|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Pravus Angelus 
Codito Ergo Sum
Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: May 2002
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 29 2002,22:47 |
|
   |
On the subject of individualism vs. the state. CK, you may find it strange to have the bill of rights pertain to individuals and groups, on a per right basis and I'm certainly not going to take a position here. however, if you claim author's intent, which has been your justification all along, then maybe you'd like to demonstrate how it is that you know the intent of the author so well?
| Quote | | Madison argues in Federalist #10 that the people are rash and shouldn't be trusted, but what should be trusted and what must be protected (in latter papers with John Jay), are the States! Now reread that passage, it makes sense. |
It doesn't even matter whether Wix believes gun rights are an individual right or a group right, the point he's making is that the author's intent (hence, the reference to madisson) seems to be to not trust the individual. You make claims to know the author's intent, but given that the framers of the constitution talked about what they were doing outside of the constitution itself and it is this (in part) that Wix is citing, the evidence certainly compels one to be inclined to believe Wix knows the author's intent better than you.
Amazingly, you will argue this to the death. It is however, merely a side issue. The point Wix is making is that one can discard the 2nd Amendment and still find a right to bear arms, and not only that, but this is exactly what the supreme court has done!
| Quote | | 9th amendment and US. v Curshank extended the right to own a gun past the second amendment (hence, revoking the 2nd amendment wouldn't get rid of gun rights |
see?
now...off of the side issue...and onto the actual argument at hand.
| Quote | AMENDMENT IX
"The enumeration in the consitution, of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or desparage others rettained by the people." |
which translates to:
1. Certain rights are enumerated in the constitution
2. Certain (non-enumerated) rights are retained by the people
3. These rights (the enumerated ones) shall not deny or desparage others [rights] retained by the people.
One can draw a fairly reasonable inference here..., since enumerated rights cannot deny non-enumerated ones, these non-enumerated rights must exist. In other words, the people retain some rights not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Given judicial review (which is a whole nother little debate) and given that there are rights not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, the supreme court has the constitutional authority to interpret implicit rights, such as the right to privacy, etc.
In fact (and here comes the part that will blow your mind </simplified sarcasm>) the supreme court has the authority to interpret the constitution and find these non-enumerated rights outside the scope of author's intent. It doesn't even matter if the framers of the constitution believed in the explicit right to privacy. The 9th amendment gives the supreme court the authority (with judicial review) the find the right to privacy.
--------------
"Lately, the only thing keeping me from being a serial killer is my distaste for manual labor"
--Dilbert
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Darth Liberus
Emperor of Detnet
Group: Members
Posts: 2246
Joined: Jan. 1970
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 29 2002,23:54 |
|
 |
i wasn't arguing against you, wix. I'm saying that the framers were very, very good at what they did. They were well aware of their own fallibility and the fallibility of the people. They incorporated that awareness into the Constitution itself. That's why we have representative democracy instead of direct democracy. That's why we have checks and balances. Etc.
I'm statiting that if you're looking for author's intent, the best place to look is in the constitution itself. It's not like they just sat down over beer one day and wrote up a document that would become the law of the land. It took MONTHS for them to agree on it, and a lot of their debates were over the exact wording of things... and the ferocity of their debates made Detnet look like Sunday school.
The Founders were human, to be sure. But they were also brilliant. The Constitution was devised to be open to interpretation in some areas and closed to it in others.
For example, in the Bill of Rights, Amendments I, III, V, and VI are worded very strictly. Amendments II, IV, VII, VIII, IX, and X are more open to interpretation. This is not an accident, it's by design.
As for the Founders being God-fearing men... if you would've called them that, they would've fallen out of their seats laughing at you. There is a noticable lack of words like "God", "Lord", "our Saviour", and "Jesus Christ" in the Constitution.
A lot of people misread the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence - they assume that Jefferson meant God. Creator was a popular term in the Enlightenment to mean "whatever created us" and was usually taken as Nature; it was an agnostic/atheist term and stood in direct opposition to the concept of "God."
