PDA

View Full Version : D.C. v. Heller: Court's Liberal Wing Shoots Self In Foot


Pages : [1] 2

aileron
07-16-2008, 6:23 AM
This is coming from David T. Hardy. Interesting read, but as has been pointed out both sides make errors. The question I have here is to what degree is it purposeful on their part?

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2008/dth_0715p.shtml


D.C. v. Heller: The Court's Liberal Wing Shoots Itself In The Foot
By David T. Hardy
July 15, 2008

District of Columbia v. Heller was historic, the first Supreme Court decision to clearly hold that the Second Amendment right to arms was an individual one not linked to militia service. But it was historic for another reason: the sheer number of mistakes made in the dissenters' opinions. Given that all four dissenters co-signed the Stevens and Breyer dissenting opinions, this means that the mistakes must have escaped, not only four members of the highest court in the land, but their sixteen research clerks!

Case in point: Justice Stevens' dissent claims that he holds true to the Court's earlier, 1939, decision in United States v. Miller, which he says involved "upholding a conviction." Even a quick read of Miller shows that the Court reversed, rather than upheld, and there was no conviction involved. The first paragraph of Miller recites that the lower court "quashed the indictment" against him -- dismissed the case before trial. Miller's last paragraph orders "the challenged judgment must be reversed."

Second illustration: In discussing the militia, Stevens cites a 1990 Supreme Court decision, Perpich v. Dodd, and says it states "In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating the 'National Guard of the several States...'"

In Perpich, the Court actually said that President Teddy Roosevelt in 1901 called for revitalizing the militia, but it was Congress, not the President, that created the federal Guard... in 1903.

Stevens then turns to his central theme: "The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia."

Stevens adopts D.C.'s line. He argues that certain Americans were concerned that Congress had exclusive power over organized and arming the militia, but it might not enact a law requiring militiamen to be armed, and this would "disarm" the militia system unless the States had the power to do so: "It [the Second Amendment] was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States."

Justice Stevens' theory is astonishing. This had been D.C.'s original theory of purpose. But it had been so thoroughly demolished by amicus briefs that D.C. abandoned it in its last briefing. The amicus briefs for Heller's side had proven:

1. Yes, there were Framers concerned about the militia being left unarmed, but they weren't pushing for what became the Second Amendment. They wanted a different and additional guarantee that "each state respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same."

2. That additional guarantee (in the above words) was put into the Virginia ratifying convention's demands for a bill of rights, as well as a provision that was the ancestor of the Second Amendment. They were two separate ideas.

3. When James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights, he worked from the Virginia ratifying convention's proposals. He put the Second Amendment in. He omitted the separate clause about States arming the militia.

4. When the Bill of Rights came up in the First Senate, Virginia senators moved to put the militia-arming clause back in. The first Senate voted the idea down.

Yes, there were Framers concerned about having States able to arm their militias. But they weren't calling for the Second Amendment, but for a different provision. And they lost.

Did the dissenting Justices either (1) not read the Heller-side briefs or (2) were willing to take this position in spite of its having been proven utterly ahistoric?

Justice Breyer's dissent focuses, not upon the meaning of the Amendment, but upon whether D.C.'s handgun ban is "reasonable regulation." It likewise contains a critical error.

Breyer argues that the main purpose of the Amendment is to ensure military preparedness, and the D.C. law does not much impair this: "the only weapons that cannot be registered are sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, short barreled rifles, and pistols not registered before 1976."

Breyer did not closely read the law he defends: D.C. defines any semiautomatic rifle that can take a magazine holding more than 12 rounds (which is almost all of them) as a forbidden "machine gun." Its residents are thus forbidden to own and practice with the semiautomatic version of any American military rifle made in the last half-century.

Both dissents are not merely mistaken, but (if I may be blunt) shoddy. Prior decisions and statutes seem to have been skimmed rather than researched. Historical theories that were clearly disproven are invoked as fact. The logical conclusion is that the dissenters cared not so much about constitutional law as about policy, and what they find good policy simply had to be constitutional.

And they came within one vote....

---

David T. Hardy is a Tucson AZ attorney specializing in constitutional law. He directed the documentary "In Search of the Second Amendment" (www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com) and filed an amicus brief in Heller.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

Centurion_D
07-16-2008, 8:18 AM
Very, very interesting but not all too surprising. What do you expect from liberal left bias judges?:rolleyes:

PatriotnMore
07-16-2008, 8:35 AM
That is an interesting read. With all bias on my part as a gun owner aside, I and many other citizens who are not lawyers, can clearly read that the 2nd was speaking to the individual right, not collective right. The ruling, although good, is of concern because of the four dissenting votes.

Clearly, political consideration is alive and well in the halls of the SCOTUS, and although we won a victory, unless future challenges of gun law are worded, and argued properly, we may loose some decisions in the future.

I am very hopeful that McCain is elected simply for the seats which may come open in the SCOTUS. However, those who were thinking of retiring, may simply put it off until there is a POTUS who will appoint who the retiree sees as a good trade off.

Glock22Fan
07-16-2008, 8:55 AM
However, those who were thinking of retiring, may simply put it off until there is a POTUS who will appoint who the retiree sees as a good trade off.

Seeing as the potential retirees are fast approaching the age when the man in the sky might have other ideas about their future, "putting it off" might not work out too well as a strategy.

Californio
07-16-2008, 10:32 AM
I think the Heller case and the Shoddy job done by the dissent shows us that Political Activism is alive and well in the USA. Even supposedly August Judges preach the crap of the revisionist Constitution. This site has really opened my eyes to the rhetoric spouted by both Parties. I am currently reading "Origins of the Bill of Rights", by Leonard W. Levy. We have strayed so far from the ideas of the Founders, it is not even funny. I am only voting for a Presidential candidate that will appoint Constructionist Judges, nothing else really matters.

AngelDecoys
07-16-2008, 11:06 AM
I don't know about judges necessarily retiring. Could happen for 1-3, however it is not unknown for a SCOTUS judge to die while still on the bench.

Have you considered...
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hDyik6TmoNekrVTaM9helCMAob2gD91SCB4G0
"What if the justices decide to grow even older together?

It has happened before. Nine of the last 10 justices who retired or died in office were at least 75; six of those were 79 or older.

On the other hand, six justices ranging in age from 76 to 85 stepped down between 1986 and 1994, spanning three presidencies.

Goldstein predicts only Stevens will retire during the next four years and not before he surpasses Oliver Wendell Holmes — who stepped down two months shy of his 91st birthday, in 1932 — to become the oldest sitting justice. That would happen in February 2011.


Its probably safe to say nobody can predict how many will retire, or when they will do so. So even if Obama is elected, we may get lucky, and have only 1 replacement nominated. And that would probably be Stevens.

Mute
07-16-2008, 1:48 PM
What we really need to worry about is Kennedy and any of the remaining four that supported the individual rights ruling. If the other four traitors retire or die, even if, God forbid, Obama gets to choose the replacement, we're still at ahead. Now, if we can get replacements appointed by a President that will pick constructionists, we may actually have a chance of undoing some of the harm that's already been done to this country.

Jagger
08-10-2008, 10:05 AM
Political Activism is alive and well

Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse For His Judicial Activism


In the excerpt below, from the U. S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of D. C. v. Heller, authored by Justice Scalia, the notorious judicial activist proclaims the majority's intention to follow a rule of constitutional construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense of their normal and ordinary use by ordinary citizens of the founding generation.

The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation...


That statement reveals the majority's incompetence. The Constitution wasn't made with understanding it would be interpreted according to the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens of the founding generation. I was made with the understanding that it would be interpreted by applying the well established common law method of interpreting laws.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, knew that there were well established common law rules of interpretation and that they applied to the U. S. Constitution.

The question now before us renders it necessary to pay particular attention to that part of the second section which extends the judicial power "to controversies between a State and citizens of another State." It is contended that this ought to be construed to reach none of these controversies excepting those in which a State may be plaintiff. The ordinary rules for construction will easily decide whether those words are to be understood in that limited sense.
--John Jay in his opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

Jagger
08-10-2008, 10:10 AM
mistakes made in the dissenters' opinions. The majority's entire opinion is based on an erroneous method of interpretation.

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 10:38 AM
The majority's entire opinion is based on an erroneous method of interpretation.

You know, that would be funnier if the majorities opinion wasn't now the law of the land. With no real jurisprudence since 1789, interpreting based on actual original meaning is not at all an illegitimate method of interpretation. Certainly the state conventions - who demanded the bill of rights - knew what it meant and it wasn't a secret. In fact, the state conventions had separate amendments they wanted to address state control of the militias. The key of course was that people understood that the militia was 80-90% of the white male population which throws most all of the silly arguments on the other side right out the window. Constitutions are not common law - as much as you might want them to be. They are fundamental statements that are wider than simple legislative or common law construction.

Your simple assertion doesn't carry much weight. Got some arguments or evidence to support your opinion?

-Gene

MT1
08-10-2008, 10:42 AM
The majority's entire opinion is based on an erroneous method of interpretation.


:sleeping:

Jagger
08-10-2008, 11:25 AM
...interpreting based on actual original meaning is not at all an illegitimate method of interpretation.
At the time the Constitution was made, there was a well established universally accepted common law method of ascertaining the will of the legislator. Any method of interpretation, except the well established method, is an illegitimate method of interpretation

Jagger
08-10-2008, 11:45 AM
...the state conventions - who demanded the bill of rights - knew what it meant... The state ratifying conventions couldn't have possibly known the meaning of an amendment that didn't even exist at the time the state conventions were held?

Jagger
08-10-2008, 11:47 AM
...the state conventions had separate amendments they wanted to address state control of the militias. We're not interpreting those proposals. We're interpreting the Second Amendment.

Jagger
08-10-2008, 11:52 AM
people understood that the militia was 80-90% of the white male population How do you know what the people understood?

Constitutions are not common law - as much as you might want them to be. They are fundamental statements that are wider than simple legislative or common law construction.

There were well established rules of construction at the time the Constitution was made. There is also an abundance of evidence that the lawmakers, and everybody else, took for granted that they applied to the Constitution.

FlyingPen
08-10-2008, 12:06 PM
How do you know what the people understood?

How do you?

Jagger
08-10-2008, 1:08 PM
How do you? I don't. However, when interpreting the Constitution, my goal is to ascertain the will of the lawmakers, not the understanding of ordinary citizens, because that was the law at the time the Constitution was made.

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 1:19 PM
Uhm... Maybe because the states had to ratify the bill of rights as submitted back to the states? Or did you forget that step?

I'll try to spell this out in very base detail. The first few states ratified the constitution. Then Virginia, Pennsylvania and others starting ratifying with the insistence on a Bill of Rights that the Federalists didn't want to give. Then states like North Carolina wouldn't ratify without a Bill of Rights. The Constitution was barely ratified and so the Federalists concede to a Bill of Rights that Madison then drafted. That Bill of Rights went through Congress and was submitted back to the states to ratify the amendments. That's where folks like Trenche Coxe and others made clear what they did or didn't like about the Bill of Rights. For Anti-Federalists, one of those was that the structural militia changes between the States and the Feds didn't make it in. Everyone was happy that the 2A reflected the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I literally just finished Halbrook's book - The Founder's Second Amendment (http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=72). If you really want to force me to start quoting state BOR ratification debates at length I can, but suffice it to say that it's pretty obvious what the people and the people's state reps thought the Second Amendment mean.

I mean, the colonies formed non-governmental militias under British rule. The militia are who fired "the shot heard round the world" at Concord. To think that the militia means something else is to adopt a position unheard of before 1939 except in one outlier opinion in Kansas in the late 19th century.

So again I ask Jagger - what's your agenda? Lawmakers are limited by a Bill of Rights. Common law is not a be all, end all, to constitutional interpretation at all. If it was then the right to arms would be limited to protestants - which Madison made clear in his speech to Congress was quite clearly the opposite of the point of the 2A.

-Gene

EastBayRidge
08-10-2008, 1:40 PM
"...the well established common law method of interpreting laws."

"There were well established rules of construction at the time the Constitution was made."

Such as... ? Some variant of the plain meaning rule ?

Jagger
08-10-2008, 2:54 PM
Trenche Coxe and others made clear what they did or didn't like about the Bill of Rights. The statement you quoted by Tench Coxe wasn't made during the ratification process. It was made about proposed language that was rejected.

Jagger
08-10-2008, 2:56 PM
If you really want to force me to start quoting state BOR ratification debates at length I can... I really want you to start quoting.

Jagger
08-10-2008, 3:02 PM
The militia are who fired "the shot heard round the world" at Concord. To think that the militia means something else is to adopt a position unheard of before 1939 except in one outlier opinion in Kansas in the late 19th century.

The well established common law rules of construction should be applied to ascertain the meaning of the word "militia", and the meaning of all of the other words, in the Second Amendment.

Jagger
08-10-2008, 3:05 PM
"...the well established common law method of interpreting laws."

"There were well established rules of construction at the time the Constitution was made."

Such as... ? Some variant of the plain meaning rule ?

The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law. Let us take a short view of them all.

1. Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use. Thus the law mentioned by Puffendorf, which forbad a layman to lay hands on a priest, was adjudged to extend to him, who had hurt a priest with a weapon. Again; terms of art, or technical terms, must be taken according to the acceptation of the learned in each art, trade, and science. So in the act of settlement, where the crown of England is limited "to the princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being protestants," it becomes necessary to call in the assistance of lawyers, to ascertain the precise idea of the words "heirs of her body;" which in a legal sense comprize only certain of her lineal descendants.

2. If words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament. Of the same nature and use is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point. Thus, when the law of England declares murder to be felony without benefit of clergy, we must resort to the same law of England to learn what the benefit of clergy is: and when the common law censures simoniacal contracts, it affords great light to the subject to consider what the canon law has adjudged to be simony.

