cannot override the 2nd amendment by using these words either.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-05-2020 03:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:An individual defending himself against modest weaponry with a tank, an automatic weapon, a bazooka, or a bump stock would be excessive
We have a system now in which you cannot buy a bazooka.

You can buy a bazooka. They are completely legal.
tmiddles wrote:
This is accepted by the NRA

You don't to speak for the NRA or any of its members. You only get to speak for you. Mantra 24.
tmiddles wrote:
and nearly all gun enthusiasts

You don't get to speak for gun enthusiasts. You only get to speak for you. Mantra 24.
tmiddles wrote:
The weapons legally available would be nearly useless against a modern military.

They are the same weapons as the modern military. There is no clause in the 2nd amendment mentioning categories of weapons for 'military'.

All guns are legal. All weapons are legal.

tmiddles wrote:
About the only think the NRA fights for is a higher body count the next time there is a mass shooting.

You don't get to speak for the NRA or any of its members. Mantras 24...9a...21...

No argument presented. RQAA. False authority fallacies. Justification of tyranny. Hoplophobia.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-05-2020 03:52
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Working overtime ITN and still misinterpreting almost everything, including the Constitution.
27-05-2020 04:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote:About the only think the NRA fights for is a higher body count the next time there is a mass shooting.

Incorrect. That is your position and the position of the DNC. All mass shootings occur in defenslesness zones and you want to build on that success by expanding defenselessness zones into one big national defenselessness zone.

The NRA, on the other hand, pushes for people to become trained and qualified in firearm usage and safety, in self defense, in hunting, in proper law enforcement and simple recreational shooting. The NRA is the country's single strongest factor in preventing death and injury from firearms, which is why you and the DNC are so insanely opposed to them.

You want death, terror and lawlessness and the NRA wants safety, order and the rule of law. Of course, you are on the wrong side of the issue.
Attached image:

27-05-2020 06:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote: But really this is all silly because the constitution provided for interpretation in Article III.

"Article III of the U.S. Constitution
The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court,..."


keepit wrote: Working overtime ITN and still misinterpreting almost everything, including the Constitution.

I have a question for the two of you. I see you both strongly asserting that the Constitution clearly specifies the Judicial branch as having power to "interpret" all laws, including the Constitution itself.

Where do you see the word "interpret" in the Constitution? If you don't find it there, are you simply interpreting the word "interpret" into the Constitution? Are you authorized under the Constitution to interpret the word "interpret" into the Constitution?


I only ask because gfm7175 and I were having a fireside reading of the Constitution and we just couldn't find the word "interpret" in there anywhere. And if gfm7175 can't find it while sitting in the catbird seat, it's most likely not there.

.
Attached image:

27-05-2020 07:02
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
IBD
I don't know where you're from but here in the us in 1803 the Supreme Court gave itself the right of judicial review which gave the Court the right to interpret the Constitution. It has been doing so ever since. You can look up judicial review in wikipedia. I looked up the part in the Constitution that gave the Supreme Court that right. I can't remember exactly but there has never been a serious case made against the Supreme Court having that right. Go ahead and try to make a case against it.

According to wiki there are 583 volumes of cases they have reviewed and another 16 volumes that haven't been completed.
Edited on 27-05-2020 07:08
27-05-2020 07:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
keepit wrote: IBD, I don't know where you're from but here in the us in 1803 the Supreme Court gave itself the right ... blah, blah, blah [irrelevant babble deleted]

keepit, I don't know where you're from but they should get an education system pronto! Literacy is a very good thing. You might think that an education is expensive, but you're finding out the true cost of ignorance.

The question is about the word "interpret." Where do you see it in the Constitution? [stay focused].



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-05-2020 10:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
Where do you see the word "interpret" in the Constitution? .
it was the role of a Judge to interpret laws prior to the Constitution. Interpretation is part of judgement.

For example the term "regulated" has changed considerably in it's meaning. The NRA must rely on judges to correctly iterpret this language for it's intended meaning when the Constitution was drafted.

