Kerry
- Thread starter cdbern
- Start date
ART to AAA:
>As an exercise, post something you think is
>clear, and I might show you that it is subject
>to interpretation.
I'll also throw one (or two or three) to AAA:
From the Constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In order of bold emphasis...
A. Some respected legal scholars believe that Terry Nichols is facing double jeopardy in Oklahoma on the state murder charges. There are excellent arguments to support their claim. There are excellent arguments on the other side as well and in the case of the final (??) court decision it has been ruled that he CAN be tried twice on the same charges since the state is considered a different "sovereignty". Now, I'm no Nichols defender in any sense, but the Feds tell the states what to do all the time so I consider this argument suspect. The courts currently disagree and I consider the system working just fine.
B. and I shall begin by quoting AAA:
>That is far different from every judge having his own
>personal Constitution that includes stuff no one else
>can find in it, like a right to an abortion or homo sex
First AAA, find me the right in the Constitution to hetero sex. Well...WELL???? Can't do it can you. It doesn't have to be *on the list* in the Constitution to be protected by it. Given time I could come up with an entire notebook of things that I bet you enjoy that you would scream to high heaven if they were taken away.
Ok, I'll take the "liberty" part of that statement. "Liberty" to what? - I might ask. You say the document is "clear". You will certainly say you have the "liberty" to have hetero-sex just for fun. I say I have the "liberty" to have homo-sex. Why do you have this sexual "liberty" and not me? I quite certain you can't come up with something in the Constitution to clear up this little 'ambiguity', but I'll wait for you to search and return.
C. How about "just compensation". Think that's clear or would you agree that one reasonable person might argue that a piece of property is worth $100,000 and another $500,000? Once again, it requires a system that allows for all interpretations of "just compensation" to be introduces and argued and a decision rendered that is appealable to the highest court that will hear it.
Interestedly waiting for your response.
JB
PS.
And that doesn't even TOUCH the issue of civilians owning firearms and what type of firearms...one of the most ambiguous issues around.
Constitution clear?...yeah, right. It's a wonderful document but holes abound because such a comprehensive document can't be created *without* holes.
>As an exercise, post something you think is
>clear, and I might show you that it is subject
>to interpretation.
I'll also throw one (or two or three) to AAA:
From the Constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In order of bold emphasis...
A. Some respected legal scholars believe that Terry Nichols is facing double jeopardy in Oklahoma on the state murder charges. There are excellent arguments to support their claim. There are excellent arguments on the other side as well and in the case of the final (??) court decision it has been ruled that he CAN be tried twice on the same charges since the state is considered a different "sovereignty". Now, I'm no Nichols defender in any sense, but the Feds tell the states what to do all the time so I consider this argument suspect. The courts currently disagree and I consider the system working just fine.
B. and I shall begin by quoting AAA:
>That is far different from every judge having his own
>personal Constitution that includes stuff no one else
>can find in it, like a right to an abortion or homo sex
First AAA, find me the right in the Constitution to hetero sex. Well...WELL???? Can't do it can you. It doesn't have to be *on the list* in the Constitution to be protected by it. Given time I could come up with an entire notebook of things that I bet you enjoy that you would scream to high heaven if they were taken away.
Ok, I'll take the "liberty" part of that statement. "Liberty" to what? - I might ask. You say the document is "clear". You will certainly say you have the "liberty" to have hetero-sex just for fun. I say I have the "liberty" to have homo-sex. Why do you have this sexual "liberty" and not me? I quite certain you can't come up with something in the Constitution to clear up this little 'ambiguity', but I'll wait for you to search and return.
C. How about "just compensation". Think that's clear or would you agree that one reasonable person might argue that a piece of property is worth $100,000 and another $500,000? Once again, it requires a system that allows for all interpretations of "just compensation" to be introduces and argued and a decision rendered that is appealable to the highest court that will hear it.
Interestedly waiting for your response.