3. As to the subject-matter, words are always to be understood as having a regard thereto; for that is always supposed to be in the eye of the legislator, and all his expressions directed to that end. Thus, when a law of our Edward III. forbids all ecclesiastical persons to purchase provisions at Rome, it might seem to prohibit the buying of grain and other victuals; but when we consider that the statute was made to repress the usurpations of the papal see, and that the nominations to benefices by the pope were called provisions, we shall see that the restraint is intended to be laid upon such provisions only.

4. As to the effects and consequence, the rule is, that where words bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received sense of them. Therefore the Bolognian law, mentioned by Puffendorf, which enacted "that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity," was held after a long debate not to extend to the surgeon, who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street with a fit.

5. But, lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the law itself ought likewise to cease with it. An instance of this is given in a case put by Cicero, or whoever was the author of the treatise inscribed to Herennius. There was a law, that those who in a storm forsook the ship, should forfeit all property therein; and that the ship and lading should belong entirely to those who staid in it. In a dangerous tempest all the mariners forsook the ship, except only one sick passenger, who by reason of his disease was unable to get out and escape. By chance the ship came safe to port. The sick man kept possession, and claimed the benefit of the law. Now here all the learned agree, that the sick man is not within the reason of the law; for the reason of making it was, to give encouragement to such as should venture their lives to save the vessel: but this is a merit, which he could never pretend to, who neither staid in the ship upon that account, nor contributed any thing to its preservation.

Blackstone:Commentaries: Book I Part I Section II (http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-1102.htm)

EastBayRidge
08-10-2008, 4:11 PM
"In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.”"

"Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use. Thus the law mentioned by Puffendorf, which forbad a layman to lay hands on a priest, was adjudged to extend to him, who had hurt a priest with a weapon."

And the point is... ?

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 5:00 PM
So I guess the states didn't ratify the first 10 amendments?

Jagger - its pretty clear you want to attack Scalia's opinion. Are you anti or an absolutist?

Also note that your Jay quote was how to interpret the Constitution in balancing powers between the Federal and the State.

The Federalists thought that the BOR was uneccessary because the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a FUNDAMENTAL right that PREEXISTED the formation of even the state governments - much less the Federal government.

Oh, and if you apply the common law rules of construction you end up at the same place because the preface doesn't limit the operative clause and the operative clause was talking about the standard blades, pistols, firearms, and blunderbusses of the day. I'll start quoting parliament as a point of construction:
Lord Richmond described an order to disarm private citizens
(not militia members) as “a violation of the constitutional
right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for
their own defense.” 49 The London Magazine or Gentle-
man’s Monthly Intelligencer 467 (1780).

So again, what is your point? Anti or absolutist? (Note that all 13 posts here have been to attack Heller from some point you refuse to disclose.

-Gene

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 5:04 PM
The well established common law rules of construction should be applied to ascertain the meaning of the word "militia", and the meaning of all of the other words, in the Second Amendment.

Well, here is what the first Congress thought the term militia meant:


I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Emphasis added.

Sure looks like 80-90% of the adult male population of the colonies to me with their own personally kept arms. Note that the Congress that passed this actually authored the Second Amendment.

-Gene

Jagger
08-10-2008, 5:29 PM
"In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.”"

"Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use. Thus the law mentioned by Puffendorf, which forbad a layman to lay hands on a priest, was adjudged to extend to him, who had hurt a priest with a weapon."

And the point is... ?

Many words in legal instruments are ambiguous. Scalia's expoused method of interpretation includes no way to objectively resolve ambiguity. Therefore, its useless. On the other hand, Blackstone's method includes objective rules for resolving ambiguity. Scalia hates objectivity, because he wants to be free to resolve ambiguity to square with his personal views.

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 5:44 PM
Many words in legal instruments are ambiguous. Scalia's expoused method of interpretation includes no way to objectively resolve ambiguity. Therefore, its useless. On the other hand, Blackstone's method includes objective rules for resolving ambiguity. Scalia hates objectivity, because he wants to be free to resolve ambiguity to square with his personal views.

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. Are you just harshing on Scalia or do you have worse words for the outright lies in the dissent?

Now are you seriously still contending that the actual meaning of the Second Amendment - which was basically a requirement for the current Federal Union to survive - doesn't mean that the people have a right to keep and bear arms for the personal use for self defense, defense against tyranny, target shooting, and hunting amongst other uses?

I do enjoy how you evade my questions. I started giving you cites. I can give you more. Care to answer my questions put to you?

-Gene

Jagger
08-10-2008, 5:48 PM
...the states didn't ratify the first 10 amendments? If you say so, dude.

Jagger - its pretty clear you want to attack Scalia's opinion. Are you anti or an absolutist? I'm absolutely opposed to Justice Scalia's method of interpretation and his judicial activism.

Also note that your Jay quote was how to interpret the Constitution in balancing powers between the Federal and the State. All I know is that Jay apparently believed there were rules of construction and that they applied to the Constitution.

The Federalists thought that the BOR was uneccessary because the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a FUNDAMENTAL right that PREEXISTED the formation of even the state governments - much less the Federal government. Too bad the Federalists in the Senate, "look[ed] at the rights of the People, as a [stingy] Miser inspects a Security..."

...if you apply the common law rules of construction you end up at the same place.... To what words in the Second Amendment did you apply the rules of construction to ascertain that "concealed weapons prohibitions" are permitted under the Second Amendment?

Jagger
08-10-2008, 6:08 PM
Well, here is what the first Congress thought the term militia meant... Now all you need to do is explain why that is admissible under the rules of construction.

Jagger
08-10-2008, 6:09 PM
the Congress that passed this actually authored the Second Amendment. That statement is false.

Jagger
08-10-2008, 6:11 PM
Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. Are you just harshing on Scalia or do you have worse words for the outright lies in the dissent? Right now I'm just ragging on my favorite activist.

aileron
08-10-2008, 6:23 PM
Right now I'm just ragging on my favorite activist.

Interesting name you got there, Jagger; "a barb." Well I think you've done a fine job of proving your not worth debating with that last comment.

Shotgun Man
08-10-2008, 6:46 PM
Right now I'm just ragging on my favorite activist.

Never heard Scalia labeled an activist until this latest decision, and then only by the antis.

But if he's gonna be an activist at least his activism is well placed in this instance.

Jagger
08-10-2008, 6:49 PM
Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. Are you just harshing on Scalia or do you have worse words for the outright lies in the dissent? Right now, I'm just ragging on my favorite activist.

Shotgun Man
08-10-2008, 6:50 PM
Right now, I'm just ragging on my favorite activist.

You're just repeating what you said before.

It reminds me of a toilet backing up.

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 6:52 PM
Now all you need to do is explain why that is admissible under the rules of construction.

No. It's your challenge to prove that there is any confusion in the words at issue.

-Gene

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 7:02 PM
That statement is false.

I'll be more precise. It was certainly the same Senate, and was most of the same House.

The Militia Act of 1792 was passed on May 8, 1792. The Second Amendment was ratified by the final state necessary - Virginia - on December 15, 1791. I don't think the definition of "militia" changed in those 6 months. Note that there was no disagreement in the Virgina BOR ratification debates about the right to arms.

-Gene

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 7:03 PM
At the time the Constitution was made, there was a well established universally accepted common law method of ascertaining the will of the legislator. Any method of interpretation, except the well established method, is an illegitimate method of interpretation

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not legislative enactments.

-Gene

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 7:04 PM
I don't. However, when interpreting the Constitution, my goal is to ascertain the will of the lawmakers, not the understanding of ordinary citizens, because that was the law at the time the Constitution was made.

Then why did the states have to ratify the Constitution and the Amendments? Maybe, just maybe, the states had to decide if that was an adequate replacement for the Articles of Confederation and that what the legislature wants is what is EXACTLY not allowed debate by declaring rights of the people?

-Gene

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 7:06 PM
We're not interpreting those proposals. We're interpreting the Second Amendment.

Correct. The Anti-Federalists lost the battle to include state control of the militia and those failed amendments quite handily prove that. They did not loose the battle to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms.


-Gene

Shotgun Man
08-10-2008, 7:06 PM
Then why did the states have to ratify the Constitution and the Amendments? Maybe, just maybe, the states had to decide if that was an adequate replacement for the Articles of Confederation and that what the legislature wants is what is EXACTLY not allowed debate by declaring rights of the people?

-Gene

Gene, as much as I respect you, Jagger is a troll/moron, and I think he is baiting you.

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 7:08 PM
To what words in the Second Amendment did you apply the rules of construction to ascertain that "concealed weapons prohibitions" are permitted under the Second Amendment?

I did? If I did I was speaking about political reality, not the actual original meaning.

Do you prefer a "living constitution" that breathes your own opinions into it?

Still not answering my questions.

-Gene

hoffmang
08-10-2008, 7:09 PM
Gene, as much as I respect you, Jagger is a troll/moron, and I think he is baiting you.

Oh, I know. It's just really easy to make sure everyone knows he's a fool. If it were effort I'd ignore him.

-Gene

spsellars
08-10-2008, 7:34 PM
Gene, as much as I respect you, Jagger is a troll/moron, and I think he is baiting you.

That's an understatement.

He's copy/pasted the same drivel on at least the following -

THR (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4697308&postcount=80), GoldTalk (http://www.goldtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=200074&postcount=1), City-Data (http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/365073-why-wasnt-supreme-courts-gun-decision-29.html), Power Line Forums (http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewreply/362267/), Political Fever (http://politicalfever.org/civil-liberties-civil-rights/7070-d-c-vs-heller-decision.html#post142361), DefensiveCarry (http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/810226-post102.html), and PC Perspective (http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php?p=4282681&postcount=107).

EastBayRidge
08-10-2008, 7:34 PM
"Many words in legal instruments are ambiguous. Scalia's expoused method of interpretation includes no way to objectively resolve ambiguity. Therefore, its useless."

The decision is the resolution. The "expoused method of interpretation" is the means to arrive at the decision, as are all rules of construction.

The lack of control over how future courts interpret the decision (aka "resolve ambiguity") and their choices on how broadly or narrowly to construe it, is another matter entirely, and a feature inherent to a system using stare decisis. After all, that's how we got Miller cited for all sorts of weirdness. But there's the common law for ya.

Shotgun Man
08-10-2008, 7:50 PM
"Many words in legal instruments are ambiguous. Scalia's expoused method of interpretation includes no way to objectively resolve ambiguity. Therefore, its useless."

The decision is the resolution. The "expoused method of interpretation" is the means to arrive at the decision, as are all rules of construction.

The lack of control over how future courts interpret the decision (aka "resolve ambiguity") and their choices on how broadly or narrowly to construe it, is another matter entirely, and a feature inherent to a system using stare decisis. After all, that's how we got Miller cited for all sorts of weirdness. But there's the common law for ya.

"Expoused?" Is that like divorcing your wife?

EastBayRidge
08-10-2008, 7:59 PM
""Expoused?" Is that like divorcing your wife?"

:D

Shotgun Man
08-10-2008, 9:18 PM
That's an understatement.

He's copy/pasted the same drivel on at least the following -

THR (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4697308&postcount=80), GoldTalk (http://www.goldtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=200074&postcount=1), City-Data (http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/365073-why-wasnt-supreme-courts-gun-decision-29.html), Power Line Forums (http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewreply/362267/), Political Fever (http://politicalfever.org/civil-liberties-civil-rights/7070-d-c-vs-heller-decision.html#post142361), DefensiveCarry (http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/810226-post102.html), and PC Perspective (http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php?p=4282681&postcount=107).

Good job chasing him down.

American_pride
08-11-2008, 2:32 AM
That's an understatement.

He's copy/pasted the same drivel on at least the following -

THR (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4697308&postcount=80), GoldTalk (http://www.goldtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=200074&postcount=1), City-Data (http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/365073-why-wasnt-supreme-courts-gun-decision-29.html), Power Line Forums (http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewreply/362267/), Political Fever (http://politicalfever.org/civil-liberties-civil-rights/7070-d-c-vs-heller-decision.html#post142361), DefensiveCarry (http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/810226-post102.html), and PC Perspective (http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php?p=4282681&postcount=107).

I agree after seeing he is a junior member I looked at what he posted to......... All his posts are about HELLER. Sounds like some one is mad that normal hard working people can have guns :D:p

aileron
08-11-2008, 6:15 AM
I actually think he's a hired gun, and is looking for chinks in the armor while trying to spread FUD.

Truth being what it is, he's got himself an impossible task.

EastBayRidge
08-11-2008, 7:25 AM
"I actually think he's a hired gun, and is looking for chinks in the armor while trying to spread FUD."

LCAV's crack staff of pro-bono biglaw associates is on the case !

The conclusion of the memo looks sorta like this: :gene:

Jagger
08-11-2008, 10:54 AM
I'll be more precise. It was certainly the same Senate, and was most of the same House.

The Militia Act of 1792 was passed on May 8, 1792. The Second Amendment was ratified by the final state necessary - Virginia - on December 15, 1791. I don't think the definition of "militia" changed in those 6 months. Note that there was no disagreement in the Virgina BOR ratification debates about the right to arms.

-Gene

What's the rule of construction regarding a word having the same meaning when used in different laws?

Jagger
08-11-2008, 10:55 AM
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not legislative enactments.

-Gene Yes they are. Go look up the meaning of "legislative."

Jagger
08-11-2008, 11:03 AM
...why did the states have to ratify the Constitution and the Amendments? I guess it seemed like a good idea. I think the idea came from the Bible.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 11:07 AM
...the states had to decide...what the legislature wants is what is EXACTLY not allowed debate by declaring rights of the people...
Huh?

Jagger
08-11-2008, 11:10 AM
The Anti-Federalists...did not loose the battle to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms. That's debatable.

PS: The term "individual right" doesn't even appear in the Second Amendment.

FortCourageArmory
08-11-2008, 11:13 AM
That's debatable.

PS: The term "individual right" doesn't even appear in the Second Amendment.
No, but it does say, "the right of the PEOPLE". How much more individual does it need to get? Why not get back on the troll bus.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 11:17 AM
I was speaking about political reality, not the actual original meaning.

In that case, it appears we agree that 1) there is no language in the Second Amendment that could possibly be construed to mean that "concealed weapons prohibitions" are permitted under the Second Amendment, and 2) Justice Scalia is a judicial activist.