To skip interpreting the language and simply read the 2nd amendment in todays language would mean that regulated is to have regulations.

Judges must also interpret how to deal with laws that conflict with one another. Take the 2nd and 4th amendments as applied to Waco.
27-05-2020 17:29
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
keepit wrote:
Working overtime ITN and still misinterpreting almost everything, including the Constitution.

No, that's what YOU are doing...

I feel it's going to be a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time before you manage to get your second hit...
27-05-2020 17:37
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: But really this is all silly because the constitution provided for interpretation in Article III.

"Article III of the U.S. Constitution
The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court,..."


keepit wrote: Working overtime ITN and still misinterpreting almost everything, including the Constitution.

I have a question for the two of you. I see you both strongly asserting that the Constitution clearly specifies the Judicial branch as having power to "interpret" all laws, including the Constitution itself.

Where do you see the word "interpret" in the Constitution?

Very good question. I've read through the document numerous times and never have I come across the word "interpret", even in Article III which is specifically about the Judiciary.

IBdaMann wrote:
If you don't find it there, are you simply interpreting the word "interpret" into the Constitution?

Another good question! Indeed, they ARE interpreting the word "interpret" into the Constitution. I thought they claimed that SCOTUS had that power...??

IBdaMann wrote:
Are you authorized under the Constitution to interpret the word "interpret" into the Constitution?

Too many good questions... You're putting me into "good question overload"


IBdaMann wrote:
I only ask because gfm7175 and I were having a fireside reading of the Constitution and we just couldn't find the word "interpret" in there anywhere. And if gfm7175 can't find it while sitting in the catbird seat, it's most likely not there.

.

Indeed. I see it nowhere. My feet are getting a bit toasty though, seeing as I am perched upon the metal of a lit fireplace...
27-05-2020 17:43
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
keepit wrote:
IBD
I don't know where you're from

His location is irrelevant.

keepit wrote:
but here in the us in 1803 the Supreme Court gave itself the right of judicial review which gave the Court the right to interpret the Constitution.

Did SCOTUS have the power, UNDER the Constitution, to grant themselves the sole right to interpret the Constitution?

keepit wrote:
It has been doing so ever since.

Irrelevant.

keepit wrote:
You can look up judicial review in wikipedia.

You cannot use Wikipedia as a source with me. In this case, the Constitution of the United States is the authoritative source, and is the only source that I will accept.

Where is the word "interpret" in the US Constitution? Where, in the US Constitution, has SCOTUS been granted the sole power to interpret the Constitution?

keepit wrote:
I looked up the part in the Constitution that gave the Supreme Court that right.

LIE. Ask me how I know that you are lying......

keepit wrote:
I can't remember exactly but there has never been a serious case made against the Supreme Court having that right. Go ahead and try to make a case against it.

Already did, just now.

keepit wrote:
According to wiki there are 583 volumes of cases they have reviewed and another 16 volumes that haven't been completed.

Irrelevant.

Answer the questions presented to you.
27-05-2020 17:46
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Where do you see the word "interpret" in the Constitution? .
it was the role of a Judge to interpret laws prior to the Constitution. Interpretation is part of judgement.

For example the term "regulated" has changed considerably in it's meaning. The NRA must rely on judges to correctly iterpret this language for it's intended meaning when the Constitution was drafted.

To skip interpreting the language and simply read the 2nd amendment in todays language would mean that regulated is to have regulations.

Judges must also interpret how to deal with laws that conflict with one another. Take the 2nd and 4th amendments as applied to Waco.

Avoidance.

Answer IBD's question.
27-05-2020 18:01
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Always with the semantics.
Interpret is just a word. Would you prefer a sentence that serves the same purpose (describes the same activity) as the word interpret. It would still be the same. It doesn't matter what you call it, the Supreme Court does it.
By the way, if you think you've made your case, you haven't.
If it was easy to make a case against "interpet" someone would have done it in the last 217 years.


The precedent of having the Supreme Court "interpret" the Constitution has been set and acted on for 217 years. Good luck to you.
Edited on 27-05-2020 18:22
27-05-2020 18:37
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
keepit wrote:
Always with the semantics.