JB
PS.
And that doesn't even TOUCH the issue of civilians owning firearms and what type of firearms...one of the most ambiguous issues around.
Constitution clear?...yeah, right. It's a wonderful document but holes abound because such a comprehensive document can't be created *without* holes.
Okay you guys need to pull back a bit and get on the same page.
#1. Understand what the Constitution was drawn up for. It was to protect the people from an overzealous government. That is why it LIMITS governmental powers. It also limits people only as far as their ability to infringe on the rights of another.
#2 All laws governing "the people" must comply with the limitations and freedoms of the Constitution. We may not like the freedoms another would enjoy as part of their right, however they may not like the freedoms we enjoy.
Turok you brought up a good point about Nichols. IMHO a major question to be addressed is, is his crime against the Federal Government or against the State. Was the building Federal property or State property. This is a classic example of an overzealous government (in this case the State).
As to your question concerning "liberty". The following is taken directly from Black's Law Dictionary from which definitions are taken when establishing law.
"Freedom from all restraints except such as are justly imposed by law. Freedom from restraint, under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of this same right by others; freedom regulated by law. The absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interest of the community." Brazo v. Connecticut Real Estate Commission, 177 Conn. 515, 418 A.2d 883, 890
"The liberty guaranteed and protected by constitutional provisions denotes not only freedom from unauthorized physical restraint, but embraces also the freedom of an individual to use and enjoy his faculties in all lawful ways, acquire useful knowledge, marry, establish a home, and bring up children, worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, live and work where he chooses, engage in any of the common and lawful occupations of life, enter into all contracts which may be proper and essential to carrying out successfully the foregoing purposes, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free people"
WHEW
There are several others such as civil liberties, Liberty interest, Liberty of a port, Liberty of conscience, Liberty of contract etc etc etc.
Just compensation is one that State and especially local governments have abused for their own purposes. Its unfair, however, decades ago it went unchallenged and would thereby be almost impossible to get a redress.
The Constitution does not prohibit homo sex, that is a matter of law. Right or wrong, laws must be obeyed until such time as they are changed.
There is strong evidence however that abortion, certainly partial birth, is unconstitutional. That baby, capable of living outside the mothers womb, if aborted, is being denied its right to life and liberty. Otherwise known as infanticide.
As for firearms, the Constitution is very clear on that matter. "The people" have a right to bear arms. What gets sticky, is lawmakers, succumbing to special interest groups, banning certain types. The Constitution only says we have a right to have guns. The rest is a tug of war.
The 'holes" you seem to think are in the Constitution are not "holes" but actually part of its beauty. Remember, the Framers of the Constitution tried giving us a guideline, not a directive. They were opposed to government dictating everything. Being in opposition to that, how could they then write an agreement so ironclad as some want it to be.
The hardest part about being an American, is defending the rights of those you disagree with.
#1. Understand what the Constitution was drawn up for. It was to protect the people from an overzealous government. That is why it LIMITS governmental powers. It also limits people only as far as their ability to infringe on the rights of another.
#2 All laws governing "the people" must comply with the limitations and freedoms of the Constitution. We may not like the freedoms another would enjoy as part of their right, however they may not like the freedoms we enjoy.
Turok you brought up a good point about Nichols. IMHO a major question to be addressed is, is his crime against the Federal Government or against the State. Was the building Federal property or State property. This is a classic example of an overzealous government (in this case the State).
As to your question concerning "liberty". The following is taken directly from Black's Law Dictionary from which definitions are taken when establishing law.