Do you prefer a "living constitution" that breathes your own opinions into it? Nope. But, Scalia obviously does.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 11:22 AM
No, but it does say, "the right of the PEOPLE". How much more individual does it need to get? The words "right" and "people" are ambiguous, dude. Furthermore, the ambiguity was probably intentional.

Paratus et Vigilans
08-11-2008, 11:30 AM
The majority's entire opinion is based on an erroneous method of interpretation.


First year law student misunderstanding of the differences between and among the rules for construing a statute, the rules for interpreting ambiguous language in a contract, and the method of divining the meaning of the Constitution and its amendments. :rolleyes:

EastBayRidge
08-11-2008, 11:48 AM
It's Groundhog Day on Calguns.

nicki
08-11-2008, 11:55 AM
Perhaps what we are seeing is that we have 4 justices who are anti gun and that they just had a dissent drawn up so that they had something.

Maybe they figured that since their brief wasn't going to make a difference anyway, they and their staffs really didn't care if it was full of errors, they just wanted to put out something.

Let's face it, they have lifetime job security anyway.

Nicki

Jagger
08-11-2008, 12:03 PM
First year law student misunderstanding of the differences between and among the rules for construing a statute, the rules for interpreting ambiguous language in a contract, and the method of divining the meaning of the Constitution and its amendments. :rolleyes: At the time the Constitution was made, the well established common law rules of construction applicable to statutes and constitutions were identical.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 12:12 PM
Perhaps what we are seeing is that we have 4 justices who are anti gun and that they just had a dissent drawn up so that they had something.

Maybe they figured that since their brief wasn't going to make a difference anyway, they and their staffs really didn't care if it was full of errors, they just wanted to put out something.

Let's face it, they have lifetime job security anyway.

Nicki

There's a lot of crap in Supreme Court Opinions. A example is the following crap from Marsh v. Chambers.

...the First Congress...adopted the policy of... open[ing] each session with prayer.

Daily opening prayers in Congress didn't become the practice until the 1850's.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 12:25 PM
Scalia’s methodology of Constitutional interpretation is dictated by the outcome he desires. He decides what he wants a word, term, phrase or clause to mean, finds a source that defines or uses the language in a way that squares with his desired outcome and then applies whatever rule of construction takes him to that source.

For example:

When interpreting the phrase “right of the people”, in D. C. v. Heller, Scalia ignores the “normal and ordinary meaning” of the words comprising the phrase, and instead relies exclusively on the context of the phrase. That is to say, he considers nothing but the way the phrase, and the word “people” is used in other parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Recall that Scalia in the preceding paragraph, said he was going to construe the Constitution’s words and phrases as they were used in their "normal and ordinary meaning" by "ordinary citizens of the founding generation." Scalia said nothing whatsoever about establishing their meaning from the context.

However, when interpreting the word “arms”, Scalia ignores the context and the "normal and ordinary use" and relies on the way the word was used in a passage from Alexander Pope’s translation of Homer’s Iliad and by Timothy Cunningham in a passage from A new and complete Law Dictionary. Again, recall that Scalia said he was going to construe the Constitution’s words and phrases according to their "normal and ordinary" use by "ordinary citizens of the founding generation." Homer and Timothy Cunningham weren’t ordinary American citizens of the founding generation.

Scalia doesn't even follow his own espoused principle of construction. He uses whatever rule of construction will produce the meaning he wants.

dfletcher
08-11-2008, 12:41 PM
In that case, it appears we agree that 1) there is no language in the Second Amendment that could possibly be construed to mean that "concealed weapons prohibitions" are permitted under the Second Amendment, and 2) Justice Scalia is a judicial activist.

Nope. But, Scalia obviously does.

So what prompts this series of postings? Are you opposed to judicial activism or opposed to judicial activism when it is promoted by a Justice who purports to be of the "original intent" vein? Do you disagree with the decision and if so, do you disagree because you believe the 2nd does not guarantee an individual right, or because Scalia did not go far enough? Or do you just disagree with Scalia's "methodology"?

hoffmang
08-11-2008, 1:22 PM
At the time the Constitution was made, the well established common law rules of construction applicable to statutes and constitutions were identical.

No they were not. The state and federal constitutions were new species of law. The antecedents had only bound kings - not entire governments.

You're not well versed in history.

Oh - and to answer how CCW laws are different, they are time place and manner restrictions. CCW laws were about fair fights - not bearing arms. Openly bearing arms is a right. Anonymously bearing arms may have a different Constitutional analysis.

And you ducked that the House of Lords knew in 1790 what the terms People and keep and bear arms all meant. Those terms might be confusing to you, but you offer no proof that they were confusing to anyone - legislator, citizen, or judge in the 1770-1825 era. Noah Webster was a signatory and clearly defined all the terms in the first Webster's Dictionary.

-Gene

Jagger
08-11-2008, 1:25 PM
So what prompts this series of postings? Are you opposed to judicial activism? Yes

Do you disagree with the decision?
I haven't decided.

do you just disagree with Scalia's "methodology"?
At this point, yes.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 1:36 PM
Me
At the time the Constitution was made, the well established common law rules of construction applicable to statutes and constitutions were identical.

You
No they were not.

Yes they were.

The state and federal constitutions were new species of law. There is overwhelming evidence that the lawmakers understood that the well established common law rules of construction applied to the U. S. Constitution.

The antecedents had only bound kings - not entire governments.
There is overwhelming evidence that the lawmakers understood that the well established common law rules of construction applied to the U. S. Constitution.

You're not well versed in history.
There is overwhelming evidence that the lawmakers understood that the well established common law rules of construction applied to the U. S. Constitution.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 1:38 PM
the House of Lords knew in 1790 what the terms People and keep and bear arms all meant. The House of Lords didn't make the Second Amendment, dude.

dfletcher
08-11-2008, 1:46 PM
"Do you disagree with the decision? "


Yes

I haven't decided.



You are undecided regarding the 2nd as an individual right? Or you are undecided regarding Scalia not going far enough finding an individual right exists?

bulgron
08-11-2008, 1:48 PM
Yes they were.

There is overwhelming evidence that the lawmakers understood that the well established common law rules of construction applied to the U. S. Constitution.

There is overwhelming evidence that the lawmakers understood that the well established common law rules of construction applied to the U. S. Constitution.

There is overwhelming evidence that the lawmakers understood that the well established common law rules of construction applied to the U. S. Constitution.

With well-stated, deeply intellectual and persuasive arguments like this, how could I not agree with Jagger?

You convinced me, dude!

(Erm, I'm joking, just in case you can't tell. Just like I'm sure all of Jagger's posts are actually jokes....)

truthseeker
08-11-2008, 1:49 PM
Jagger,
While reading your posts they do make you sound as if you are a person which is "somewhat" educated in American law, however, it sounds to me that you are trying to argue 2A meaning which has already been "declared" an Individual Right.

So, what specifically are you trying to prove/say?

Fjold
08-11-2008, 1:53 PM
I love your answers Jagger.

I guess it seemed like a good idea. I think the idea came from the Bible.

Yes they were.

There is overwhelming evidence that the lawmakers understood that the well established common law rules of construction applied to the U. S. Constitution.

There is overwhelming evidence that the lawmakers understood that the well established common law rules of construction applied to the U. S. Constitution.

There is overwhelming evidence that the lawmakers understood that the well established common law rules of construction applied to the U. S. Constitution.

You want everyone else to prove that you are wrong by cite but all your answers that aren't cut and pastes, are unsupported by anything other than your opinion.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 2:04 PM
You are undecided regarding the 2nd as an individual right? Yes. But, it doesn't really matter, except in D. C., because the federal government was never granted general power over "arms" in the first place.

Whether the Amendment applies to the States is another can of worms all together.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 2:10 PM
...you are trying to argue 2A meaning which has already been "declared" an Individual Right. I am?

...what specifically are you trying to prove/say? That the Constitution should be interpreted by applying the well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was made.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 2:13 PM
You want everyone else to prove that you are wrong by cite but all your answers that aren't cut and pastes, are unsupported by anything other than your opinion.

There is overwhelming evidence that the lawmakers understood that the well established common law rules of construction applied to the U. S. Constitution.

Mute
08-11-2008, 2:14 PM
...because the federal government was never granted general power over "arms" in the first place.



Wow. You finally wrote something that is actually correct.

Also, based on your erroneous requirements for what can be considered "individual rights", none of the amendments in the BOR protects "individual rights" because none of them actually uses that term. :rolleyes:

bulgron
08-11-2008, 2:15 PM
There is overwhelming evidence that the lawmakers understood that the well established common law rules of construction applied to the U. S. Constitution.

One definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, expecting to somehow get a different result.

Gator Monroe
08-11-2008, 2:17 PM
2 A could be Re-Interpited by a 6 TO 3 scotus vote during Obamas second Term (And Confirmation of his 4 SCOTUS Nominee ...:eek:

Mute
08-11-2008, 2:17 PM
That the Constitution should be interpreted by applying the well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was made.

I fail to see where you've provided any evidence whatsoever that Scalia failed even based on this standard that you've created.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 2:18 PM
...none of the amendments in the BOR protects "individual rights" because none of them actually uses that term.
I disagree.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 2:23 PM
I fail to see where you've provided any evidence whatsoever that Scalia failed... You can't see that Scalia failed to apply the well established common law rules construction to the Second Amendment?

bulgron
08-11-2008, 2:24 PM
I disagree.

So let me make sure I understand your position fully:

You disagree.

Is that right?

Jagger
08-11-2008, 2:26 PM
So let me make sure I understand your position fully:

You disagree.

Is that right?

Yes.

bulgron
08-11-2008, 2:28 PM
Yes.

You sure?

FreshTapCoke
08-11-2008, 2:59 PM
You can't see that Scalia failed to apply the well established common law rules construction to the Second Amendment?

Usually this is the point in the debate where you insert evidence to support your position...

If you do not have an explanation, it is completely acceptable to state that you don't have any, but being evasive is a bit frowned upon.

pnkssbtz
08-11-2008, 3:10 PM
What seems to strike me is that this Mr. Jagger person has a very weak grasp on how to construct an argument.


I see a lot of one line responses that wouldn't even be considered a sentence. What is the basis for each rebuttal? What is the basis for his position? By what reasoning does he conclude each position?. The only way that we know what he is talking about is that he, at least, quotes the text he is responding to.

Mr. Jagger's position seems to lack credibility because of the lack of substantiation towards each of his contentions. As it stands, Mr. Jagger responds to direct and concise arguments with broad and ambiguous terms.

Merely responding with a complex (ambiguous) term such as "construction" does not validate a position. One has to explain how said complex (ambiguous) term supports their position. Which Mr. Jagger has not.

dfletcher
08-11-2008, 3:10 PM
Originally Posted by dfletcher
"You are undecided regarding the 2nd as an individual right?"


Yes. But, it doesn't really matter, except in D. C., because the federal government was never granted general power over "arms" in the first place.

Whether the Amendment applies to the States is another can of worms all together.

If you are undecided regarding the 2nd being an individual right, what's the purpose of posting here regarding Scalia's decision? Do you seek to convince people he's an activist or hypocritical? Do you propose his decision can be flawed in its writing, but correct in result? If you consider his decision fundamentally flawed why would you be undecided regarding the 2nd as an individual right?

Jagger
08-11-2008, 3:13 PM
Usually this is the point in the debate where you insert evidence to support your position...

If you do not have an explanation, it is completely acceptable to state that you don't have any, but being evasive is a bit frowned upon.

Dude, learn the rules and decide for yourself if Scalia applied them in D. C. v. Heller.

l_Z_l
08-11-2008, 3:21 PM
Dude, learn the rules and decide for yourself if Scalia applied them in D. C. v. Heller.

dude...it's pub forum and not all of us study law...how about a brief explanation and an example of where/how scalia messed up?

Paratus et Vigilans
08-11-2008, 3:23 PM
I know it's tempting . . . but please don't feed the troll . . . they're never, ever satisfied, and just keep coming back and annoying you at the table until they get something more from you.

:troll: :troll: :troll:

See! What did I tell you! :eek:

pnkssbtz
08-11-2008, 3:26 PM
Dude, learn the rules and decide for yourself if Scalia applied them in D. C. v. Heller.

Burden of proof (Latin, onus probandi) is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the ordinary rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains."


Simply telling us to go look for ourselves is not sufficient. YOU must state clearly why what you claim to support your position, supports your position.


You refuse to respond to any specific rebuttal of your claims. You refuse to expand upon what you claim to be support of your argument. And you refuse to acknowledge facts that are inconvenient to your position.


My question to you: what is your purpose other than to spread your intellectual dishonesty?

dilligaffrn
08-11-2008, 3:35 PM
One definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, expecting to somehow get a different result.

LOL

Jagger
08-11-2008, 3:49 PM
Do you seek to convince people he's an activist or hypocritical? Yep.

Do you propose his decision can be flawed in its writing, but correct in result? Yes.

If you consider his decision fundamentally flawed why would you be undecided regarding the 2nd as an individual right? Because, it's possible to get to the right place, even if you follow the wrong road. Even a blind pig sometimes manages to find an acorn.

pnkssbtz
08-11-2008, 4:00 PM
Because, it's possible to get to the right place, even if you follow the wrong road. Even a blind pig sometimes manages to find an acorn.
You have yet to support your position [the wrong road] as being the wrong road. You have merely stated your opinion without substantiation.


Let me put what you are doing in other words:

You are, in effect, over some observable event of physics (gravity, relativity, elastic collisions, etc) and stating a dissenting opinion to what has been thoroughly proven to be true.

When pressed for answers you state only "Quantum Physics" yet fail to explain how quantum physics supports your position.

While certainly there may be credible substantiating proof contained somewhere within the entirety of Quantum Physics, but merely stating "Quantum Physics" is not a valid answer.


In short, you are using, what I like to call, the "mystical hand gesture" argument. It is best noted by Obi-Wan Kenobi on Tatooine at Mos Eisley, when he entered into a discussion of ownership towards some chattel in his colleagues possession with several local constables. When pressed for proof of ownership he made a "mystical hand gesture" and explained that "these aren't the droids you're looking for".