If Jefferson had meant God, he would've used that word instead...
and let's not even get in to how much shit the Founders talked about religious folk in their private letters. They hated the religious right even more than I do 
Edited by Darth Liberus on Jan. 01 1970,01:00
--------------
"let's travel around with our laptops, plug in, and destroy the very fabric of modern reality." -a2n3d7y
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
wix
politically unstable
Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: Jun. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 30 2002,03:10 |
|
|
The vaugeness is an interesting point, it really does even feed the assumption that more interpretation is good. Since the authors left it vauge on purpose they chaged the US Sup. Court with the duty to adapt.
As for my religious references, I was speaking more sarcastically, hoping to beat out the notion that God wrote the consitution.
--------------
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session."--Judge Gideon J. Tucker, 1866.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
C_Puppy
Like sum o' DEES NUTZ
Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: Sep. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 01 2002,13:26 |
|
|
| Quote | As for the Founders being God-fearing men... if you would've called them that, they would've fallen out of their seats laughing at you. There is a noticable lack of words like "God", "Lord", "our Saviour", and "Jesus Christ" in the Constitution.
A lot of people misread the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence - they assume that Jefferson meant God. Creator was a popular term in the Enlightenment to mean "whatever created us" and was usually taken as Nature; it was an agnostic/atheist term and stood in direct opposition to the concept of "God."
If Jefferson had meant God, he would've used that word instead...
and let's not even get in to how much shit the Founders talked about religious folk in their private letters. They hated the religious right even more than I do
|
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!RIGHT FUCKIN ON!!!!!!!!!!
Darth - I may have disagreed with some of your statements in the past- But as far as this one is concerned-- YOU FUCKIN ROCK
Sorry, but this is what I have been arguing about with co-workers for days now. I am really starting to fear for the country if most people have as little of a grasp of their begings as this controversy seems to have brought to my attention.
I think Heir Renquist and the conservative majority in the supreme court will over-turn the Pledge ruling, but I think it is nice that some people know what is what.
Call me a populist, but Fuck is a wonderfully useful word 
Edited by C_Puppy on Jan. 01 1970,01:00
--------------
"We're all monkeys......HEY! Get Outta my CHAIR!" - 12 Monkeys
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,02:18 |
|
|
hmmmmmmm........I am very suspicious of that claim for some reason. I'm not going to try to discredit it until I look into it first though.
However, you must realize that judeo-christianity is the culture of the united states. the 2nd amendment was written so that the federal government would not create a national church, and also to let people excersize religion freely.
ok, pause for a second. even if you don't agree with the first part, do you agree with the second part of "my interpretation" of the establishment clause? to not prohibit the excercise of religion?
well, kids aren't forced to say "under god" in the pledge, nor were they forced to join school prayer back in the day. the argument that "well kids are coerced by other kids" is bunk because people have free will to act as they please. it is not the government's job to shield every individual from one another. anyway, so saying "under god" in the pledge is not violating the second amendment. however, REMOVING the under god part, just like removing school prayer, prohibits the free excercise of the majority of the populations religious beliefs. now you may not like the idea of tyranny of the majority, but IMO, a tyranny of the minorty, or the rule-of-the-most-offended, is far worse.
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
Bozeman
Guardian
Group: Members
Posts: 762
Joined: Jun. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,03:45 |
|
|
| Quote (CatKnight @ 01 July 2002,22:18) | | well, kids aren't forced to say "under god" in the pledge, nor were they forced to join school prayer back in the day. the argument that "well kids are coerced by other kids" is bunk because people have free will to act as they please. |
Kids of the elementary school age have a real problem with peer pressure. If the whole class says "under God" they will probably say it too. I was uncomfortabel saying it, and even I felt forced as a little kid.
--------------
It's the pop-o-matic bubble, motherfucker!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
Bozeman
Guardian
Group: Members
Posts: 762
Joined: Jun. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,04:00 |
|
|
| Quote (CatKnight @ 01 July 2002,22:18) | | anyway, so saying "under god" in the pledge is not violating the second amendment. however, REMOVING the under god part, just like removing school prayer, prohibits the free excercise of the majority of the populations religious beliefs. now you may not like the idea of tyranny of the majority, but IMO, a tyranny of the minorty, or the rule-of-the-most-offended, is far worse. |
I'm going to pretend that you got confused from above where we suddenly switched to the 2nd amendment, and you meant to say "first amendment." That's the only way it makes sense. This response will be made as if you said "first amendment."