"Freedom from all restraints except such as are justly imposed by law. Freedom from restraint, under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of this same right by others; freedom regulated by law. The absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interest of the community." Brazo v. Connecticut Real Estate Commission, 177 Conn. 515, 418 A.2d 883, 890
"The liberty guaranteed and protected by constitutional provisions denotes not only freedom from unauthorized physical restraint, but embraces also the freedom of an individual to use and enjoy his faculties in all lawful ways, acquire useful knowledge, marry, establish a home, and bring up children, worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, live and work where he chooses, engage in any of the common and lawful occupations of life, enter into all contracts which may be proper and essential to carrying out successfully the foregoing purposes, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free people"
WHEW
There are several others such as civil liberties, Liberty interest, Liberty of a port, Liberty of conscience, Liberty of contract etc etc etc.
Just compensation is one that State and especially local governments have abused for their own purposes. Its unfair, however, decades ago it went unchallenged and would thereby be almost impossible to get a redress.
The Constitution does not prohibit homo sex, that is a matter of law. Right or wrong, laws must be obeyed until such time as they are changed.
There is strong evidence however that abortion, certainly partial birth, is unconstitutional. That baby, capable of living outside the mothers womb, if aborted, is being denied its right to life and liberty. Otherwise known as infanticide.
As for firearms, the Constitution is very clear on that matter. "The people" have a right to bear arms. What gets sticky, is lawmakers, succumbing to special interest groups, banning certain types. The Constitution only says we have a right to have guns. The rest is a tug of war.
The 'holes" you seem to think are in the Constitution are not "holes" but actually part of its beauty. Remember, the Framers of the Constitution tried giving us a guideline, not a directive. They were opposed to government dictating everything. Being in opposition to that, how could they then write an agreement so ironclad as some want it to be.
The hardest part about being an American, is defending the rights of those you disagree with.
"Freedom from all restraints except such as are justly imposed by law. Freedom from restraint, under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of this same right by others; freedom regulated by law. The absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interest of the community." Brazo v. Connecticut Real Estate Commission, 177 Conn. 515, 418 A.2d 883, 890
The terms "justly" and "reasonably" are subjective and lacking in exactness.
They are subject to interpretation.
Standards of what is reasonable are subject to change.
It was considered "unreasonable" at a time in our history to grant women the right to vote.
It was considered "unreasonable" at a time in our history to give black people the right to vote.
The historical study of values in our society and what was considered "reasonable" reveals the subjective nature of the term reasonableness.
Equally "justly" has changed. It was considered just to arrest a man without reading him his rights at one point and time, now it is not considered a just action to do so.
There was a time when it was considered "just" to sell human beings into slavery.
Things change, values change, and the interpretation of terminology changes.
The terms "justly" and "reasonably" are subjective and lacking in exactness.
They are subject to interpretation.
Standards of what is reasonable are subject to change.
It was considered "unreasonable" at a time in our history to grant women the right to vote.
It was considered "unreasonable" at a time in our history to give black people the right to vote.
The historical study of values in our society and what was considered "reasonable" reveals the subjective nature of the term reasonableness.
Equally "justly" has changed. It was considered just to arrest a man without reading him his rights at one point and time, now it is not considered a just action to do so.
There was a time when it was considered "just" to sell human beings into slavery.
Things change, values change, and the interpretation of terminology changes.
Cd:
>As to your question concerning "liberty". The following
>is taken directly from Black's Law Dictionary from which
>definitions are taken when establishing law.
Cd, I really don't have an argument with you as I am quite familiar with the role of Blacks (partnered with an IP attorney for more than a decade), but I'm not sure that will be useful in addressing AAAs complaints since Blacks was not around when the Constitution was written (I'm assuming that).
>The Constitution does not prohibit homo sex, that is a
>matter of law. Right or wrong, laws must be obeyed
>until such time as they are changed.
I agree. From his statements, AAA feels however that it is some loose cannon interpretation of the constitution that allows homo sex. The Constitution doesn't directly address the issue at all but as we have both pointed out it addresses issues that are certainly directly applicable.
>There is strong evidence however that abortion, certainly
>partial birth, is unconstitutional. That baby, capable of
>living outside the mothers womb, if aborted, is being
>denied its right to life and liberty. Otherwise known as
>infanticide.
