(06-28-2010 09:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 07:44 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  The Bill of Rights was meant to restrain the Federal Government. The states were free to do as they pleased under their own constitutions (almost all of which have their own bill of rights of some sort) until activist judges created the nonsense of the incorporation doctrine. This decision today was activism at its best with conservative judges coming down for a conservative issue and crushing state's rights and strict construction.

I'm not a gun rights person, but I tend to come down somewhere to the right of Scalia on judicial interpretation. This case today is a disaster and only speaks to a reduction in state's rights. I am really disappointed how it came down.

I don't think you could be more wrong.

The states are NOT free to violate the Constitution...The rights of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed. Of course, convictions of crimes and court orders CAN give the state the right to do so, which is why background checks are perfectly legal, but you cannot BLANKETLY outlaw something specifically enumerated by the Constitution.

Explain exactly to me how maintaining a right we've had since 1776 is "activist"? I'm STILL waiting for someone to explain that. Your theory of taking away a state's right to regulate is close... but this bill doesn't do that. Much like the DC law they struck down, it simply means that you can't write a law that has the same effect as a ban of something protected by the constitution.

I can't help but think this is an attempt by tose that might agree with you to end-around abortion... and I am a states rights advocate as well. I just don't believe that the state can BAN something the Constitution allows... regulate/limit, yes... but not BAN.

or are you arguing we have the right to protect ourselves from the FEDERAL, but not the State governments?

Strange how you conveniently leave out the rest of it. Actually, it is not.

(06-28-2010 10:49 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:08 PM)RobertN Wrote:  The south shall rise again!

This may be the only thing you've ever gotten correct in all your posts on this forum.

Of course, I was being sarcastic. Your sorry asses would get smacked again. Hate to break the bad news to you. Seems like you guys never learn lessons from history.

(06-29-2010 12:08 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 10:49 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:08 PM)RobertN Wrote:  The south shall rise again!

This may be the only thing you've ever gotten correct in all your posts on this forum.

Quote:God save the South, God save the South,
Her altars and firesides, God save the South!
Now that the war is nigh, now that we arm to die,
Chanting our battle cry, "Freedom or death!"
Chanting our battle cry, "Freedom or death!"

Thanks for your view on the subject. As for that south crap, you guys lost get over it.

(06-29-2010 01:04 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(06-29-2010 12:08 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 10:49 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:08 PM)RobertN Wrote:  The south shall rise again!

This may be the only thing you've ever gotten correct in all your posts on this forum.

Quote:God save the South, God save the South,
Her altars and firesides, God save the South!
Now that the war is nigh, now that we arm to die,
Chanting our battle cry, "Freedom or death!"
Chanting our battle cry, "Freedom or death!"

Now.. now

You see New York, New Jersey, California all falling apart financially..
And you see the Southern States, by and large (but with some room for improvement) exercising fiscal restraint and responsible budgets...

Maybe God did save the South.

It also helps that the federal government gives you more than you pay in taxes. Maybe you should be thanking us Yankees instead of thanking God.

Always shocking that four justices can't follow the plan language of the constitution.

(06-29-2010 02:39 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 01:45 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:22 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  An armed society is a polite society.

That smaug is really polluting your brain.

What have you got against civil liberties, Robert?

I have nothing against civil liberties. I was commenting on your idiotic comment that a society would be more polite if the society was armed. Given that this society is already well armed, it certainly isn't a polite society.

Well, maybe not where YOU live.

(06-29-2010 03:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Your sorry asses would get smacked again.

What are you going to do -- carpet bomb us with stacks of flaming Treasury Bills?

Hurl unsold GM SUVs?

Threaten to implement the same government programs you used to destroy Detroit?

(06-28-2010 07:44 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:54 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:10 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:02 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 11:55 AM)Claw Wrote:  Actually they are not partying. What they are doing is wondering how any right explicitly granted in The Bill of Rights can go to a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court.

I do wonder how that is possible. But that's not something that we just learned about today. It has been true since the Heller decision a couple of years ago.

I will always believe that the federal constitution should not be used to infringe upon state sovereignty, and that if (say) Illinois wants to "ban" handguns, it should be allowed to do so.