Saying "under God" is a clear promotion of a deity. I fail to see how this is not a violation of the establishment clause, and therefore, the first amendment. I also fail to see how not being able to say "under God" prohibits the free excersice of religion. They can still go to church, can't they?
CK, you belive the constitution gives freedom of religion, but not freedom FROM religion. I think that an integral part of any freedom to choose is the freedom to not make a choice. For example, you can choose not to vote. Likewise, you can choose not to have a religion. This isn't a tyrrany of the minority, it's simply not letting the majority force God on the minority. It IS forced. Every schoolchild recites it every morning. Some even had to go to the office to read it over the speakers along with the whole school. (usually a group of 5-6) Try not saying it with the whole school, including the principal listening. (...and having the mindset of a child. I'm sure most detnetters who would be forced to say something like this would tell the principal to fuck off. Kids don't have the privildge of our life experience.)
--------------
It's the pop-o-matic bubble, motherfucker!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
TheTaxMan
Controversial Thug
Group: Members
Posts: 874
Joined: Apr. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,04:02 |
|
|
Becasue the majority is always right...
The only thing that is tyrannical at this point is assuming that just becasue more people are chrisitan than anything else and the government should pander to to them.
That is bullshit.
The majority didn't decide to sail to this rock and the majority can't decide that the government should endorse christianity because it's what the practice. The majority of this country is caucasian. We don't put "for all the white folk" on our money.
This isn't about little kids saying the pledge. It's about the government endorsing religion.
Edited by TheTaxMan on Jan. 01 1970,01:00
--------------
Four billion years of evolution and this is all we have to show for it?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
demonk
The other white meat
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,04:55 |
|
|
Exactly TaxMan! They are not saying "No one is allowed to say 'under God' when saying the Pledge". They are just saying that the LAW passed in 1954 is unconstituational. It makes the federal government endorse a monotheistic deity. And as Bozeman said, part of freedom is the freedom to not choose.
And how does the removal of that line prohibit the practice of religion? Please, explain it to me. I don't see them putting a law in saying it is illegal to say 'under God' when saying the Pledge. It just isn't part of the federally endorsed version anymore. If little Johny wants to say it during the Pledge, no police are going to come by and say "that's wrong! stop it!". Just because they don't endorse something religious doesn't mean they are hindering the free practice of that religion.
--------------
I'm just two people short of a threesome!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 02 2002,05:01 |
|
|
| Quote | | Kids of the elementary school age have a real problem with peer pressure. If the whole class says "under God" they will probably say it too. I was uncomfortabel saying it, and even I felt forced as a little kid. |
| Quote | | the argument that "well kids are coerced by other kids" is bunk because people have free will to act as they please. it is not the government's job to shield every individual from one another. |
I guess you just blanked out on that one, eh?
| Quote | | I'm going to pretend that you got confused from above where we suddenly switched to the 2nd amendment, and you meant to say "first amendment." That's the only way it makes sense. This response will be made as if you said "first amendment." |
lol my bad 
| Quote | | Saying "under God" is a clear promotion of a deity. |
correct.
| Quote | | I fail to see how this is not a violation of the establishment clause, and therefore, the first amendment. |
the reason you fail to see is because you are confused about the term "establishment". what the establishment clause is referring to is the creation of an official state religion that is part of the government. promoting a deity is not the same thing as establishing an official state religion.
| Quote | | I think that an integral part of any freedom to choose is the freedom to not make a choice. |
kids are free to not say the pledge. I'm sure you didn't say it on at least a few occasions. I know I did. We all went through the same school system, you know as well as I that there is no such peer coersion.
| Quote | | This isn't a tyrrany of the minority, it's simply not letting the majority force God on the minority. |
again, you seem to think that just because some people practice their religion, that it somehow interferes with the practice of others. this is not the case.
| Quote | | The only thing that is tyrannical at this point is assuming that just becasue more people are chrisitan than anything else and the government should pander to to them. |
how is that tyrannical? government pandering to a group is not tyranny!
I agree.
| Quote | | The majority didn't decide to sail to this rock... |
hey if you minority don't like it, go sail to your own rock!
| Quote | | It's about the government endorsing religion. |
I don't see anything in the constitution prohibiting this. If you want to add an amendment, it will take more then a panel of 5 wacko judges in the 9th circuit to do it.
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