Of course semantics are involved...

keepit wrote:
Interpret is just a word.

Indeed it is a word. Not one that is found in the US Constitution, however...

keepit wrote:
Would you prefer a sentence that serves the same purpose (describes the same activity) as the word interpret. It would still be the same.

It doesn't matter what I prefer. All that matters is the text of the US Constitution.

keepit wrote:
By the way, if you think you've made your case, you haven't.

"Nuh uh" (by itself) is not a valid counterargument.

keepit wrote:
If it was easy to make a case against "interpet" someone would have done it in the last 217 years.

Plenty of people have done so, myself included.

keepit wrote:
The precedent of having the Supreme Court "interpret" the Constitution has been set and acted on for 217 years. Good luck to you.

Irrelevant.
27-05-2020 19:32
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Dream on.
27-05-2020 21:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
Always with the semantics.

You keep bringing up semantics. Yet you complain when you do.
keepit wrote:
Interpret is just a word.

Words have meaning.
keepit wrote:
Would you prefer a sentence that serves the same purpose (describes the same activity) as the word interpret. It would still be the same. It doesn't matter what you call it, the Supreme Court does it.

The Supreme Court is not authorized to interpret or change the Constitution.
keepit wrote:
By the way, if you think you've made your case, you haven't.

I don't need to 'make my case'. The Constitution does it for me. Read it.
keepit wrote:
If it was easy to make a case against "interpet" someone would have done it in the last 217 years.

It is easy now. Read the Constitution of the United States.
keepit wrote:
The precedent of having the Supreme Court "interpret" the Constitution has been set and acted on for 217 years. Good luck to you.

Argument from randU. Lie. Precedent does not change or cancel the Constitution. The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-05-2020 21:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
Dream on.

That your attempts to implement fascism by oligarchy in the United States will be thwarted? Of course I will.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
27-05-2020 22:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote: it was the role of a Judge blah, blah, blah...

I'll say the same thing to you that I said to keepit. Stay focused on the word "interpret." It's not in the Constitution, is it? Nothing in the Constitution granst the power to "interpret" because that word is not in there.

tmiddles wrote: For example the term "regulated" ...

... specifically appears in the Constitution.

tmiddles wrote: Judges must also interpret how to deal with laws ...

... which presumes they have the power to "interpret" in the first place ... which is never granted by the Constitution, correct?

Our basis must be what is written.

.
Attached image:

27-05-2020 22:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...the role of a Judge to interpret laws...

Avoidance.
synonyms are always relevant gfm. What if I said that the 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to a gun, because it doesn't say guns anywhere in the Constitution?
27-05-2020 23:05
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: it was the role of a Judge blah, blah, blah...

I'll say the same thing to you that I said to keepit. Stay focused on the word "interpret." It's not in the Constitution, is it? Nothing in the Constitution granst the power to "interpret" because that word is not in there.

tmiddles wrote: For example the term "regulated" ...

... specifically appears in the Constitution.

tmiddles wrote: Judges must also interpret how to deal with laws ...

... which presumes they have the power to "interpret" in the first place ... which is never granted by the Constitution, correct?

Our basis must be what is written.

.

Indeed, otherwise, what use is the Constitution if SCOTUS can simply interpret it into saying whatever they wish it to say?

The light that I am perched upon is quite clearly illuminating the issue at hand, the issue which the various parrots keep avoiding as if it's been exposed to the rice-a-rona flu.
Edited on 27-05-2020 23:22
Page 9 of 20<<<7891011>>>





Join the debate One reason for social distancing/isolation:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Safe Distancing Video004-04-2020 06:28
Wind power is the earliest way to generate power, but there's a reason it stopped being used.1321-02-2020 20:12
Reason why companies are not converting to 100% electric, focusing on Porsche1806-12-2019 23:29
Is reason for climate change correct?4830-08-2019 03:14
Why we won't approach the real reason behind climate change.6819-08-2019 07:18
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact