I'm suprised none of you started a thread about the SCTUS decision regarding the 2nd amendment this week.
2nd Amendment
- Thread starter Joeychgo
- Start date
ketyokeinnor
Well-Known LVC Member
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200806/NAT20080626f.html
Here's something I found annoying in all this.
""In dissent, Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." Such evidence "is nowhere to be found," he stated.""
Really?....
The Declaration of Indepenence
"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Now how are the People to abolish a corrupt government without weapons(both having, and being skilled with)? Hmmm, that seems like a reason the framers would not want to not allow a government to limit civilian use of weapons. Or...maybe I'm just bitter over economic problems.
Ron
Here's something I found annoying in all this.
""In dissent, Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." Such evidence "is nowhere to be found," he stated.""
Really?....
The Declaration of Indepenence
"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Now how are the People to abolish a corrupt government without weapons(both having, and being skilled with)? Hmmm, that seems like a reason the framers would not want to not allow a government to limit civilian use of weapons. Or...maybe I'm just bitter over economic problems.
Ron
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
It shows this country is screwed. The fact that it was a 5-4 decision should tell all Americans how far down the slope we have slid.
Obama will knock us off the edge into the abyss.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Isn't it funny how 35 years ago five SCOTUS justices "found" the right to an abortion in the Constitution, even though it isn't written there, but this week four SCOTUS justices couldn't find a right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution, despite the fact that it is WRITTEN PLAINLY.
Guys, this supreme court is nothing but partisans voting the way of their party. There is no longer any real care to protect and defend the Constitution. The four dissenters are nothing but traitors and hacks.
Guys, this supreme court is nothing but partisans voting the way of their party. There is no longer any real care to protect and defend the Constitution. The four dissenters are nothing but traitors and hacks.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Absolutely true. There are at least 4 partisans in that group.
Isn't it funny how 35 years ago five SCOTUS justices "found" the right to an abortion in the Constitution, even though it isn't written there, but this week four SCOTUS justices couldn't find a right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution, despite the fact that it is WRITTEN PLAINLY.
Well, your smart enough to understand that abortion is tied to a womans right to do as she pleases with her body. Even though you might not like it, it's an important right.
Now, I agree with you about the Second Amendment. In my mind, it means that any citizen has the right to own a gun. Not necessarily any gun, but any gun the framers would have known about. i.e. handguns and rifles. Machine guns were not around then. So I can swallow limiting that.
But, are you willing to pick up both ends of that stick? The constitution says nothing about limiting felon's gun ownership rights. Fact is, everyone had guns back then because they were part of everyday life. You rode your horse with a rifle holstered in the saddle. There were no 3 day checks to find out if you were a criminal. So everyone carried their guns. Criminals, everyone. Of course, part of the reason for that is that you hunted for food and needed a gun to do that. Now we dont have to hunt for food.
See the trouble is, you either want the contitution to grow with the times or you dont. If you do, then there is the argument that there is no longer a need for everyone to be allowed to carry a weapon. On the other hand, if you think the constitutional rights shouldnt change with the times and should be intrepreted strictly as written, then your car and laptop should be subject to search at anytime, because those arent mentioned in the constitution. Just your home and person are free from search.
Therein lies the dilemma.
Personally, I believe we should intrepret the constitution as liberally as possible and strive to protect every possible right. The spirit of the Constitution and bill of rights is one of freedom to do as one chooses with minimal intrusion from the government.
But if you agree with that, while you get your guns, you also get the right of a woman to do as she pleases with her body.
And what constitutional right is that? We don't have a "right" to do anything we'd like with our body, and that same depth of thinking can be used to say that the fetus has the right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
It's universally recognized that the Roe V Wade is an example of bad law, based on bad precedent. Fact is, the best argument on abortion is either:
1- the court has NO place to decide on the matter, it is a political decision.
2- the court needs to ban the procedure in order to protect the constitutional rights of the life in the womb.