Of course, I also think that states should be allowed to ban a whole lot of other things, too, contrary to existing SCOTUS precedent. The American people have chosen to acquiesce in those precedents, and I daresay they will acquiesce in this latest decision, too.

Come on now. We all know Claw is for big government and against states rights.

I am a states' rights advocate. In this case The Bill of Rights has given me as an individual a right, and that means the states have no right to infringe upon it.

The Bill of Rights was meant to restrain the Federal Government. The states were free to do as they pleased under their own constitutions (almost all of which have their own bill of rights of some sort) until activist judges created the nonsense of the incorporation doctrine. This decision today was activism at its best with conservative judges coming down for a conservative issue and crushing state's rights and strict construction.

I'm not a gun rights person, but I tend to come down somewhere to the right of Scalia on judicial interpretation. This case today is a disaster and only speaks to a reduction in state's rights. I am really disappointed how it came down.

The state's are free to their own constitutions and bill of rights, but the US Constitution sets the frame work for every person's rights that can't be violated by states.

(06-29-2010 08:15 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-29-2010 03:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Your sorry asses would get smacked again.

What are you going to do -- carpet bomb us with stacks of flaming Treasury Bills?

Hurl unsold GM SUVs?

Threaten to implement the same government programs you used to destroy Detroit?

that THAT Al Qaeda! IN YO FACE!!!!

(06-28-2010 02:38 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 02:32 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:31 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Rob, how in the world can you compare guns with slavery?

If the issue being discussed in ownership rights, it is actually pretty easy.

Inanimate objects and human beings?

I don't think Evil Knieval could have made that leap.

Dude it is not that big of a leap.

(06-29-2010 09:47 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 07:44 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:54 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:10 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:02 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 11:55 AM)Claw Wrote:  Actually they are not partying. What they are doing is wondering how any right explicitly granted in The Bill of Rights can go to a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court.

I do wonder how that is possible. But that's not something that we just learned about today. It has been true since the Heller decision a couple of years ago.

I will always believe that the federal constitution should not be used to infringe upon state sovereignty, and that if (say) Illinois wants to "ban" handguns, it should be allowed to do so.

Of course, I also think that states should be allowed to ban a whole lot of other things, too, contrary to existing SCOTUS precedent. The American people have chosen to acquiesce in those precedents, and I daresay they will acquiesce in this latest decision, too.

Come on now. We all know Claw is for big government and against states rights.

I am a states' rights advocate. In this case The Bill of Rights has given me as an individual a right, and that means the states have no right to infringe upon it.

The Bill of Rights was meant to restrain the Federal Government. The states were free to do as they pleased under their own constitutions (almost all of which have their own bill of rights of some sort) until activist judges created the nonsense of the incorporation doctrine. This decision today was activism at its best with conservative judges coming down for a conservative issue and crushing state's rights and strict construction.

I'm not a gun rights person, but I tend to come down somewhere to the right of Scalia on judicial interpretation. This case today is a disaster and only speaks to a reduction in state's rights. I am really disappointed how it came down.

The state's are free to their own constitutions and bill of rights, but the US Constitution sets the frame work for every person's rights that can't be violated by states.

That's what they teach you in elementary school because it is the case now. It is not historically or legally correct until 14th Amendment was adopted post-Civil War and doctrine of incorporation was created by Gitlow v. N.Y. in 1925.

(06-28-2010 10:22 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 09:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 07:44 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  The Bill of Rights was meant to restrain the Federal Government. The states were free to do as they pleased under their own constitutions (almost all of which have their own bill of rights of some sort) until activist judges created the nonsense of the incorporation doctrine. This decision today was activism at its best with conservative judges coming down for a conservative issue and crushing state's rights and strict construction.

I'm not a gun rights person, but I tend to come down somewhere to the right of Scalia on judicial interpretation. This case today is a disaster and only speaks to a reduction in state's rights. I am really disappointed how it came down.

I don't think you could be more wrong.

The states are NOT free to violate the Constitution...The rights of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed. Of course, convictions of crimes and court orders CAN give the state the right to do so, which is why background checks are perfectly legal, but you cannot BLANKETLY outlaw something specifically enumerated by the Constitution.