Jagger
08-11-2008, 4:01 PM
dude...it's pub forum and not all of us study law...how about a brief explanation and an example of where/how scalia messed up? Fair enough.

His first blunder was announcing that the method of interpretation he was going to use wasn't the same one the lawmakers probably understood would be used to interpret the Second Amendment.

His second blunder was violating his own methodology.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 4:04 PM
Burden of proof (Latin, onus probandi) is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the ordinary rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains."


Simply telling us to go look for ourselves is not sufficient. YOU must state clearly why what you claim to support your position, supports your position.


You refuse to respond to any specific rebuttal of your claims. You refuse to expand upon what you claim to be support of your argument. And you refuse to acknowledge facts that are inconvenient to your position.


My question to you: what is your purpose other than to spread your intellectual dishonesty?

What do you want proof of? Please be specific.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 4:05 PM
You have yet to support your position [the wrong road] as being the wrong road. You have merely stated your opinion without substantiation.


Let me put what you are doing in other words:

You are, in effect, over some observable event of physics (gravity, relativity, elastic collisions, etc) and stating a dissenting opinion to what has been thoroughly proven to be true.

When pressed for answers you state only "Quantum Physics" yet fail to explain how quantum physics supports your position.

While certainly there may be credible substantiating proof contained somewhere within the entirety of Quantum Physics, but merely stating "Quantum Physics" is not a valid answer.


In short, you are using, what I like to call, the "mystical hand gesture" argument. It is best noted by Obi-Wan Kenobi on Tatooine at Mos Eisley, when he entered into a discussion of ownership towards some chattel in his colleagues possession with several local constables. When pressed for proof of ownership he made a "mystical hand gesture" and explained that "these aren't the droids you're looking for".

What do you want proof of? Please be specific.

thedrickel
08-11-2008, 4:06 PM
Fair enough.

His first blunder was announcing that the method of interpretation he was going to use wasn't the same one the lawmakers probably understood would be used to interpret the Second Amendment.

His second blunder was violating his own methodology.

Care to cite these blunders by page #?

pnkssbtz
08-11-2008, 4:17 PM
What do you want proof of? Please be specific.The irony[1] inherent in your statement is astounding.

But no, I am not asking for substantiation, I am telling you that your argument is flawed because you have yet to substantiate any your base claims.


Footnote [1] See also hypocrisy.

BillCA
08-11-2008, 4:24 PM
So here we have an opinion, written within the first 100 years of our Republic, by an expert constitutional scholar and written about 128 years before the Heller case. It addresses, directly, the "collective rights theory" and debunks it.


SECTION IV. — THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.

The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

What Arms may be kept. — The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited.
[Underline & bold emphasis added, italics in the original]

-- Thomas M. Cooley (1824-1898), Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court and author of the leading nineteenth-century works on constitutional law including General Principles of Consitutional Law (1880) (http://www.constitution.org/cmt/tmc/pcl.htm) from which this was quoted.

Regardless of "rules of construction" or other legal obsfucations, here we have a 19th century state Supreme Court Chief Justice and constitutional scholar who clearly tosses out the "collective rights theory" well before it became a political tool of the left.

This removes the "activist" charges against Scalia for trying to manipulate a decision based on word games or silly-a** rules. He also describes concealed weapons prohibitions as acceptable, based on the thinking that was common at the time the amdendment was adopted. Cooley was, during his time, exceptionally well versed in Constitutional law.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 4:46 PM
Care to cite these blunders by page #?

Here's his first blunder:

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 4:47 PM
The irony[1] inherent in your statement is astounding.

But no, I am not asking for substantiation, I am telling you that your argument is flawed because you have yet to substantiate any your base claims.


Footnote [1] See also hypocrisy.

Can't you just trust me?

Gator Monroe
08-11-2008, 4:51 PM
Can't you just trust me?

If you are in their minds a Troll (Reguardless of the validity of your point ) then to get their trust back you must get others to agree with you in this thread ...

Jagger
08-11-2008, 4:55 PM
It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. --Cooley

How can the very thing we're looking for be used to find the thing we're looking for. That's like telling someone to use their flashlight to find their flashlight.

BillCA
08-11-2008, 5:01 PM
It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.

--Cooley
How can the very thing we're looking for be used to find the thing we're looking for. That's like telling someone to use their flashlight to find their flashlight.

Your meaning is unclear.
Cooley speaks of phraseology vs. intent.

BillCA
08-11-2008, 5:06 PM
Here's his first blunder:


In interpreting this text, we are guided by the

principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

Are you saying its a blunder to think the constitution was meant to be understood by the voters (those who could read) at the time of its adoption? Or are you saying that the words in the constitution don't carry their "ordinary and normal meanings"?

I'm confused. What was the blunder?

pnkssbtz
08-11-2008, 5:10 PM
Can't you just trust me?
Trust?

You are making claims contrary to historical evidence, contrary to legal review, contrary to scholarly review and without even substantiating your own position, and you ask that we trust you?

Jagger
08-11-2008, 5:11 PM
Your meaning is unclear.
Cooley speaks of phraseology vs. intent.

Cooley uses what he's looking for, "the intent of the lawmakers", to find what he's looking for, which is "the intent of the lawmakers."

l_Z_l
08-11-2008, 5:18 PM
I think we're getting somewhere now...he's quoted a piece but hasn't disclosed where/what the error is. Your next move should be to explain your train of thought and point out where you feel there is a mistake. I don't study law and have no knowledge of those case laws. I'm assuming it's has something to do w/ the original intent of those case laws that were misinterpreted???

Jagger
08-11-2008, 5:21 PM
Are you saying its a blunder to think the constitution was meant to be understood by the voters? Yes. That sounds all noble and warm and fuzzy and such, but it wasn't what the lawmakers kept in mind as they were making it.

For example: When John Dickinson was trying to anticipate how the term "ex post facto laws" would be construed, he didn't try to find out what the voters thought it meant. He wanted to know what the English Common Law, as articulated by Blackstone, said it meant.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 5:32 PM
...are you saying that the words in the constitution don't carry their "ordinary and normal meanings"?

What I am saying is that, at the time the Constitution was being made, there was a well established universally accepted common law method of interpreting laws. (See page 59 of Blackstone Commentaries)

I am also saying that there is an abundance of evidence in the following sources that the lawmakers understood, assumed, believe or took for granted that the same rules of construction applied to the Constitution be made.

The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, which framed the Constitution of the United States of America, reported by James Madison, a delegate from the state of Virginia

The Federalist Papers

The Anti-Federalist Papers

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

Mute
08-11-2008, 5:37 PM
I disagree.

I'm sorry, what do you disagree with? Your purposeful misquote of my statement above or my actual statement below?

Also, based on your erroneous requirements for what can be considered "individual rights", none of the amendments in the BOR protects "individual rights" because none of them actually uses that term.

If it's the former, then you're actually disagreeing with yourself. Maybe you should clear up the your own confusion before you attempt to educate us with your poor understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

BillCA
08-11-2008, 5:42 PM
Cooley uses what he's looking for, "the intent of the lawmakers", to find what he's looking for, which is "the intent of the lawmakers."

I'll stipulate that the quote from Cooley is not a court decision and does not cite sources. But the quotation comes directly from his treatise on the principles of Constitutional law as a reference work of his learned opinions.

He expresses that the phraseology might be construed to mean something other than the original intent, then goes on to describe what that intent was, in direct language. There was no need to deconstruct the entire amendment word by word, as you suggest.

BillCA
08-11-2008, 5:48 PM
Yes. That sounds all noble and warm and fuzzy and such, but it wasn't what the lawmakers kept in mind as they were making it.

For example: When John Dickinson was trying to anticipate how the term "ex post facto laws" would be construed, he didn't try to find out what the voters thought it meant. He wanted to know what the English Common Law, as articulated by Blackstone, said it meant.

I think that's a bogus argument. I recall reading Tom Paine's public writings and seeing him use the term "ex post facto" without explanation. As well as an early Philadelphia paper (Gazzette?) railing against an ex post facto law to fine anyone who had spread the word of any of a number for "seditious" publications.

In neither case was the term "defined" for the reader. Many people of that time knew what the term meant in terms of political power.

BillCA
08-11-2008, 5:58 PM
What I am saying is that, at the time the Constitution was being made, there was a well established universally accepted common law method of interpreting laws. (See page 59 of Blackstone Commentaries)

I am also saying that there is an abundance of evidence in the following sources that the lawmakers understood, assumed, believe or took for granted that the same rules of construction applied to the Constitution be made.
The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, which framed the Constitution of the United States of America, reported by James Madison, a delegate from the state of Virginia

The Federalist Papers

The Anti-Federalist Papers

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution



If there is such an abundance of it, how about a legitimate reference to one? Perhaps one in which the discussion refers to how an item will be interpreted or understood?

I can make the claim that "X" is against the law and simply refer to Title 26 USC as proof. Yet Title 26 is the Internal Revenue Code and one can spend a lifetime searching it.

Jagger
08-11-2008, 6:24 PM
I'll stipulate that the quote from Cooley is not a court decision and does not cite sources. But the quotation comes directly from his treatise on the principles of Constitutional law as a reference work of his learned opinions.

He expresses that the phraseology might be construed to mean something other than the original intent, then goes on to describe what that intent was, in direct language. There was no need to deconstruct the entire amendment word by word, as you suggest.

What methodology did he use?

Jagger
08-11-2008, 6:33 PM
The militia...consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.
--T. Cooley

What method of interpretation did Cooley use to ascertain the meaning of the word "militia?"

BillCA
08-11-2008, 6:36 PM
What methodology did he use?

What method of interpretation did Cooley use to ascertain the meaning of the word "militia?"

It's irrelevant. As stated, the treatise is not intended to be a deconstruction of the amendment to illustrate or support a decision. The work was intended for law students studying constitutional law and that the principles stated are those which have been settled, judicially or otherwise, in the practical working of the government.

Quoting from the preface:

THE manual which follows has been prepared for the use of students in law schools and other institutions of learning. The design has been to present succinctly the general principles of constitutional law, whether they pertain to the federal system, or to the state system, or to both.

dfletcher
08-11-2008, 6:54 PM
Here's his first blunder:

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation.

I understand part of your purpose is to criticize Scalia as being hypocritical. But you have written that you are opposed to judicial activism per se. Are all Justices to some degree activists and it's just a matter or how much and on which issues? Which Justice comes to mind, present or recent past, as having not engaged in judicial activism?

Jagger
08-11-2008, 6:54 PM
It's irrelevant.

Any interpretation obtained by using defective methodology isn't worth much, at least in my humble estimation. It appears that Cooley may have just made up a definition of "militia" that squared with the interpretation he desired.

What did Cooley say about methodology of interpretation?

Jagger
08-11-2008, 6:56 PM
I understand part of your purpose is to criticize Scalia as being hypocritical. but you have written that you are opposed to judicial activism per se. Are all Justices to some degree activists and it's just a matter or how much and on which issues? Which Justice comes to mind, present or recent past, as having not engaged in judicial activism?

I don't know. I'm just beginning my research into "judicial activism."

hoffmang
08-11-2008, 7:27 PM
When you're arguing with the Black Knight you know the thread is over...

kNKSzmM44gE

"Allright, we'll call it a draw."

-Gene

BillCA
08-11-2008, 10:47 PM
When you're arguing with the Black Knight you know the thread is over...

"Allright, we'll call it a draw."

-Gene

Actually, this is more appropriate. :D

k3HaRFBSq9k

--BillCA

Jagger
08-12-2008, 5:12 AM
If there is such an abundance of it, how about a legitimate reference to one?


But as the inventors of this fallacy have attempted to support it by certain legal maxims of interpretation, which they have perverted from their true meaning, it may not be wholly useless to explore the ground they have taken.

The rules of legal interpretation are rules of common sense, adopted by the courts in the construction of the laws.

--Federalist No. 83 by Alexander Hamilton

bulgron
08-12-2008, 8:49 AM
The rules of legal interpretation are rules of common sense, adopted by the courts in the construction of the laws.

--Federalist No. 83 by Alexander Hamilton

Well then, it certainly looks to me like Scalia got it right in Heller. That decision certainly meets my definition of "common sense". Millions of people agree with me too, I think.

Gator Monroe
08-12-2008, 9:19 AM
If posters here think Heller bought us more than an extra 5 years (for 15 years total) of future Private (Non Leo/Military) firearms ownership they are underestamating a Liberal SCOTUS WITH NO MORE THAN 3 CONSERVATIVES ON IT after Obamas second term as the Chosen one !

bulgron
08-12-2008, 10:08 AM
If posters here think Heller bought us more than an extra 5 years (for 15 years total) of future Private (Non Leo/Military) firearms ownership they are underestamating a Liberal SCOTUS WITH NO MORE THAN 3 CONSERVATIVES ON IT after Obamas second term as the Chosen one !

Just remember, if the liberals take control of the court and somehow twist Heller around so that they can ban firearms, then the next time conservatives have the court (and there IS always a next time) they can twist Roe around so that abortion is bannable.

Mutual assured destruction is a wonderful thing.

Jagger
08-12-2008, 12:32 PM
That decision certainly meets my definition of "common sense". The lawmakers didn't want their words interpreted according to your definition of common sense, dude. They wanted it interpreted by applying the universally accepted common law rules of construction.

George Mason Applies Rules of Construction to Interpret Constitution

During the framing of the Constitution, a question arose regarding the meaning of the phrase that read, "To declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies &c." George Mason doubted “the safety of it, considering the strict rule of construction in criminal cases.” Mason, an experienced lawmaker, understood that the Constitution was to be interpreted according to the well established common law rules of construction.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/817.htm

bulgron
08-12-2008, 1:15 PM
The lawmakers didn't want their words interpreted according to your definition of common sense, dude. They wanted it interpreted by applying the universally accepted common law rules of construction.