But there is no solid legal argument that GUARANTEES the access to abortions.
Do citizens no longer have the need or right to defend themselves from aggressors, criminals, or the threat of a tyrannical government?
The second amendment is NOT about hunting rights.
Nope- totally different... Unless there's a constitutional amendment specifically stating such a thing.. which there is not. If you read the actual majority decision on the case you'll be astounded by how poorly it is written and thought... it really seems like the Justice Blackmun is aware of how weak his argument is when writing it.... using another ridiculous, weak, poorly constructed, invented right to privacy, to support his argument.
But again, if it were about a "woman's right" then the viability of the fetus would not have been a component of the decision.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Joey, the one single fly in your ointment is that the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Constitution are ACTUALLY WRITTEN. The right to murder an unborn baby is not written, and I would argue what about the rights of the baby? Furthermore, the baby is not part of the woman's body. This has been proven scientifically, and this scientific info will be brought to the next court case challenging Roe v. Wade.
Regarding your "change with the times" argument, if the Constitution is a living breathing document, then the internet and television media isn't protected by the First Amendment because it says nothing about them.
And felons who want guns will always get them, Joey. They already don't obey the law. The only thing gun laws accomplish are to restrict obedient citizens, thus allowing felons and the police state to be better armed.
First, let me point out that I havent expressed a view on either of these issues. Im just pointing out things for discussion.
However. I will now.
I believe in the 2nd amendment, and I believe that right should only be restricted where absolutely necessary or in the most extreme circumstances. I dont even think most felons should be barred from ownership. Unless you've committed a crime with a gun or with extreme violence, that right shouldnt be taken away. (i.e. a check forger has nothing to do with guns) I do however think there can be a limit on what KIND of gun. (i.e. Artillary pieces shouldnt be in every backyard. )
As far as abortion. I really liked what Guilanni said some time ago about the issue. It shouldnt be illegal, but we should do all we can to prevent it and offer alternatives.
I dont feel it is my place to tell a woman she has to carry a child if she doesnt want to. Now, I do think there are limits to this. Such as if the baby is viable outside of the womb. But in the basic sense, I don't feel it's the government's place to dictate what a woman must do with her body. I do think it is important to advise alternatives and options, and we have been doing that.
Many of our rights are NOT specifically written. The constitution has to be able to grow and adapt to the times. Oliver Wendall Holmes wrote that your not protected by the first amendment if you yell FIRE in a theatre. Yet that flys in the face of the text of the first amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
So you cant always say that just the written text of the constitution applies.
However. I will now.
I believe in the 2nd amendment, and I believe that right should only be restricted where absolutely necessary or in the most extreme circumstances. I dont even think most felons should be barred from ownership. Unless you've committed a crime with a gun or with extreme violence, that right shouldnt be taken away. (i.e. a check forger has nothing to do with guns) I do however think there can be a limit on what KIND of gun. (i.e. Artillary pieces shouldnt be in every backyard. )
As far as abortion. I really liked what Guilanni said some time ago about the issue. It shouldnt be illegal, but we should do all we can to prevent it and offer alternatives.
I dont feel it is my place to tell a woman she has to carry a child if she doesnt want to. Now, I do think there are limits to this. Such as if the baby is viable outside of the womb. But in the basic sense, I don't feel it's the government's place to dictate what a woman must do with her body. I do think it is important to advise alternatives and options, and we have been doing that.
Many of our rights are NOT specifically written. The constitution has to be able to grow and adapt to the times. Oliver Wendall Holmes wrote that your not protected by the first amendment if you yell FIRE in a theatre. Yet that flys in the face of the text of the first amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
So you cant always say that just the written text of the constitution applies.
That statement alone puts you at odds with the pro-abortion activists.
And this basically means that abortion will eventually become illegal due to the advancements in science and technology. The point at which a fetus is viable outside of the womb is moving increasingly earlier. A fetus has now survived premature birth after only 21 weeks.