Explain exactly to me how maintaining a right we've had since 1776 is "activist"? I'm STILL waiting for someone to explain that. Your theory of taking away a state's right to regulate is close... but this bill doesn't do that. Much like the DC law they struck down, it simply means that you can't write a law that has the same effect as a ban of something protected by the constitution.

I can't help but think this is an attempt by tose that might agree with you to end-around abortion... and I am a states rights advocate as well. I just don't believe that the state can BAN something the Constitution allows... regulate/limit, yes... but not BAN.

or are you arguing we have the right to protect ourselves from the FEDERAL, but not the State governments?

Legally the Bill of Rights did not extend to the states until the Supreme Court decided the 14th Amendment meant it did. For instance, the 5th amendment requires a grand jury to indict...however that is not incorporated against the states. A state can indict you for a crime simply by issuing an indictment (technically an "information") without a grand jury; a federal prosecutor must get a grand jury indictment to prosecute someone.

Look at the 1st Amendment. It says "Congress shall make no law..." The Supreme Court, via 14th Amendment incorporation, has decided that 1st Amendment actually says "Congress, the states, and subdivisions of states shall make no law..." In other words, as drafted, the Constitution allows a city to put up a Nativity scene and promote religion all it wants to or allow a state school board to mandate the teaching of Christianity and Bible classes in public schools. Then the Supreme Court incorporated the 1st Amendment against the states, meaning that the states/counties/cities could no longer do the above.*

There are a lot of law professors and jurists that love incorporation. I think it is an extreme stretch of the 14th Amendment and an end-around of the democratic process. If the people want it to be illegal for a public school to teach the Bible, they are perfectly capable of electing people to pass that law. Judicial activism is illegitimate and undemocratic. Sometimes the result is one you like, such as here by confirming gun rights, but oftentimes it's not. And this decision is another blow against federalism, which is damned near dead.

*This also gets into another debate about what the meaning of "respecting an establishment of religion" is. Justice Scalia holds that it means that you can't have a national church like in England, where the Anglican Church is part of the government. However obviously many other justices think it is much broader than that, prohibiting basically any law that does not have a secular purpose.

I would agree with Scalia, but there is a different between a statement of what the government can and can't do, and what rights the people have. I don't believe the states should be allowed to remove freedoms protected by the constitution. Regulate, sure... eliminate, no. I can't imagine having the police see someone running with a gun, yell "STOP, POLICE" and have the guy answer, "State or Federal?" in a world where things like immigration violators (a Federal crime) are most often apprehended by state officials and transferred to federal custody, it is hard to argue that they do not work in concert. If you have the right to bear arms against a tyrannical federal government, but the state government can disarm you via edict, then it makes the Federal right moot. In your example, The Federal government can't establish a religion or stop you from religious expression. If your religious expression ends up establishing a state religion, as long as it does not stop you from expression a religion OTHER than the state one, then while it might be "wrong", it isn't unconstitutional. the state BANNING religious expression WOULD be. The state can also determine that specific religious expressions like sacrifice are illegal. Regulate, yes. Ban, no. Same with free speech, no?

I realize that my impression may find some inconsistencies with my personal opinions, and that your opinion on the decision, versus your opinion on the process that reached that decision may have the same issues... I respect that you are willing to disagree with a process that likely brought about a decision that you support. This is in many ways the point I am trying to get across to people like Robert, but he declines to think that rationally.

(06-29-2010 02:56 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Strange how you conveniently leave out the rest of it. Actually, it is not.

You might try reading the context Robert... For the purposes of the argument... the rest of it doesn't matter. If you don't believe THIS part, the rest doesn't matter. You are arguing the "why", and we are simply arguing the "what" or "how". If you'd like to start another argument, then by all means do so. The SCOTUS has NEVER ONCE IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY agreed with you, but feel free. It doesn't surprise me that you continue to ignore my question to you about how continuing a 200+ year old interpretation is "activist".

(06-28-2010 06:54 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 06:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 04:56 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:51 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:49 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:46 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  show me a single piece of legislation drafted by Obama as POTUS that is meant to limit and restrict gun rights.

I've never accused Obama of drafting legislation as POTUS, and I do not accuse him of doing so now.

good, then we agree...like i said when anything good happens in the world...it's ALL Obama.