George Mason Applies Rules of Construction to Interpret Constitution

During the framing of the Constitution, a question arose regarding the meaning of the phrase that read, "To declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies &c." George Mason doubted “the safety of it, considering the strict rule of construction in criminal cases.” Mason, an experienced lawmaker, understood that the Constitution was to be interpreted according to the well established common law rules of construction.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/817.htm

tttpppphhhhhttttt

Heller conforms to my understanding of the 2A. It also conforms to the understanding of how tens of millions other Americans understand the 2A. I'm happy with Heller, and your bizarre little games on this board aren't going to change things one little bit.

Maybe if you actually had something to say, instead of repeating yourself ad-nauseum, you might be worth talking to. But you don't have anything to say, so it's to the ignore list for you.

Go away now Troll. You bore me.

Mute
08-12-2008, 1:27 PM
The lawmakers didn't want their words interpreted according to your definition of common sense, dude. They wanted it interpreted by applying the universally accepted common law rules of construction.

George Mason Applies Rules of Construction to Interpret Constitution

During the framing of the Constitution, a question arose regarding the meaning of the phrase that read, "To declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies &c." George Mason doubted “the safety of it, considering the strict rule of construction in criminal cases.” Mason, an experienced lawmaker, understood that the Constitution was to be interpreted according to the well established common law rules of construction.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/817.htm

You have once again demonstrated your brilliance at selectively (and inaccurately) quoting out of context. They were discussing matters of criminal law.

Jagger
08-12-2008, 1:50 PM
Heller conforms to my understanding of the 2A. I seriously doubt the lawmakers made the Second Amendment with the belief it would be interpreted to conform to your misunderstanding.

Jagger
08-12-2008, 2:23 PM
John Dickinson Applies Rules of Construction to U. S. Constitution


John Dickinson received the best legal education available in England, at the “Temple in London”, termed by Edward Coke as, “the best University for profession of law.” During the framing of the Constitution a question arose as to the meaning of the phrase “ex post facto Law.” The records show that Dickinson went to “Blackstone’s Commentaries” (not the "ordinary citizens") to ascertain whether or not the phrase included both civil and criminal laws.

Dickinson “found that the term “‘ex post facto’ related to criminal cases only” and “mentioned” this to the Convention. This founding father obviously didn’t subscribe to Justice Scalia’s pudden-headed principle that the meaning of the text of the Constitution should be collected from the normal and ordinary use of words by ordinary citizens of the founding generation.

“Ex post facto law” is ambiguous. The context doesn't resolve the ambiguity. Therefore, Dickinson applied Blackstone's third basic rule of construction and examined the "subject matter", which revealed that the term "ex post facto" related only to criminal laws.

Bishop
08-12-2008, 2:44 PM
This thread is pure gold.

"My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is so complex, not even I understand it!"

At least I got some sig material out of it! :D

GuyW
08-12-2008, 2:51 PM
The records show that Dickinson went to “Blackstone’s Commentaries” (not the "ordinary citizens")


Your house of cards assumes that "knowledge of ordinary citizens" is different from the "knowledge of the legislators" for the topics under discussion.

Prove it.

Your house of cards also assumes there is no difference in analytical approach to technical fine points of law, as compared with the political philosophy of rights documented in the Constitution (such as the 2nd Am). All Englishmen knew from the time of the Magna Carta that they had the right to arms (albeit violated by various monarchs). Colonialists, steeped in years of political analysis, argument and debate, certainly knew it even better.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were created by "the People". They were publicly posted and debated by "the People". They were approved and supported by "the People"...They should be interpreted in light of the People's understanding.

The People's common knowledge at the time is the ONLY rational basis of analysis.

383green
08-12-2008, 3:22 PM
I can certainly see how this is such a complex debate.

If we interpret the wording of the second amendment as it would be understood by the common man, then we reach the inescapable conclusion that the second amendment guarantees an individual right for people to keep and bear arms.

On the other hand, if we instead infer legislative intent based on the contemporary writings of the lawmakers who created the Bill of Rights, ignoring the common man's interpretation, then we reach the inescapable conclusion that the second amendment guarantees an individual right for people to keep and bear arms.

But then, there is yet another angle. What if we study the Second Amendment in light of common law as it existed at the time of the framing of the Constitution? Well, in this case, we reach the inescapable conclusion that the second amendment guarantees an individual right for people to keep and bear arms.

Now, let's examine this from a purely hypothetical direction: What if the framers of the Constitution intended that the Second Amendment be interpreted as it would be understood by bulgron in 2008? In this case, we reach the inescapable conclusion that the second amendment guarantees an individual right for people to keep and bear arms.

In trying to cipher this stuff out, I have gotten myself thoroughly befuddled. What were we debating, again?

bulgron
08-12-2008, 3:46 PM
In trying to cipher this stuff out, I have gotten myself thoroughly befuddled. What were we debating, again?

Clearly the problem is that you missed one very important angle: What if we examine the Second Amendment from the direction of someone who is really desperate to interpret it such that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right for people to keep and bear arms? In that case, through "sophisticated" linguistic and legal gymnastics that are beyond the understanding of mortal men, we reach the inescapable conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right for people to keep and bear arms. However, and this is critical, we won't like it, and so we'll pout and spew and whine all over pro-gun message boards.

There, now you know what we're actually debating. :D

I stand ready to clarify any further confusion you or other readers on this board may be experiencing, should the need arise. :D :D

383green
08-12-2008, 3:50 PM
This is wearing me out. Let's go debate with Gene Ray (http://www.timecube.com) instead.

l_Z_l
08-12-2008, 3:54 PM
I don't recall reading his position on the 2nd amendment...he's been critizicing that the method used in the heller decision was flawed. this has been one confusing (interesting nonetheless) thread.

pnkssbtz
08-12-2008, 4:45 PM
In trying to cipher this stuff out, I have gotten myself thoroughly befuddled. What were we debating, again?

Yes, but how does the scrutiny hold up when viewed in light of the Pauli Exclusion Principle? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle)

The Pauli Exclusion Principal states: "a single-valued many-particle wavefunction is equivalent to the assumption that the wavefunction is antisymmetric."

So clearly "Right" and "People" can hold different (or the same) meanings when viewing their quantum wave functions respectively...

Jagger
08-12-2008, 4:55 PM
...They should be interpreted in light of the People's understanding. Why?

pnkssbtz
08-12-2008, 4:59 PM
Why?
The answer, of which you so skillfully ignore was the immediate sentences prior to the one you quoted (conveniently omitting answer you yourself ask for...)
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were created by "the People". They were publicly posted and debated by "the People". They were approved and supported by "the People"...They should be interpreted in light of the People's understanding.

Do you even read what is typed? Or do you just Michael Moore everything?

Jagger
08-12-2008, 5:10 PM
...They should be interpreted in light of the People's understanding. Why should we apply that principle when the historical evidence overwhelming supports the view that the lawmakers assumed, believed, understood or took for granted that the universally accepted common law rules of construction applied to the Constitution.

Here's one the delegates to the Convention that framed the Constitution, Robert Yates, indicating a belief that there were rules of construction that applied to laws and that the same rules applied to the Constitution being considered for ratification.

It is a rule in construing a law to consider the objects the legislature had in view in passing it, and to give it such an explanation as to promote their intention. The same rule will apply in explaining a constitution.

--Brutus aka Robert Yates

December 13, 1787

http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus05.txt

.

Jagger
08-12-2008, 5:13 PM
I can certainly see how this is such a complex debate.

If we interpret the wording of the second amendment as it would be understood by the common man, then we reach the inescapable conclusion that the second amendment guarantees an individual right for people to keep and bear arms.

On the other hand, if we instead infer legislative intent based on the contemporary writings of the lawmakers who created the Bill of Rights, ignoring the common man's interpretation, then we reach the inescapable conclusion that the second amendment guarantees an individual right for people to keep and bear arms.

But then, there is yet another angle. What if we study the Second Amendment in light of common law as it existed at the time of the framing of the Constitution? Well, in this case, we reach the inescapable conclusion that the second amendment guarantees an individual right for people to keep and bear arms.

Now, let's examine this from a purely hypothetical direction: What if the framers of the Constitution intended that the Second Amendment be interpreted as it would be understood by bulgron in 2008? In this case, we reach the inescapable conclusion that the second amendment guarantees an individual right for people to keep and bear arms.

In trying to cipher this stuff out, I have gotten myself thoroughly befuddled. What were we debating, again?

Interpreting laws is a *****. That's why the English Courts established objective rules of construction.

383green
08-12-2008, 5:14 PM
Why?

Who cares? Whether you interpret the words by the common people's understanding, or the understanding of the legislators who wrote the amendment (which is well-documented), you end up with the same answer.

This entire debate (if it can even be called that) is pointless.

:troll: :beatdeadhorse5:

Mute
08-12-2008, 5:42 PM
Wrap your head around this. The Constitution (especially the BOR) is law only in the sense that it is there to put limits on what the government can or cannot do with the law. It is meant to state clearly (without ambiguity) the most important basic rights of every free born person that is a part of these United States. As long as you miss this very important point about the Constitution, you're going to continue to fumble in the dark with your unsupportable belief that the Constitution needs to be "interpreted" by some supposed objective standard, something which you have so far fail to prove (both the objectivity rules of construction or that they weren't the method for "interpreting" the Constitution).

You've also continued to dodge several relevant questions that directly relates to the nature of the BOR. For one, do you belief the other Amendments in the BOR refers to individuals when it mentions "the people?" If yes, then how do you rectify the contradiction that "the people" refers to the collective in the 2nd Amendment but not in the others?

Jagger
08-12-2008, 7:27 PM
Who cares? Whether you interpret the words by the common people's understanding, or the understanding of the legislators who wrote the amendment (which is well-documented), you end up with the same answer. Give us the names of the three million or so common people of the United States at the time the Constitution was made, and then tell us what the understanding of each one was regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Jagger
08-12-2008, 7:31 PM
It is meant to state clearly (without ambiguity) the most important basic rights of every free born person that is a part of these United States.

Show us evidence that even one of the lawmakers ever said that.

pnkssbtz
08-12-2008, 7:32 PM
Give us the names of the three million or so common people of the United States at the time the Constitution was made, and then tell us what the understanding of each one was regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Give me the names of 3 million constitutional attorneys in the United States at the time of the constitution was made who agree with your concept of applying Construction to the Bill of Rights.


Clearly what I ask is impossible. Just as what you ask is impossible. Why do you make such demands?

How about this: bring me a piece of cheese from the milk of a cow-chicken from a planet in Tau Ceti as proof of your position.

Jagger
08-12-2008, 7:43 PM
...how do you rectify the contradiction that "the people" refers to the collective in the 2nd Amendment but not in the others?

It is by no means a correct rule of interpretation to construe the same word in the same sense, wherever it occurs in the same instrument.

762cavalier
08-12-2008, 7:43 PM
cir·cu·lar Audio Help /ˈsɜrkyələr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sur-kyuh-ler] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. having the form of a circle; round: a circular tower.
2. of or pertaining to a circle: a circular plane.
3. moving in or forming a circle or a circuit: the circular rotation of the earth.
4. moving or occurring in a cycle or round: the circular succession of the seasons.
5. roundabout; indirect; circuitous: a circular route.
6. Logic. of or pertaining to reasoning in which the conclusion is ostensibly proved, but in actuality it or its equivalent has been assumed as a premise.
7. pertaining to a circle or set of persons.
8. (of a letter, memorandum, etc.) addressed to a number of persons or intended for general circulation.
–noun
9. a letter, advertisement, notice, or statement for circulation among the general public.


Time to quit feeding the:troll::troll::troll:

bulgron
08-12-2008, 8:26 PM
Time to quit feeding the:troll::troll::troll:

1. Click on User CP (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/usercp.php)

2. Click on Edit Ignore List (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/profile.php?do=ignorelist)

3. In the "Add a Member to Your List...." field, enter Jagger.

4. Click the Okay button.

5. Sit back and enjoy your individual right to arms in peace and harmony.

762cavalier
08-12-2008, 8:28 PM
:D;)

383green
08-12-2008, 8:36 PM
Give us the names of the three million or so common people of the United States at the time the Constitution was made, and then tell us what the understanding of each one was regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Your argument has been that the common man's understanding of the wording of the Bill of Rights is not relevant, and that Scalia was incorrect to interpret the plain meaning of the Second Amendment. As far as I can tell, the inference seems to be that he reached the wrong conclusion as a result of this. Since you, yourself, have stated the irrelevance of the opinions of those three million or so people, I see no reason why I should deign to travel back in time and then ask each of them for their name and their understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment.

My argument has been that the legislative intent of the very people who wrote the Bill of Rights is well-documented. We neither have to travel back in time nor apply the universally accepted common law rules of construction to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment, because the very people who wrote it and/or voted in favor of it have been thoughtful enough to write down both their names and their understanding of the Second Amendment. If you would like to study these writings, I suggest the Federalist Papers as a starting point. In doing so, you will find that Scalia's interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms is correct, whether you like the way that he supported his conclusion or not.

Basically, my assertion has been that this entire debate is moot, because ignoring the plain meaning of the words in the Second Amendment doesn't change the outcome. The legislative intent of the writers is no mystery.

I know that I'm feeding the :troll: by even responding, but I can't help but to take the high road by trying to participate in a rational debate, even if the other side of the stage seems to be rather lacking in rationality, in my humble opinion. We'll see how much longer I last before I put him on my ignore list and unsubscribe from this thread, but so far the thread still has some comedic value. ;)

hoffmang
08-12-2008, 8:41 PM
383,

The troll is so wrong on so many items.

Even if he's right, stare decisis now makes him wrong. It's like arguing with an ex wife that she's ugly...

-Gene

383green
08-12-2008, 8:57 PM
The troll is so wrong on so many items.

Even if he's right, stare decisis now makes him wrong. It's like arguing with an ex wife that she's ugly...