I am pro-choice to a point and that point is the exactly the one that you bring up. I consider a fetus that is mature to the point of survival outside the mothers womb to be worthy of all the protections of any other child. PERIOD! And rearward from that line I find quite a stretch of gray where I cannot support abortion.
>As for firearms, the Constitution is very clear on
>that matter. "The people" have a right to bear arms.
>What gets sticky, is lawmakers, succumbing to special
>interest groups, banning certain types. The Constitution
>only says we have a right to have guns. The rest is a
>tug of war.
Yes it's clear...clear a mud. (I believe in the right to bear arms BTW). I have no "special interests" to succumb to I can interpret this issues in about a dozen different ways. We probably need not go further on this one but if you wish to, start a thread and I'll be there.
>The 'holes" you seem to think are in the Constitution
>are not "holes" but actually part of its beauty. Remember,
>the Framers of the Constitution tried giving us a guideline,
>not a directive. They were opposed to government
>dictating everything. Being in opposition to that, how could
>they then write an agreement so ironclad as some want it
>to be.
It's a matter of semantics...they *are* holes and *I* agree they are beautiful. Remember, my comments were for AAA who appears to hold the belief that the Constitution is clear and requires no interpretation (which is a far cry from what I believe and what you apparently believe).
>The hardest part about being an American, is defending
>the rights of those you disagree with.
Very well said.
Nice work.
JB
>As to your question concerning "liberty". The following
>is taken directly from Black's Law Dictionary from which
>definitions are taken when establishing law.
Cd, I really don't have an argument with you as I am quite familiar with the role of Blacks (partnered with an IP attorney for more than a decade), but I'm not sure that will be useful in addressing AAAs complaints since Blacks was not around when the Constitution was written (I'm assuming that).
>The Constitution does not prohibit homo sex, that is a
>matter of law. Right or wrong, laws must be obeyed
>until such time as they are changed.
I agree. From his statements, AAA feels however that it is some loose cannon interpretation of the constitution that allows homo sex. The Constitution doesn't directly address the issue at all but as we have both pointed out it addresses issues that are certainly directly applicable.
>There is strong evidence however that abortion, certainly
>partial birth, is unconstitutional. That baby, capable of
>living outside the mothers womb, if aborted, is being
>denied its right to life and liberty. Otherwise known as
>infanticide.
I am pro-choice to a point and that point is the exactly the one that you bring up. I consider a fetus that is mature to the point of survival outside the mothers womb to be worthy of all the protections of any other child. PERIOD! And rearward from that line I find quite a stretch of gray where I cannot support abortion.
>As for firearms, the Constitution is very clear on
>that matter. "The people" have a right to bear arms.
>What gets sticky, is lawmakers, succumbing to special
>interest groups, banning certain types. The Constitution
>only says we have a right to have guns. The rest is a
>tug of war.
Yes it's clear...clear a mud. (I believe in the right to bear arms BTW). I have no "special interests" to succumb to I can interpret this issues in about a dozen different ways. We probably need not go further on this one but if you wish to, start a thread and I'll be there.
>The 'holes" you seem to think are in the Constitution
>are not "holes" but actually part of its beauty. Remember,
>the Framers of the Constitution tried giving us a guideline,
>not a directive. They were opposed to government
>dictating everything. Being in opposition to that, how could
>they then write an agreement so ironclad as some want it
>to be.
It's a matter of semantics...they *are* holes and *I* agree they are beautiful. Remember, my comments were for AAA who appears to hold the belief that the Constitution is clear and requires no interpretation (which is a far cry from what I believe and what you apparently believe).
>The hardest part about being an American, is defending
>the rights of those you disagree with.
Very well said.
Nice work.
JB
Thanks for your remarks. One remark however has left a question mark lurking in the back of my mind.
Why is it that you feel the Constitution is not clear about the right to bear arms? I've always wondered why the confusion.