How'd you fare in that high school Civics course? Please tell me you don't really think it is a President's job to write bills.

Come to think of it, I don't think Obama ever drafted any meaningful legislation while he was in Senate either. I guess back then he was too busy writing books praising himself. I don't know what's distracting him now...maybe that whole SEPARATION OF POWERS thing?

i guess you don't see what i was doing there... (and i got an A in American History in HS)

Barack Obama on the 2nd amendment:

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms..."

"As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen."

Obama has done a lot of things I don't agree with, but you are right about gun control. It hasn't been his thing.

Both gun control and abortion law are just not presidential issues.

Years of Bush's didn't substantially change abortion law either.

Of course not. Why would he do anything to change it? It riles up the base and gets them to the polls. It isn't in their interest to do much/ anything to change it.

(06-29-2010 07:21 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Always shocking that four justices can't follow the plan language of the constitution.

It is shocking that 5 justices can misinterpret the Constitution. Actually, it isn't shocking because they are rightwing activist judges promoting the Republican agenda.

And what are your constitutional scholarly credentials, Robert?

(06-29-2010 10:09 AM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 02:38 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 02:32 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:31 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Rob, how in the world can you compare guns with slavery?

If the issue being discussed in ownership rights, it is actually pretty easy.

Inanimate objects and human beings?

I don't think Evil Knieval could have made that leap.

Dude it is not that big of a leap.

It is for those who have a low intelligence level.

(06-29-2010 11:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 10:22 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 09:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 07:44 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  The Bill of Rights was meant to restrain the Federal Government. The states were free to do as they pleased under their own constitutions (almost all of which have their own bill of rights of some sort) until activist judges created the nonsense of the incorporation doctrine. This decision today was activism at its best with conservative judges coming down for a conservative issue and crushing state's rights and strict construction.

I'm not a gun rights person, but I tend to come down somewhere to the right of Scalia on judicial interpretation. This case today is a disaster and only speaks to a reduction in state's rights. I am really disappointed how it came down.

I don't think you could be more wrong.

The states are NOT free to violate the Constitution...The rights of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed. Of course, convictions of crimes and court orders CAN give the state the right to do so, which is why background checks are perfectly legal, but you cannot BLANKETLY outlaw something specifically enumerated by the Constitution.

Explain exactly to me how maintaining a right we've had since 1776 is "activist"? I'm STILL waiting for someone to explain that. Your theory of taking away a state's right to regulate is close... but this bill doesn't do that. Much like the DC law they struck down, it simply means that you can't write a law that has the same effect as a ban of something protected by the constitution.

I can't help but think this is an attempt by tose that might agree with you to end-around abortion... and I am a states rights advocate as well. I just don't believe that the state can BAN something the Constitution allows... regulate/limit, yes... but not BAN.

or are you arguing we have the right to protect ourselves from the FEDERAL, but not the State governments?

Legally the Bill of Rights did not extend to the states until the Supreme Court decided the 14th Amendment meant it did. For instance, the 5th amendment requires a grand jury to indict...however that is not incorporated against the states. A state can indict you for a crime simply by issuing an indictment (technically an "information") without a grand jury; a federal prosecutor must get a grand jury indictment to prosecute someone.

Look at the 1st Amendment. It says "Congress shall make no law..." The Supreme Court, via 14th Amendment incorporation, has decided that 1st Amendment actually says "Congress, the states, and subdivisions of states shall make no law..." In other words, as drafted, the Constitution allows a city to put up a Nativity scene and promote religion all it wants to or allow a state school board to mandate the teaching of Christianity and Bible classes in public schools. Then the Supreme Court incorporated the 1st Amendment against the states, meaning that the states/counties/cities could no longer do the above.*

There are a lot of law professors and jurists that love incorporation. I think it is an extreme stretch of the 14th Amendment and an end-around of the democratic process. If the people want it to be illegal for a public school to teach the Bible, they are perfectly capable of electing people to pass that law. Judicial activism is illegitimate and undemocratic. Sometimes the result is one you like, such as here by confirming gun rights, but oftentimes it's not. And this decision is another blow against federalism, which is damned near dead.