Oh, I know. I'm simply interested in taking a brief turn in this pointless debate, in which the same result is reached whether the main premise is proven right or wrong, in much the same way that somebody might become momentarily fascinated by a carnival oddity. I don't think I'm alone in this somewhat perverse fascination; after all, you're still reading the thread and responding in it, aren't you? ;)

Furthermore, I think it's more like trying to teach a cat to fold blankets. It won't work, and it annoys the cat. Perhaps I'm just showing a dark part of my personality when I cannot help but try to annoy this particular cat. Or am I the cat? Like I wrote earlier, we might get farther debating with Gene Ray (http://www.timecube.com).

Hmm, something seems to be missing in my argument. Maybe it needs more boldface?

762cavalier
08-12-2008, 8:59 PM
To Me this thread is like a train wreck

I know I shouldn't slow down and look but I just can't help myself:D

truthseeker
08-12-2008, 9:26 PM
I want in before this gets locked!

Shotgun Man
08-12-2008, 9:35 PM
It is a testament to our open-mindedness that no one has suggested that jagger be banned.

We know we are in the right, and we are willing to listen to someone who opposes our views.

Our conduct only underscores the validity of our position.

bulgron
08-12-2008, 9:48 PM
It is a testament to our open-mindedness that no one has suggested that jagger be banned.

We know we are in the right, and we are willing to listen to someone who opposes our views.

Our conduct only underscores the validity of our position.

Either that, or it's just a slow news day. :D

EastBayRidge
08-12-2008, 9:49 PM
"To Me this thread is like a train wreck"

More like Rain Man

CorrectrulesofinterpretationScaliajudicialactivist CorrectrulesofinterpretationScaliajudicialactivist
CorrectrulesofinterpretationScaliajudicialactivist CorrectrulesofinterpretationScaliajudicialactivist ...

Mallardstacker
08-12-2008, 10:56 PM
"To Me this thread is like a train wreck"

More like Rain Man

CorrectrulesofinterpretationScaliajudicialactivist CorrectrulesofinterpretationScaliajudicialactivist
CorrectrulesofinterpretationScaliajudicialactivist CorrectrulesofinterpretationScaliajudicialactivist ...

LMFAO! :rofl2:

swhatb
08-12-2008, 11:13 PM
good read... tag

Jagger
08-13-2008, 5:07 AM
Give me the names of 3 million constitutional attorneys in the United States at the time of the constitution was made who agree with your concept of applying Construction to the Bill of Rights. Clearly what I ask is impossible. Just as what you ask is impossible. Why do you make such demands? To make the point that it's impossible for us to interpret the Constitution's words according to the common people's understanding of them, because we have no way of ascertaining what their collective understanding was.

Judicial activists, such as Scalia, adopt warm and fuzzy and impractical principles of interpretation, to camouflage their true activist methodology.

Jagger
08-13-2008, 5:42 AM
Your argument has been that the common man's understanding of the wording of the Bill of Rights is not relevant... My argument is that there were well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was made; and there is an abundance of evidence, in the historical documents generated during the making of the Constitution, that the lawmakers took for granted that the well established common law rules of construction applied to it.

On the other hand, the "common man's understanding" principle of interpretation didn't even exist at the time the Constitution was made; and there is no evidence whatsoever, in the historical documents generated during the making of the Constitution, that the lawmakers wanted it applied to the Constitution.

Jagger
08-13-2008, 5:50 AM
Your argument has been that...that Scalia was incorrect to interpret the plain meaning of the Second Amendment.

Why do you interpret something if you already ascertained it's meaning?

...the legislative intent of the very people who wrote the Bill of Rights is well-documented. What was the legislative intent of the Second Amendment and what exactly is the documentation?

Jagger
08-13-2008, 6:01 AM
My argument has been that the legislative intent of the very people who wrote the Bill of Rights is well-documented. We neither have to travel back in time nor apply the universally accepted common law rules of construction to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment, because the very people who wrote it and/or voted in favor of it have been thoughtful enough to write down both their names and their understanding of the Second Amendment. If you would like to study these writings, I suggest the Federalist Papers as a starting point. There's nothing in the Federalist Papers about the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment didn't even exist when the Federalists Papers were published.

Jagger
08-13-2008, 6:04 AM
...ignoring the plain meaning of the words in the Second Amendment doesn't change the outcome. The legislative intent of the writers is no mystery. What's your definition of plain meaning?

383green
08-13-2008, 8:06 AM
There's nothing in the Federalist Papers about the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment didn't even exist when the Federalists Papers were published.

The Federalist Papers, as well as other contemporary writings, do show that the very men who wrote the Second Amendment and/or ratified it believed that there exists a natural, individual right for free men to keep and bear arms:

Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ...

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun.


...and so forth. The legislative intent of the framers of the Constitution with respect to the Second Amendment is well-documented and unambiguous.

Would you care to tell us what the meaning of the Second Amendment would be under an application of the universally accepted common law rules of construction? If the result would be different than the well-documented legislative intent of the writers and/or ratifiers of the Second Amendment, then please support your assertion that the writers and/or ratifiers meant something other than what they said that they meant.

Theseus
08-13-2008, 8:22 AM
The gun-control people don't care what the "intent" of the founders were.

Surely when they created the 2nd Amendment there was no such thing as gun violence, so there is no way they could have perceived the "public safety" issue that it does today, and is thus the justification for denying and removing our rights...

Get it right people. . they don't want to ban our guns, or deny our rights...all they want is to stop gun violence. . . They just can't seem to understand that the people that will take our guns away in the name of safety and security are also the ones that look to subjugate us later, once our weapons are gone and our spirit broke.

Jagger
08-13-2008, 9:09 AM
The Federalist Papers, as well as other contemporary writings, do show that the very men who wrote the Second Amendment and/or ratified it believed that there exists a natural, individual right for free men to keep and bear arms:


Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

--Tench Coxe

Dude, Tench Coxe wasn't even one of the lawmakers who participated in the making of the Second Amendment. I'm not going to waste time on the other evidence you posted until you whittle it down to statements made, during the making of the Second Amendment, by lawmakers who actually participated in the making of the Amendment.

Glock22Fan
08-13-2008, 9:27 AM
Surely when they created the 2nd Amendment there was no such thing as gun violence, so there is no way they could have perceived the "public safety" issue that it does today, and is thus the justification for denying and removing our rights...

Dude, there has been violence since Cain and Abel, and gun violence as soon as guns became available. There have been serial killers and psychos throughout history. The main reason it wasn't such a concern back then was because there wasn't a coast-to-coast media whipping up hysteria at that time.

Jagger
08-13-2008, 9:55 AM
The gun-control people don't care what the "intent" of the founders were. The intent of the founders is irrelevant, dude. The object of interpreting the Second Amendment should be to ascertain the will of lawmakers by applying the well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Amendment was made.

Mute
08-13-2008, 9:58 AM
Dude, Tench Coxe wasn't even one of the lawmakers who participated in the making of the Second Amendment. I'm not going to waste time on the other evidence you posted until you whittle it down to statements made, during the making of the Second Amendment, by lawmakers who actually participated in the making of the Amendment.

IOW, you ask us to do what you have now refused to do several times. You made a supposition and so far have utterly failed to prove a single one of your points about the rules of construction other than printing other's opinions of what the authors of the Constitution supposedly believes are the proper methods of interpreting law.

We'll start showing you our proof when you do the same. Show a single instance, ONE single instance where any one of authors of the Constitution says specifically that they intended the 2nd Amendment to be a collective right and that future readers of the Bill Of Rights need to use the rules of construction to decipher their intentions in creating these Amendments. So far you have not done so.

Mute
08-13-2008, 10:03 AM
The intent of the founders is irrelevant, dude. The object of interpreting the Second Amendment should be to ascertain the will of lawmakers by applying the well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Amendment was made.

IOW, the will of the lawmakers is irrelevant because we need to ascertain the will of the lawmakers by applying the well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Amendment was made? In case you forgot (or maybe intentionally and conveniently "forgetting") the founders were the "lawmakers" as far as the BOR is concerned. At least show some intellectual honesty.

383green
08-13-2008, 10:18 AM
Dude, Tench Coxe wasn't even one of the lawmakers who participated in the making of the Second Amendment.

Ok, dude, then we can put him on that list of about three million common people that you asked for.

I'm not going to waste time on the other evidence you posted until you whittle it down to statements made, during the making of the Second Amendment, by lawmakers who actually participated in the making of the Amendment.

No problem, dude. The Bill of Rights was proposed to the First United States Congress by James Madison. In The Federalist #46 he wrote:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Here, he talks about the advantage of individual Americans being armed.

I expect I could go on in this manner for quite a while, but I will not waste time doing so until you tell us what the meaning of the Second Amendment would be under an application of the universally accepted common law rules of construction. ;)

eaglemike
08-13-2008, 10:38 AM
The intent of the founders is irrelevant, dude. The object of interpreting the Second Amendment should be to ascertain the will of lawmakers by applying the well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Amendment was made.

:D

Please provide proof that the creators of the founding documents referenced and used and were bound by the common law rules of construction.

Jagger
08-13-2008, 11:09 AM
You...have utterly failed to prove a single one of your points about the rules of construction...
OK, let's start from the top.

I have alleged that there were well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was made. Do you allege there weren't?

Jagger
08-13-2008, 11:23 AM
Show a single instance, ONE single instance where any one of authors of the Constitution says specifically that they intended the 2nd Amendment to be a collective right. I don't buy your premise: That the lawmakers meant for the meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be collected from what one or more of the lawmakers, or anyone else, said about the meaning of the Constitution, unless what they said is admissible under the well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was being made.

My view is that the Constitution should be constructed fairly and objectively by applying the well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was being made. I subscribe to this view because there is an abundance of evidence, in the historical evidence generated while the Constitution was being made, that the lawmakers understood and took for granted that the rules of constriction applied to the proposed Constitution.

383green
08-13-2008, 11:26 AM
I have alleged that there were well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was made. Do you allege there weren't?

Why don't we stipulate for the moment that there were well established common law rules of construction in existence at the time the Constitution was drafted. We can always remove that stipulation if we discover evidence to the contrary.

Let us further stipulate, for the sake of breaking out of this loop and furthering the discussion, that the framers of the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, were well-versed in these well established common law rules of construction, and took for granted that these well established common law rules of construction could, would and should be used in order to understand their legislative intent.

Based on these stipulations, what would the Second Amendment mean when interpreted under the well established common law rules of construction?

Mute
08-13-2008, 11:29 AM
I don't buy your premise: That the lawmakers meant for the meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be collected from what one or more of the lawmakers, or anyone else, said about the meaning of the Constitution, unless what they said is admissible under the well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was being made.

My view is that the Constitution should be constructed fairly and objectively by applying the well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was being made. I subscribe to this view because there is an abundance of evidence, in the historical evidence generated while the Constitution was being made, that the lawmakers understood and took for granted that the rules of constriction applied to the proposed Constitution.

IOW you can't show it, therefore you'll continue repeating your point until everyone believes you are correct. What I'm "alleging" is that the well established common law rules of construction supports the fact that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right. Since you're the one who's claiming that not only did Scalia not follow these rules but also that if followed, he'd have to conclude that the 2nd is not an individual right, it is your task to prove that this is the case. So far you have proven neither.

383green
08-13-2008, 11:38 AM
IOW you can't show it, therefore you'll continue repeating your point until everyone believes you are correct

He's almost convinced me... maybe if he tried repeating the same thing over again using italics instead of bold face, that would do the trick? :D

But seriously, unless I have missed a comment somewhere in this long thread, I have not seen any indication of whether Scalia's interpretation of the Second Amendment would be different if he had made exclusive use of well established common law rules of construction (whatever those are; I'd like to see them defined). That's what I'm trying to get Mr. Jagger to address at the moment.

So, Mr. Jagger, please describe the meaning of the Second Amendment when interpreted with well established common law rules of construction.

Jagger
08-13-2008, 11:39 AM
If the result would be different than the well-documented legislative intent of the writers and/or ratifiers of the Second Amendment... Do you mean those statements made by persons - such as Noah Webster, Patrick Henry, Sam Adams and Tench Coxe - who didn't even participate in the making of the Amendment, which you cherry picked, for other reason than they happen to square with your personal views?

Mute
08-13-2008, 11:51 AM
It is by no means a correct rule of interpretation to construe the same word in the same sense, wherever it occurs in the same instrument.

Prove it. And not with your opinion.

Paratus et Vigilans
08-13-2008, 11:52 AM
I can't believe this thread is still alive and kicking!

The answer is rather simple:

Correct method of interpreting the U.S. Constitution = any method that gets the votes of at least five justices at any given time.

There is no right or wrong way to do it. There are varying schools of thought on the subject, and these change and evolve as does the nation and the makeup of the SCOTUS. The real bottom line is that the SCOTUS gets to choose its own case load and is nearly always result-oriented. The majority in any given case will twist and turn and stand "the law" on its head to bring something to the end that the majority seeks to reach.

You are talking about what the "court of last resort" can and cannot do when interpreting the U.S. Constitution. So, who gets to decide that methodology? The SCOTUS, that's who. It gets to follow its own rulings, reverse itself (i.e., choose whether or not to follow stare decisis), be smart, be stupid, or be anything else inbetween. The check on the SCOTUS is the presidency and death. The check on the presidency is the Senate. The check on the Senate and the presidency is the people, as in "the voters." Stupid and/or unpopular SCOTUS decisions influence presidential elections. New presidents sometimes get to correct those stupid and/or unpopular decisions of the SCOTUS by moving the makeup of the court in one direction or another. When the Senate seeks to or succeeds in thwarting the president in such efforts, the Senate composition tends to change at election time. And so on.

IMHO, this entire thread is a waste of time (into which I have just dumped 10 unrecoverable minutes of my own) , but for those of you who are getting something out of it - - post on! :D

383green
08-13-2008, 11:54 AM
Do you mean those statements made by persons - such as Noah Webster, Patrick Henry, Sam Adams and Tench Coxe - who didn't even participate in the making of the Amendment, which you cherry picked, for other reason than they happen to square with your personal views?

How about the statement by James Madison, who did participate in the making of the Second Amendment? We can add Webster, Henry and Adams to your list of three million commoners if you would like.

