Still Hating America. - Page 153

sgtclub · 03-10-2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
I guess this is hardly a surprise given the near univerals inability to actually read any meaning into all of the words of the Second Amendment. But these two passages in the article seem inconsistent:

Is that any worse than reading words into the constitution that are not there? Where in the constitution are the time, place and manner restrictons on speech? Or put another way, why have the courts been inable comprehend 'Congress . . . shall meak no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech?

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-10-2007, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's a good periodic reminder the founders had pretty good ideas and foresight even 220 years ago.

Though it didn't seem to have occurred to them that we wouldn't need militias.

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-10-2007, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Is that any worse than reading words into the constitution that are not there? Where in the constitution are the time, place and manner restrictons on speech? Or put another way, why have the courts been inable comprehend 'Congress . . . shall meak no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech?

Courts are just deciding what the freedom of speech is. Does the First Amendment bar private claims for libel? The founders would have said no. Does it let you use a loudspeaker in a residential neighborhood at 3 a.m.?

Hank Chinaski · 03-10-2007, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Though it didn't seem to have occurred to them that we wouldn't need militias.

I'm not reading Roe again, but did it look at the abortion laws at the time of Bill of Rights?

In colonial times, abortion before “quickening” -- the first perceptible fetal movement, usually around the fourth month of pregnancy -- was legal. Early American medical literature includes frequent references to methods of abortion.

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPa...ntentId=121780

don't know if this is accurate, but if it is it's counter to what I would have guessed.

Adder · 03-10-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's not really wasted money . . . first off appeals are cheap. Second, it's a long-standing policy that there are good reasons to defend. (Not that I agree with D.C.'s law, but a 2-1 appellate decision that treads new constitutional ground is probably a far better decision to appeal than most.)

I meant only that the District will not win its appeal.

Adder · 03-10-2007, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Is that any worse than reading words into the constitution that are not there? Where in the constitution are the time, place and manner restrictons on speech? Or put another way, why have the courts been inable comprehend 'Congress . . . shall meak no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech?

Somewhere in the definition of "abridging."

Adder · 03-10-2007, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Though it didn't seem to have occurred to them that we wouldn't need militias.

Or perhaps our current standing army is unconstituational. Along with the federal income tax.

In other words, we have strayed pretty far from the system they created in a lot of different ways. Most of them are for that better, but the fact that we have gone through most of these changes without amending the constituation has left us with weird artifacts like the second amendment that should have been abandoned years ago, but weren't.

The upside, of course, is that we have only had one civil war, and no revolutions.

LessinSF · 03-10-2007, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Somewhere in the definition of "abridging."

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

LessinSF · 03-10-2007, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Or perhaps our current standing army is unconstituational. Along with the federal income tax.

In other words, we have strayed pretty far from the system they created in a lot of different ways. Most of them are for that better, but the fact that we have gone through most of these changes without amending the constituation has left us with weird artifacts like the second amendment that should have been abandoned years ago, but weren't.

The upside, of course, is that we have only had one civil war, and no revolutions.

Speaking of artifacts, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." But, it has been interpreted once ... Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957.

Adder · 03-10-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LessinSF
Speaking of artifacts, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." But, it has been interpreted once ... Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957.

Let me get this straight. You believe that the frist amendment prohibits even time, place and manner restrictions on speech, but you support the quartering troops in private homes? Nice.

ltl/fb · 03-10-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm not reading Roe again, but did it look at the abortion laws at the time of Bill of Rights?

In colonial times, abortion before “quickening” -- the first perceptible fetal movement, usually around the fourth month of pregnancy -- was legal. Early American medical literature includes frequent references to methods of abortion.

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPa...ntentId=121780

don't know if this is accurate, but if it is it's counter to what I would have guessed.

You didn't know this?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-10-2007, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Though it didn't seem to have occurred to them that we wouldn't need militias.

We don't? This will come as news the national guardsmen serving in Iraq.

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-10-2007, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
We don't? This will come as news the national guardsmen serving in Iraq.

This may have escaped you, but the national guard is quite different from the militias (then or -- as defined by statute -- now).

LessinSF · 03-10-2007, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Let me get this straight. You believe that the frist amendment prohibits even time, place and manner restrictions on speech, but you support the quartering troops in private homes? Nice.

Say what? There is apparently a disconnect between what I said or even implied (nothing really, except noting that the Ninth Amendment is ignored and Third is an artifact) and the conclusions you have drawn about my meaning.

That said, like Justice Black, I do not see anything in the First that allows for time, place and manner restrictions. It seems pretty absolute to me. If you want them, amend it. As for the Third, it is a historical artifact that would not even be contemplated for discussion if the Bill of Rights were being written today. Instead, we would be tediously debating whether discrimation against fats should be expressly prohibited and animal rights.

SlaveNoMore · 03-10-2007, 08:09 PM

Quote:

LessinSF
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Give it up, Hoss.

Of the 4 federalist/libertarians on the Board, Sebby's become an anarchist, you've become a libertine, I've become a fascist, and Club's become a.... where the F is Club anyway?

eta: Okay, 5. Spanky's become a farmer.