But, here's an important point that is so often missed. It's not the job of the Supreme Court to decide if a law is good or bad. It's simply supposed to decide on whether it is constitutional or not. There are constitutional laws that are bad, and unconstitutional ones that seem good. It's logical for a person who thinks abortion should remain legal in some form to recognize that Roe V Wade is bad law.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Eh...wouldn't making it illegal be "all we can do?" You can't have it both ways.
Joey, I've already discredited this premise. First, the government already does that. Prostitution's illegal, isn't it? What about taking illegal drugs?
Furthermore, I've already stated (and can prove) that the baby inside her isn't part of her body, so your entire premise is swiss cheese. If I can establish my premise effectively, then the issue becomes about the rights of the baby rather than the rights of the mother.
Do you believe that the baby inside the mother has rights under the Constitution? Never mind what the court says, DO YOU BELIEVE IT.
When you commit and are convicted of a felony you lose certain rights; some temporary, some permanently. The right to vote and the right to possess a firearm are two of the rights you lose permanently.
You can probably make a case for the firearm restriction being limited to only certain types of felonies, but you should understand that it is constitutional for those rights to be taken away through due process (which in the case of felons, they have been).
You may be surprised to hear this, but I think abortion is a necessary medical procedure in certain instances and should be ultimately left to the parents and the doctor to decide (though it shouldn't be used as a way to avoid responsibility). It is never a positive, but at times it is a necessary evil.
That said, the constitution as it stands clearly rules on the pro-life side of this issue. The court has no business ruling any other way. There is no broad "right to choice" that is the legal basis for the Roe v. Wade ruling. The constitution does have a mandate to protect the right to life (above all else) inherent in it. remember all the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness stuff in the Declaration and reflected in the constitution? That list is recognized as not just random, but prioritized. Life trumps liberty. The vague idea of liberty is spun to mean the "right to choose" in the case of Roe v. Wade.
The court is not the place to decide this issue. If you wanna recognize a right to choice for abortion, the only way to do that is as an amendment to the constitution. Not through the courts. As it stands today, there is no right to an abortion in the constitution, period.
Many of our rights may not be "specifically written" in the constitution, but they are strongly implied and inherent in the constitution. A big area for this is the vague idea of liberty, which is protected through due process in both the 5th and the 14th amendments. You can interpret it very broadly and claim many things are part of that idea (as is the basis for the legal fiction of "substantial due process"), or try and figure out what the Framers understood as the meaning of liberty; what qualified as a liberty. That list is a lot shorter, but more accurate to what the constitution was written and originally understood as.
All rights have limits. Your right to free speech ends at my ear. If you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, that is disturbing the peace, which the government has a right to protect. It is not meant as a restriction on free speech, but as way to avoid public panic. The intention of a law, while not the be all, and end all, is something that is important and should be considered.
When the Framers wrote the 1st amendment they specifically had political free speech in mind, though lesser forms of speech were also important to them. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not a form of political free speech.
The constitution is able to "grow and adapt" over time...through constitutional amendments. Change, especially on the level of the federal government that isn't covered in the constitution as it stands, is not something to be taken lightly. Any proposed change is dictated by the precautionary principle; the burden of proof is on those proposing said change.
Any change has the potential for both positive and negative consequences. Germany changed for the negative when it became Nazi. Russia changed for the negative when it became communist. The health care system changed for the negative when Medicare and Medicaid came on the scene. Same with the War on Poverty, the government mandated E85 sham (which is raising food prices around the world) and the Enron Loophole created in December of 2000.
All changes are going to have both positive and negative consequences all of which cannot be fully known until the change is enacted, but can be somewhat foreseen. Those proposing change are going to downplay or flat out ignore the negatives associated with the change.
The Framers understood this and made sure in the constitution to put the burden of proof on those proposing any broad change, by making the procedure for that change and the requirements for its passage so high. Those proposing the change have to get a majority of the American people on board with that change; being forced to answer the potential negatives raised by any skeptics in a reasonable and logical fashion along the way.