Now, please describe what the Second Amendment means when interpreted with well established common law rules of construction. You have stated over and over again that it should only be interpreted using well established common law rules of construction, but I have yet to see an explanation of what it would mean in that light. I do not know what the well established common law rules of construction are, and I would have a much better chance of understanding your argument if you could explan them, and further explain how they shine light on the Second Amendment.

Jagger
08-13-2008, 12:06 PM
Show where any one of authors of the Constitution says specifically that they intended future readers of the Bill Of Rights need to use the rules of construction to decipher their intentions in creating these Amendments. Show where anyone of lawmakers ever said anything, during the making of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, indicating or suggesting that a method of interpretation, other than the well established common law method existent at the time, should be applied to the Constitution.

Jagger
08-13-2008, 12:11 PM
Why don't we stipulate for the moment that there were well established common law rules of construction in existence at the time the Constitution was drafted. We can always remove that stipulation if we discover evidence to the contrary.

Let us further stipulate, for the sake of breaking out of this loop and furthering the discussion, that the framers of the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, were well-versed in these well established common law rules of construction, and took for granted that these well established common law rules of construction could, would and should be used in order to understand their legislative intent.

Based on these stipulations, what would the Second Amendment mean when interpreted under the well established common law rules of construction?

I haven't decided, yet.

Jagger
08-13-2008, 12:15 PM
...you're the one who's claiming that Scalia did not follow [the well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was made]... Are you claiming that he did?

Jagger
08-13-2008, 12:18 PM
...you're the one who's claiming that...he'd have to conclude that the 2nd is not an individual right... I never said that, dude.

Jagger
08-13-2008, 12:19 PM
Prove it. And not with your opinion. You disprove it.

Paratus et Vigilans
08-13-2008, 12:28 PM
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It's not that hard to understand. :rolleyes:

"A well regulated Militia," as in people who are able bodied and can be called upon to come and bring their guns in time of need . . .

". . . being necessary to the security of a free State," as in the inherent value of having the former at hand . . .

". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Here's the really easy part. These folks, the people, get to have guns.

If you can't decide that this is what it means under any conceivable method of construing words into their intended meaning, you ought not have a gun. :D

pnkssbtz
08-13-2008, 12:30 PM
Are you claiming that he did?
You disprove it.
What are you, a text book example of every informal fallacy?

You have to prove your claim with substantiation. Your opinion is not substantiation. Telling us now that we have to prove that Scalia did is an appeal to ignorance. You are making two very gross fallacies with these two statements.



So... we have circular logic, argumentum ad naseum, appeal to ignornace, begging the question, red herring, impossible demands, burden of proof, false attribution... well I can't remember everything else that you've used so I'll leave it with that.

Again, you have yet to substantiate a single claim. Your whole method of argument is to make some unsubstantiated claim, wait for a response and then pick apart the response. That is poor arguing skills and does nothing for your position.

Your objections to the responding arguments aren't even valid.




Why don't you explain how Common Law Construction would apply to the 2nd amendment. Cite references of why your interpretation of Construction is being applied correctly, AND THEN make a comparison between how you came to your conclusion on the 2nd verses Scalia's.

That is how you would make a solid argument for your position. (Assuming you could support how you are applying construction...)

Jagger
08-13-2008, 12:43 PM
Prove it. And not with your opinion.

http://lonang.org/exlibris/vattel/vatt-217.htm

See section 281

Jagger
08-13-2008, 12:45 PM
What are you, a text book example of every informal fallacy? Sometimes, especially when I'm lazy....

Mute
08-13-2008, 12:45 PM
Yes, yes I know. I'm ugly times infinity also and I stink too, right? I didn't realize the junior high schoolboy gambit was a methodology for scholarly debate.

Mute
08-13-2008, 12:50 PM
http://lonang.org/exlibris/vattel/vatt-217.htm

See section 281

Again, show specifically where this is meant to be applied to the BOR per one of the authors of the Constitution.

383green
08-13-2008, 12:50 PM
Based on these stipulations, what would the Second Amendment mean when interpreted under the well established common law rules of construction?I haven't decided, yet.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere!

1) You assert that the Second Amendment must only be interpreted in light of well established common law rules of construction.

2) You have not yet defined what well established common law rules of construction are.

3) You assert that the Supreme Court has erred by not interpreting the Second Amendment under well established common law rules of construction.

4) You do not know what an interpretation of the Second Amendment under well established common law rules of construction would be.



If you do not know what the Second Amendment means under well established common law rules of construction, then you cannot say that the Supreme Court's interpretation is wrong... because for all you know, a well established common law rules of construction interpretation of it could reach an identical conclusion.

For that matter, can you even assert that the Supreme Court did not follow the well established common law rules of construction? For all that you or any of us might know, Scalia and the other four justices who created the majority opinion might have considered the well established common law rules of construction, found no conflict with them, and simply omitted a footnote stating "P.S.: Mr. Jagger, we also considered the well established common law rules of construction, but didn't see fit to comment on that here because that is just trivially basic stuff for a Supreme Court justice to do, much like a carpenter specifically commenting that he used a hammer to drive nails, and we're, like, professionals at this, dude.".

If a well established common law rules of construction interpretation of the Second Amendment differs from the finding in Heller, and we can agree on evidence that no other method of interpretation can be valid, then we really have something to argue about! However, until anybody can show that a well established common law rules of construction interpretation of the Second Amendment is any different than the Heller ruling, there's nothing to debate.

So, please go decide what the Second Amendment means in light of well established common law rules of construction and then get back to us.

dfletcher
08-13-2008, 12:53 PM
To make the point that it's impossible for us to interpret the Constitution's words according to the common people's understanding of them, because we have no way of ascertaining what their collective understanding was.

Judicial activists, such as Scalia, adopt warm and fuzzy and impractical principles of interpretation, to camouflage their true activist methodology.

I must have missed something. A few pages back you wrote that you were just starting to look into judicial activism. I asked for a few examples of who you might consider activist judges - didn't get any. Having just begun to look into the subject and without much background information or comparative context, you've already decided Scalia is an activist judge based on this decision alone.

I presume you'd disagree with any SCOTUS decision that results from judicial activism, not just this one?

pnkssbtz
08-13-2008, 12:57 PM
383green is a SHARP cookie :p

nobody_special
08-13-2008, 12:57 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Achtung_troll.png


http://lonang.org/exlibris/vattel/vatt-217.htm

See section 281
See section 263, 265 through 267. Beyond that, I'm not sure if this reference applies here.

nobody_special
08-13-2008, 1:05 PM
Scalia did follow the earliest rule of construction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_Meaning_Rule).

pnkssbtz
08-13-2008, 2:02 PM
Scalia did follow the earliest rule of construction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_Meaning_Rule).

http://www.classic-consoles.com/games/images/scoobycastle.jpg Ruh-Roh...

Meplat
08-13-2008, 2:06 PM
A little knowledge is not only dangerous, but when used cleverly, hilarious! Jagger has his betters going in tight circles.
:rofl2:

383green
08-13-2008, 2:26 PM
383green is a SHARP cookie :p

Is that anything like being the sharpest marble in the deck? :rofl2:

But seriously, I believe that a skilled debater would run rings around me in nearly any debate. ;)

383green
08-13-2008, 2:29 PM
Jagger has his betters going in tight circles.
:rofl2:

Would that be circles like :willy_nilly:, or circles like :nuts:, or circles like P51 mustangs making strafing runs? Please define these "circles", and support your assertion. ;)

Gator Monroe
08-13-2008, 2:30 PM
Is Jager a Jewish Lawyaa from NYU ? (As Dr. Michael Savage would say)

pnkssbtz
08-13-2008, 2:39 PM
Is that anything like being the sharpest marble in the deck? :rofl2:

But seriously, I believe that a skilled debater would run rings around me in nearly any debate. ;)

More like a cookie with razor blades baked in! =p I love the "circles" comment!

Jagger
08-13-2008, 2:54 PM
Again, show specifically where this is meant to be applied to the BOR per one of the authors of the Constitution. Show me where I ever said it was.

Jagger
08-13-2008, 2:58 PM
I presume you'd disagree with any SCOTUS decision that results from judicial activism, not just this one? Yep.

Gator Monroe
08-13-2008, 3:00 PM
Show me where I ever said it was.

Remote Viewing of Jaggers Gun collection (2006 Ruger 10/22 SS) (2004 Glock 21C) (1960 Daisy Red Ryder)

Jagger
08-13-2008, 3:04 PM
Scalia did follow the earliest rule of construction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_Meaning_Rule). That's debatable.

nobody_special
08-13-2008, 3:10 PM
That's debatable.

Virtually anything is debatable, but you aren't offering debate, nor are you substantiating your claim. You're just trolling.

pnkssbtz
08-13-2008, 3:12 PM
Show me where I ever said it was.

How about here:

Wrap your head around this. The Constitution (especially the BOR) is law only in the sense that it is there to put limits on what the government can or cannot do with the law. It is meant to state clearly (without ambiguity) the most important basic rights of every free born person that is a part of these United States. As long as you miss this very important point about the Constitution, you're going to continue to fumble in the dark with your unsupportable belief that the Constitution needs to be "interpreted" by some supposed objective standard, something which you have so far fail to prove (both the objectivity rules of construction or that they weren't the method for "interpreting" the Constitution).

You've also continued to dodge several relevant questions that directly relates to the nature of the BOR. For one, do you belief the other Amendments in the BOR refers to individuals when it mentions "the people?" If yes, then how do you rectify the contradiction that "the people" refers to the collective in the 2nd Amendment but not in the others?It is by no means a correct rule of interpretation to construe the same word in the same sense, wherever it occurs in the same instrument.Prove it. And not with your opinion.http://lonang.org/exlibris/vattel/vatt-217.htm <-------------- HERE

See section 281<---------------------------------------- AND HEREAgain, show specifically where this is meant to be applied to the BOR per one of the authors of the Constitution.Show me where I ever said it was.

383green
08-13-2008, 3:28 PM
Show me where I ever said it was.

Ok. Mute wrote:

For one, do you belief the other Amendments in the BOR refers to individuals when it mentions "the people?" If yes, then how do you rectify the contradiction that "the people" refers to the collective in the 2nd Amendment but not in the others?

You responded:

It is by no means a correct rule of interpretation to construe the same word in the same sense, wherever it occurs in the same instrument.

Mute countered:

Prove it. And not with your opinion.

You responded with:

You disprove it.

pnkssbtz explained:

You have to prove your claim with substantiation. Your opinion is not substantiation. Telling us now that we have to prove that Scalia did is an appeal to ignorance. You are making two very gross fallacies with these two statements.

You then provided your supporting evidence:

http://lonang.org/exlibris/vattel/vatt-217.htm

See section 281

Mute then requested:

Again, show specifically where this is meant to be applied to the BOR per one of the authors of the Constitution.

After apparently losing track of your own previous statements, you then wrote:

Show me where I ever said it was.

I then wrote this response to remind you of your own posting (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1434961&postcount=163) which initiated this sub-thread of the conversation, in which you indicated that the reference that you cited (http://lonang.org/exlibris/vattel/vatt-217.htm) was applicable to the Second Amendment, in particular to the apparent conflict between differing meanings of the word "people" in various parts of the Bill of Rights.

Now, if you want to quibble over semantics, you did not specifically state that any of the of the authors of the Constitution meant for the referenced treatise from 1758 to be applied to the Bill of Rights. However, if you repeatedly claim that the well established common law rules of construction defined in The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758) by Emmerich de Vattel (http://lonang.org/exlibris/vattel/vatt-217.htm) were well-known to the framers of the Constitution and were meant to be applied to their writing, then you cannot also dodge a request that you provide evidence that the treatise is applicable.

P.S.: BUUUUURN!


Thank you, folks! I'll be here all night! :D

P.P.S: Cutting and pasting all of those references was a bunch of work, and I need to run off to a meeting now. Please let me know if I made any broken links.

Jagger
08-13-2008, 3:59 PM
In D. C. v. Heller, Scalia says the text of the Second Amendment should be understood as the voters understood it, then he rewrites the Amendment, not according to the understanding of the voters, but according to the understanding of Joel Tiffany.

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation.....

.....The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See §585,
p. 394 (1867) J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law

Joel Tiffany wasn't even a voter of the founding generation. However, he did subscribe to my view that the meaning of the constitution must be ascertained by the application of such rules of interpretation as existent at the time the constitution was framed and adopted. (See section 125 of Tiffany's A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law at the link provided below) Scalia's own authority on the meaning of the Second Amendment rejects Scalia's principle in favor of mine.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=JMMRAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22Tiffany%22+%22+A+Treatise+on+Government+and+ Constitutional+Law%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=xF29QGzakl&sig=W-g2hNxWmgnsATuEKfgOdjjTcBM&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA65,M1

383green
08-13-2008, 4:24 PM
In D. C. v. Heller, Scalia says the text of the Second Amendment should be understood as the voters understood it, then he rewrites the Amendment, not according to the understanding of the voters, but according to the understanding of Joel Tiffany.

If you can demonstrate that:

1) The Bill of Rights must only be interpreted by well established common law rules of construction

and

2) A well established common law rules of construction interpretation of the Second Amendment would result in a different finding than Scalia's interpretation that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms

then we have something to debate in earnest. I have so far seen no evidence which supports either assertion.

For item #1, I will stipulate that you have provided a link to a translation of a French treatise from 1758 (http://lonang.org/exlibris/vattel/index.html) which describes a system of rules for interpretation of treaties (http://lonang.org/exlibris/vattel/vatt-217.htm). However, this treatise is no more relevant than any of the opinions of those three million commoners which you so readily ignore, unless you can show that the framers of the Constitution were intimately familiar with this treatise, and believed that it should be used exclusively in interpreting the Bill of Rights, ignoring any other evidence which demonstrates their legislative intent. This is, after all, what you have repeated ad nauseum, so let's see some evidence to back it up.

For item #2, you yourself have admitted that you don't know how the Second Amendment should be interpreted based on those well established common law rules of construction that you hold so dear. Thus, you cannot assert that Scalia et. al. reached the wrong conclusion, because by your own admission you do not know what the right conclusion is.