*This also gets into another debate about what the meaning of "respecting an establishment of religion" is. Justice Scalia holds that it means that you can't have a national church like in England, where the Anglican Church is part of the government. However obviously many other justices think it is much broader than that, prohibiting basically any law that does not have a secular purpose.

I would agree with Scalia, but there is a different between a statement of what the government can and can't do, and what rights the people have. I don't believe the states should be allowed to remove freedoms protected by the constitution. Regulate, sure... eliminate, no. I can't imagine having the police see someone running with a gun, yell "STOP, POLICE" and have the guy answer, "State or Federal?" in a world where things like immigration violators (a Federal crime) are most often apprehended by state officials and transferred to federal custody, it is hard to argue that they do not work in concert. If you have the right to bear arms against a tyrannical federal government, but the state government can disarm you via edict, then it makes the Federal right moot. In your example, The Federal government can't establish a religion or stop you from religious expression. If your religious expression ends up establishing a state religion, as long as it does not stop you from expression a religion OTHER than the state one, then while it might be "wrong", it isn't unconstitutional. the state BANNING religious expression WOULD be. The state can also determine that specific religious expressions like sacrifice are illegal. Regulate, yes. Ban, no. Same with free speech, no?

I realize that my impression may find some inconsistencies with my personal opinions, and that your opinion on the decision, versus your opinion on the process that reached that decision may have the same issues... I respect that you are willing to disagree with a process that likely brought about a decision that you support. This is in many ways the point I am trying to get across to people like Robert, but he declines to think that rationally.

(06-29-2010 02:56 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Strange how you conveniently leave out the rest of it. Actually, it is not.

You might try reading the context Robert... For the purposes of the argument... the rest of it doesn't matter. If you don't believe THIS part, the rest doesn't matter. You are arguing the "why", and we are simply arguing the "what" or "how". If you'd like to start another argument, then by all means do so. The SCOTUS has NEVER ONCE IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY agreed with you, but feel free. It doesn't surprise me that you continue to ignore my question to you about how continuing a 200+ year old interpretation is "activist".

I think you YOU should try reading the context of the WHOLE thing.

(06-29-2010 11:53 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-29-2010 10:09 AM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 02:38 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 02:32 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:31 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Rob, how in the world can you compare guns with slavery?

If the issue being discussed in ownership rights, it is actually pretty easy.

Inanimate objects and human beings?

I don't think Evil Knieval could have made that leap.

Dude it is not that big of a leap.

It is for those who have a low intelligence level.

Insult me, if you want. Youre opinion of me would only matter to me if I thought you knew a damn thing about anything.

Drawing a comparison between slavery and firearms because they're both "owned" is akin to comparing sex and basketball, "because both make you sweaty."

(06-29-2010 12:01 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-29-2010 11:53 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-29-2010 10:09 AM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 02:38 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 02:32 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:31 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Rob, how in the world can you compare guns with slavery?

If the issue being discussed in ownership rights, it is actually pretty easy.

Inanimate objects and human beings?

I don't think Evil Knieval could have made that leap.

Dude it is not that big of a leap.

It is for those who have a low intelligence level.

Insult me, if you want. Youre opinion of me would only matter to me if I thought you knew a damn thing about anything.

It's not an insult when you consider the source. If we are to believe the old adage, "we fear what we do not understand", there's a whole buncha **** Robert is afraid of, to include economics, fiscal policy, common sense, etc., etc., etc.

(06-29-2010 12:13 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-29-2010 12:01 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-29-2010 11:53 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-29-2010 10:09 AM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 02:38 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 02:32 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(06-28-2010 12:31 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Rob, how in the world can you compare guns with slavery?

If the issue being discussed in ownership rights, it is actually pretty easy.

Inanimate objects and human beings?

I don't think Evil Knieval could have made that leap.

Dude it is not that big of a leap.

It is for those who have a low intelligence level.

Insult me, if you want. Youre opinion of me would only matter to me if I thought you knew a damn thing about anything.

It's not an insult when you consider the source. If we are to believe the old adage, "we fear what we do not understand", there's a whole buncha **** Robert is afraid of, to include economics, fiscal policy, common sense, etc., etc., etc.

Funny coming from a guy who fears the world we live in.