This system is far from perfect, as we got prohibition through, and had to correct our mistake. But it is far superior to circumventing the amendment process and changing and creating programs not allowed under the constitution, like the welfare state, the EPA, government regulation of business, Medicare and Medicaid, No Child Left Behind, etc. That is the type of reckless change you get when interpreting the constitution as "living" or "evolving", which circumvents the amendment process.
First - You dont automatically lose the right to vote if convicted of a felony. Whether you lose that right depends on the state. Some states you lose, some you dont. This is one I strongly disagree with. As long as someone is a citizen, they should have the right to vote. Witholding that right while they are incarcerated is one thing, but permanantly revoking that right is completely inappropriate.
Second - The whole legality of denying felons gun ownership (among other regulations such as carry permits) is now up in the air, due to the opinion written by Scalia.
fossten said:
I believe the baby's rights are second to the mothers. Your premise is swiss cheese. The baby cannot survive at week 6 without the mother. SO to claim it's seperate is just dumb. What if the mother will die as a result of the pregancy? Should we just say -- "too bad. The baby has rights"?
Prostitution and illegal drugs have an impact on the rest of society. (although I believe prostitution should be legal, but regulated to protect society from disease, etc)
You have to understand - I dont buy into any of these nanny laws. I am quite sick of people trying to regulate my life and determine what I can do and where. Dont want to smell my smoke? Go to a bar that doesnt permit smoking. Dont like guns? Dont buy one. Don't want to hear foul language? Watch the disney channel. I believe as long as I have a choice and am not forced to participate in something, then I shouldnt be telling someone else they cannot do something. Want to get drunk? Fine. Just dont drive since you might hit me.
It may be "inappropriate", but it isn't unconstitutional...
I have yet to read the ruling; what does it say specifically about gun ownership by convicted felons?
There is no constitutional "right to choice" in this area. There is a constitutional right to life.
The current legal standard for this issue is viability outside the womb. That standard keeps getting pushed back earlier and earlier as time goes on. It is not unreasonable to think that eventually you can grow a baby outside of the womb all together.
Your statement that "I believe the baby's rights are second to the mothers", is simply a statement of your belief, not what the constitution says. In any question of a "right to choose" over a right to life, the right to life trumps as that is constitutionally prioritized as being legally protected over all other rights or liberties.
The scenario you set up, "What if the mother will die as a result of the pregancy?" is different then the a "right to choose" vs. a right to life, it is the mothers right to life vs. the baby's right to life. That question is not covered in the constitution, and I would say at that point it is simply an issue of common sense and personal choice. It should be a decision between the woman, her husband and her doctor. I personally, would say that you choose the life you know, not the life you don't, and err to keep the mother alive, this aborting the baby.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
First of all, that particular scenario, which is so rare as to be virtually nonexistent, is typically used as an argument to justify carte blanche infanticide across this country. Shag is correct - in that situation it's an issue of rights, but 93% of abortions are convenience-related, last minute solutions to pregnancies created out of complete irresponsibility by the parents. There is no way you can justify a woman choosing to abort her baby by saying that one in every million pregnancies have complications. Furthermore, who are you to say whose rights are secondary?
Your premise that the baby is part of the mother's body has been discredited by scientists. In certain situations the mother has had an immune deficiency of some sort and her body has tried to reject the infant inside her. This is not consistent with your swiss cheese talking point. Furthermore, if the mother has a male child in her womb, is she then both female and male? That's an absurd premise which has no scientific basis.
If you don't think abortion has had an effect on society, you have a lot to learn. Over FORTY MILLION babies have been aborted since 1973. That's FORTY MILLION potential taxpayers, as well as tens of millions of scarred, psychologically damaged women.
I sympathize with your libertarian view. However, it is irrelevant to this discussion. Again you are trying to produce a red herring here. There is a big difference between regulating the right to smoke or shoot up and regulating the "right" to murder unborn babies.