SmarterthanYou
rebel
now explain to us how you came to the conclusion that the new american people would write a constitution that restricted the governments powers only to then let the government define the limits of those powers
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
9th Circuit Court has ruled that there is no right to carry, openly or concealed
- Thread starter reagansghost
- Start date
now explain to us how you came to the conclusion that the new american people would write a constitution that restricted the governments powers only to then let the government define the limits of those powers
that means that if someone wants to be a dumbass and OD on heroin, that should be their dumbass choice.
Right, because when someone OD's, they're not harming someone else.
But when someone shoots up a crowd, they are harming someone else.
now explain to us how you came to the conclusion that the new american people would write a constitution that restricted the governments powers only to then let the government define the limits of those powers
Because they were making it all up as they went.
There was no template...there was no contemporary equivalent...everything they did was something they dreamed up or thought of in the moment.
Good ideas and bad ideas.
It was a lot of improvisation.
It's why the document has been amended 27 times.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
how?Right, because when someone OD's, they're not harming someone else.
But when someone shoots up a crowd, they are harming someone else.
not relevant to the discussion of self harm.
how?
Because they're overdosing themselves....
not relevant to the discussion of self harm.
Fair enough.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Because they were making it all up as they went.
There was no template...there was no contemporary equivalent...everything they did was something they dreamed up or thought of in the moment.
Good ideas and bad ideas.
It was a lot of improvisation.
they debated for a year and a half just to get the articles of confederation approved in 1777. then in 1787, after 10 years using that as a template, they found where they were lacking and created the constitution. Then they spent 10 months debating on the new Constitution to get it ratified in 1788. In all that time of experimentation, failure, reinvention, and ratification, not one single founder EVER claimed that the new Supreme Court was going to define the limits of their power or what the constitution meant. It was ALWAYS a document of we the people and I have a hard time believing that these founders would turn over their new document to the government they just created after having had the experience of tyranny from their old one.........
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Because they're overdosing themselves....
that's not explaining how it's harming others.........and believe me, I get how it can emotionally damage the family members, but how is that physically harming another person?
they debated for a year and a half just to get the articles of confederation approved in 1777. then in 1787, after 10 years using that as a template, they found where they were lacking and created the constitution. Then they spent 10 months debating on the new Constitution to get it ratified in 1788. In all that time of experimentation, failure, reinvention, and ratification, not one single founder EVER claimed that the new Supreme Court was going to define the limits of their power or what the constitution meant. It was ALWAYS a document of we the people and I have a hard time believing that these founders would turn over their new document to the government they just created after having had the experience of tyranny from their old one.........
Well, accept it because that's what they did.
Or don't accept it and continue to ram your head against the wall.
So yeah, they did make it all up as they went...that's why the document has been amended 27 times.
that's not explaining how it's harming others
I didn't say they were harming others. In fact, I said the exact opposite:
Right, because when someone OD's, they're not harming someone else.
Maybe the 9th. Circuit Court should read each individual state's constitutions...
Or the 10th under the states' police powers.
not one single founder EVER claimed that the new Supreme Court was going to define the limits of their power or what the constitution meant.
I think Article III is pretty clear and doesn't leave room for ambiguity:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Well, accept it because that's what they did.
no, they didn't. i get that you need to be controlled by government. told by government what you can and cannot do. but the framers of the constitution did not give the courts the authority to define the limits of their power. THAT is why they made the amendment process and THAT is why ONLY we the people can amend it
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I didn't say they were harming others. In fact, I said the exact opposite:
then what is the issue with you?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I think Article III is pretty clear and doesn't leave room for ambiguity:
and I think 'shall not be infringed' is pretty clear with no ambiguity
no, they didn't. i get that you need to be controlled by government. told by government what you can and cannot do. but the framers of the constitution did not give the courts the authority to define the limits of their power. THAT is why they made the amendment process and THAT is why ONLY we the people can amend it
Projecting your insecurities on me isn't going to help convince me of your argument.
And apparently, we do need government to tell us what to do because so many of us didn't wash our fucking hands or wear a goddamned mask, so we ended up with 30M positive COVID cases.
This pandemic is QED for government "telling you what to do" because you can't be relied upon to do the right thing on your own.
is why they made the amendment process and THAT is why ONLY we the people can amend it
You need a refresher: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
and I think 'shall not be infringed' is pretty clear with no ambiguity
Of course a well-regulated militia shouldn't be infringed, but you personally don't get to determine what an acceptable level of well regulation is.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Projecting your insecurities on me isn't going to help convince me of your argument.
And apparently, we do need government to tell us what to do because so many of us didn't wash our fucking hands or wear a goddamned mask, so we ended up with 30M positive COVID cases.
This pandemic is QED for government "telling you what to do" because you can't be relied upon to do the right thing on your own.
It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. — Justice Robert H. Jackson
SmarterthanYou
rebel
You need a refresher: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
"The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate"
the representatives of we the people and what USED to be representatives of the states, in other words, WE THE PEOPLE
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Of course a well-regulated militia shouldn't be infringed, but you personally don't get to determine what an acceptable level of well regulation is.
that's not what it says, since you're such a stickler for exact wording and seem to read that in to Art 3. It SPECIFICALLY says the right of the PEOPLE is what shall not be infringed.