I wait with bated breath for your rebuttal. :rolleyes:

bulgron
08-13-2008, 4:45 PM
I wait with bated breath for your rebuttal. :rolleyes:

383,

Are you bored today?

Just curious.

:D

Jagger
08-13-2008, 4:55 PM
Virtually anything is debatable, but you aren't offering debate, nor are you substantiating your claim. You're just trolling.

What claim do you want me to substantiate?

Meplat
08-13-2008, 4:58 PM
More like "Jugs" doing strafing runs. P-47's are very robust and hard to shoot down.


Would that be circles like :willy_nilly:, or circles like :nuts:, or circles like P51 mustangs making strafing runs? Please define these "circles", and support your assertion. ;)

Jagger
08-13-2008, 5:01 PM
383green:

I cited Vattel as a source/authority for one particular rule of construction, in response to a demand to prove the rule.

383green
08-13-2008, 5:02 PM
383,

Are you bored today?

Just curious.

:D

No, this thread is keeping me utterly enthralled! I'm dusting off words that I haven't used since college, so many years ago! And I'm avoiding work! Yay, avoiding work! :D

383green
08-13-2008, 5:10 PM
383green:

I cited Vattel as a source/authority for one particular rule of construction, in response to a demand to prove the rule.

Yes, you cited this rule specifically in reference to a comment regarding the Second Amendment. Then, when you were asked to support your assertion that the rule was applicable, you denied ever claiming that it was. Even though your whole thesis is that these rules of construction are applicable to the Bill of Rights, and you cited that specific rule specifically in reference to the Second Amendment. And then I summarized the whole history of that particular sub-thread for your convenience, including links to the original posting from which I pulled each quote, in chronological order. And now, you still seem to be trying to squirm away from your own assertion, which is at the very core of your whole thesis.

Well-played! I stand in awe of your evasiveness, sir! :rolleyes:

Jagger
08-13-2008, 5:11 PM
If you can demonstrate that:

1) The Bill of Rights must only be interpreted by well established common law rules of construction
Let's have a contest, dude.

You give me the methodology you believe should be applied to the Constitution. Then, we'll have a contest to see which one of us can produce the most evidence that the lawmakers, at the time they were actually making the Constitution, subscribed to the methods we advocate.

383green
08-13-2008, 5:26 PM
Let's have a contest, dude.

You give me the methodology you believe should be applied to the Constitution. Then, we'll have a contest to see which one of us can produce the most evidence that the lawmakers, at the time they were actually making the Constitution, subscribed to the methods we advocate.

You're on!

I claim that the contemporary writings of the people who wrote the Constitution, the people who debated upon the constitution, the people who voted upon ratification of the constitution, and even other of their contemporaries whose writings are part of the great debate surrounding the writing and ratification of the Constitution, shed light on the legislative intents of the framers of the Constitution. We are privy, through the historical record, to much of the debate surrounding the framing of the Constitution.

Now, in this particular forum, we are focused on the Second Amendment. So far, I have cited one quote from the man who wrote the first draft of this amendment. One. Ok, so I'm ahead so far, even if I stipulate that the other contemporary writings that I "cherry-picked" are not applicable (and I do not stipulate this).

Now, it's your turn to come up with a citation of one piece of evidence that supports your thesis. Just one. If I was feeling particularly devious, I might demand that Vattel's treatise is off-limits, since you tried to dodge an assertion of its applicability. I'll hold on to that card for now, though.

If you do manage to present that one piece of compelling evidence, then I guess I'll feel startled and then rush to do some further research... but for now, I will instead walk over to my company's snack table, and procure a cookie.

bulgron
08-13-2008, 6:00 PM
... but for now, I will instead walk over to my company's snack table, and procure a cookie.

383,

Please get back to work. :D

nobody_special
08-13-2008, 6:28 PM
Virtually anything is debatable, but you aren't offering debate, nor are you substantiating your claim. You're just trolling.
What claim do you want me to substantiate?

Your main thesis is that Scalia's majority opinion for Heller was decided on incorrect grounds, because it ignored the contemporary rules of construction of common law.

I pointed out that Scalia did, in fact, use one of the primary rules of construction -- one which was in use at the time.

Your reply: "That's debatable."

You mean to cast doubt on my assertion, but you provide no evidence -- in fact, you did not even produce an argument. You have miserably failed to substantiate that claim. In fact, the only supporting evidence you have produced fails to support your claim, as I pointed out.

So... show me something to support your thesis, or disprove mine. Preferably it should consist of more than a dismissive one-liner, and include links to external works which actually support your claim.

Sig226
08-13-2008, 6:46 PM
If you do manage to present that one piece of compelling evidence, then I guess I'll feel startled and then rush to do some further research... but for now, I will instead walk over to my company's snack table, and procure a cookie.

I for one want to thank both of you for the best online entertainment I have had in a long time.

That being said, I am very disappointed that the debaters involved in this thread did not include a most appropriate piece of supporting evidence from Jagger himself.


http://lonang.org/exlibris/vattel/vatt-217.htm

See section 281
Reply With Quote


I see your section 281, and raise you a section 282.

"We ought to reject every interpretation that leads to an absurdity."
-Vattel, Sec 282

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/8685/282copycu1.th.jpg (http://img370.imageshack.us/my.php?image=282copycu1.jpg)

Now, I know you haven't provided and interpretation yet, however when you do, I have no doubts that this section will apply based on your methods and rationale thus far.

Please continue and excuse my trivial addition. :D

hoffmang
08-13-2008, 8:38 PM
http://lonang.org/exlibris/vattel/vatt-217.htm

See section 281

How exactly does a guy from Switzerland writing about the interpretation of treaties apply to English or early American common law. This from a guy who doesn't understand why contemporary common law interpretations of the words iin the Second Amendment from the House of Lords might be a touch more relavent.

Mr. Aldridge. Could you stop robo arguing on Calguns? You've only proven that you're a one trick troll.

-Gene

BillCA
08-14-2008, 1:48 AM
I think a paraphrased quotation is in order here.

Never argue with a troll. It just frustrates you and annoys the troll.

Jagger has a burr up his glutimus maximus because he alleges Scalia did not use the correct methodology in rendering his decision.

To him, it doesn't really matter if Scalia's decision came to the correct conclusion or not. He's one of those people who believes procedures must be followed, slavishly and without question. It doesn't matter if the SCOTUS justices aren't bound by such rules or may ignore them at their whim. Or even if they had ample reasons to not use that approach. Scalia is simply wrong.

I would also point out that the dissenting opinions hardly a model of using the "well known rules of construction" either. If Scalia was so wrong in his methodology, I'm sure the dissenting justices would have used the method to discredit the majority decision. But they didn't. Because they couldn't.

Jagger
08-14-2008, 5:32 AM
Yes, you cited this rule specifically in reference to a comment regarding the Second Amendment. Then, when you were asked to support your assertion that the rule was applicable, you denied ever claiming that it was. Even though your whole thesis is that these rules of construction are applicable to the Bill of Rights, and you cited that specific rule specifically in reference to the Second Amendment. And then I summarized the whole history of that particular sub-thread for your convenience, including links to the original posting from which I pulled each quote, in chronological order. And now, you still seem to be trying to squirm away from your own assertion, which is at the very core of your whole thesis.

Well-played! I stand in awe of your evasiveness, sir! :rolleyes:

The rule, at the time the Constitution was being made, was well established under the law of nations, but not under English or American law. The issue is whether it should apply to the Constitution. I believe it should, because it is a sound rule. Joseph Story and John Marshal thought it was a good rule. Are you familiar with their opinions on the rule?

Jagger
08-14-2008, 5:40 AM
You're on!

I claim that the contemporary writings of the people who wrote the Constitution, the people who debated upon the constitution, the people who voted upon ratification of the constitution, and even other of their contemporaries whose writings are part of the great debate surrounding the writing and ratification of the Constitution, shed light on the legislative intents of the framers of the Constitution. I claim that when ascertaining the meaning of the language of Constitution, nothing can be examined or considered that is not admissible under the well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was being made.

We are privy, through the historical record, to much of the debate surrounding the framing of the Constitution.
True, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports my view that the lawmakers assumed that the well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution should be applied to the document.

Now, in this particular forum, we are focused on the Second Amendment. So far, I have cited one quote from the man who wrote the first draft of this amendment. One. Ok, so I'm ahead so far, even if I stipulate that the other contemporary writings that I "cherry-picked" are not applicable (and I do not stipulate this). What one quote are you referring to?

Jagger
08-14-2008, 5:51 AM
I pointed out that Scalia did, in fact, use one of the primary rules of construction -- one which was in use at the time. What rule are you talking about and where's the evidence it was well established at the time the Constitution was made.

Jagger
08-14-2008, 5:56 AM
How exactly does a guy from Switzerland writing about the interpretation of treaties apply to English or early American common law. What rule do you believe should apply when the the same word occurs more than once in the same legal instrument? Why?

This from a guy who doesn't understand why contemporary common law interpretations of the words iin the Second Amendment from the House of Lords might be a touch more relavent. What are you referring to, my inquisitive friend?

Jagger
08-14-2008, 6:00 AM
....Scalia did not use the correct methodology in rendering his decision....it doesn't really matter if Scalia's decision came to the correct conclusion or not.

By George, I do believe you're getting it. I'm here on a mission from God to try and get you to think outside the box and consider the possibility that "historical analysis", as a method of Constitutional interpretation, is not what the lawmakers had in mind at the time they were making the Constitution.

383green
08-14-2008, 6:15 AM
Joseph Story and John Marshal thought it was a good rule. Are you familiar with their opinions on the rule?

No, I am not. Feel free to elaborate.

383green
08-14-2008, 6:20 AM
I'm here on a mission from God [...]

Oh, I see! I'm an atheist. Will that be a problem for our little contest? You know, the one that I'm currently winning? ;)

383green
08-14-2008, 6:32 AM
What one quote are you referring to?

That would be the one that I cited from James Madison. I claim that the other quotes that I cited are applicable, too.

True, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports my view that the lawmakers assumed that the well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution should be applied to the document.

So, let's see some of that evidence. Just one piece. If it doesn't overwhelm me, maybe I'll ask for more.

383green
08-14-2008, 6:47 AM
Never argue with a troll. It just frustrates you and annoys the troll.

Your advice is perfectly sound. I am ignoring it for the moment because I find myself entertained when I catch him flip-flopping, evading plain questions and so forth, and then call him on it. I'm not at all frustrated, since I'm easily dancing around his circular logic and I don't feel the need for him to agree with me in order to justify my own beliefs and understandings. I have backed him into a corner where he either needs to put up some of this "overwhelming evidence" or shut up. Of course, being a troll, he may well do neither.

Don't worry, I'll disengage from the argument if I become frustrated. ;)

Jagger
08-14-2008, 6:49 AM
That would be the one that I cited from James Madison. What do you believe the quotation tells us about the method of interpretation that Madison believed should be applied to the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

383green
08-14-2008, 6:54 AM
What do you believe the quotation tells us about the method of interpretation that Madison believed should be applied to the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

I did not claim that it answers such a question. I presented it as historical evidence of the legislative intent of the people who were involved in the creation and ratification of the Constitution.

You are the one who believes that the framers of the Constitution had a specific rule of interpretation in mind, not me. You are the one who needs to present some evidence to support your claim, not me. Let's see some of that overwhelming evidence. So far, I'm rather underwhelmed by its paucity.

Jagger
08-14-2008, 6:55 AM
So, let's see some of that evidence. Just one piece. If it doesn't overwhelm me, maybe I'll ask for more.

First, you need to articulate the methodology of interpretation that you believe should be applied to the Constitution.

Jagger
08-14-2008, 6:58 AM
I did not claim that it answers such a question. I presented it as historical evidence of the legislative intent of the people who were involved in the creation and ratification of the Constitution.

You are the one who believes that the framers of the Constitution had a specific rule of interpretation in mind, not me. You are the one who needs to present some evidence to support your claim, not me. Let's see some of that overwhelming evidence. So far, I'm rather underwhelmed by its paucity.

I thought you accepted my challenge to have a contest whereby:

You give me the methodology you believe should be applied to the Constitution. Then, we'll have a contest to see which one of us can produce the most evidence that the lawmakers, at the time they were actually making the Constitution, subscribed to the methods we advocate.

383green
08-14-2008, 6:59 AM
First, you need to articulate the methodology of interpretation that you believe should be applied to the Constitution.

No, I don't. You are the one who is claiming that one, and only one, specific and well-documented, universally accepted methodology may be applied to the Constitution. One which you are so far unable to apply to the brief text of the Second Amendment in order to find its meaning, by the way. You are the one who needs to provide evidence to support your claim, not me. Let's see some. We're over 240 posts into this thread, and you haven't presented one piece of supporting evidence for your thesis so far. Let's see some.

383green
08-14-2008, 7:00 AM
I thought you accepted my challenge to have a contest whereby:

You give me the methodology you believe should be applied to the Constitution. Then, we'll have a contest to see which one of us can produce the most evidence that the lawmakers, at the time they were actually making the Constitution, subscribed to the methods we advocate.

So, produce some evidence already.

Jagger
08-14-2008, 7:13 AM
I presented it as historical evidence of the legislative intent of the people who were involved in the creation and ratification of the Constitution. I must not be thinking of the same James Madison quote you have it mind. Can you post the quotation again? Also, please present the quote in its context and please cite the source.

Jagger
08-14-2008, 7:15 AM
So, produce some evidence already.

Not until you propose an alternative method of interpretation.

Jagger
08-14-2008, 7:17 AM
No, I don't. You are the one who is claiming that one, and only one, specific and well-documented, universally accepted methodology may be applied to the Constitution. One which you are so far unable to apply to the brief text of the Second Amendment in order to find its meaning, by the way. You are the one who needs to provide evidence to support your claim, not me. Let's see some. We're over 240 posts into this thread, and you haven't presented one piece of supporting evidence for your thesis so far. Let's see some.

Convince me that I won't be casting pearls before swine. That is to say, I'm not convinced that you care about the truth.