If you want we could start another thread. Let me know.
My edition of Blacks dates back to 1891. Prior to that, the Supreme Court relied on the intent of the Framers or previous rulings. Another possibiliy is that ART wasn't around then to question the meaning of seamingly easy to understand words.
Cd:L
>Why is it that you feel the Constitution is not clear
>about the right to bear arms?
First my position is that the framers intended for the general populace to have the right to weapons. I don't personally buy into the argument that it was only intended for those in some organized militia, but rather the presence of generally distributed arms creates the militia to which they refered. Now, I acknowledge that this is my personal interpretation and that reasonable people come to other conclusions (and thus my position of "it's not clear")
So, let's just take the easy one... What are "arms"?.
Did the framers intend for each to have available the latest in weapons technology? Or do we freeze this right to arms with the long and short guns of the day?... Cannons?... Morters?
Can I have a TOW missile? Can I have a fully automatic mini-gun? Should I be able to have my arms unlicensed? All arms unlicensed or just the slightly less benign ones? Can I have nukes...they are "arms" after all.
Back at you Cd
JB
>Why is it that you feel the Constitution is not clear
>about the right to bear arms?
First my position is that the framers intended for the general populace to have the right to weapons. I don't personally buy into the argument that it was only intended for those in some organized militia, but rather the presence of generally distributed arms creates the militia to which they refered. Now, I acknowledge that this is my personal interpretation and that reasonable people come to other conclusions (and thus my position of "it's not clear")
So, let's just take the easy one... What are "arms"?.
Did the framers intend for each to have available the latest in weapons technology? Or do we freeze this right to arms with the long and short guns of the day?... Cannons?... Morters?
Can I have a TOW missile? Can I have a fully automatic mini-gun? Should I be able to have my arms unlicensed? All arms unlicensed or just the slightly less benign ones? Can I have nukes...they are "arms" after all.
Back at you Cd
JB
If I'm understanding you correctly then, you feel the Constitution is clear about the right to bear "arms", and the "mud" is the different points of view with regards to what kind of arms, i.e, cannon, mortars, new technology. Right?
If that is your opinion, I quite agree. IMHO gun ban proponents try to negate the phrase which allows "the right of the people" claiming that only applies to militia.
Also IMHO, "the right", and "what kind" are two separate issues which often get rolled into one, causing hostility and misunderstanding. Getting gun ban proponents to accept the notion of "the people's right" is one hurdle, getting gun owners to accept limitations is another.
Cd:
>If I'm understanding you correctly then, you feel the
>Constitution is clear about the right to bear "arms",
No, I don't believe that the Consititution is clear on this point. My personal interpretation of the ambiguities however IS clear. I believe that the Constitution allows (not "clearly allow", just allows) for the general populace to own unregistered arms.
It can easily be argued that only members of an organized "militia" (let's say National Guard) have the right to personal arms. I know reasonable people who make this argument. I reject the argument because when you consider the reason they wanted the populace to have access to arms it was to be able to resist an overbearing government. Of course if the only people allowed to bear arms were those in government sponsored militias, then what's the point?
>and the "mud" is the different points of view with regards
>to what kind of arms, i.e, cannon, mortars, new technology.
And beyond the "mud" which I believe exits in my previous point there exists a quagmire in this one.
>If that is your opinion, I quite agree. IMHO gun ban
>proponents try to negate the phrase which allows
>"the right of the people" claiming that only applies
>to militia.
Yes, and since reasonable people can and do interpret it to only militia, I'm confused as to why you state that it is "clear".
>Also IMHO, "the right", and "what kind" are two
>separate issues which often get rolled into one,
And here also I agree with you as well.
JB
>If I'm understanding you correctly then, you feel the
>Constitution is clear about the right to bear "arms",
No, I don't believe that the Consititution is clear on this point. My personal interpretation of the ambiguities however IS clear. I believe that the Constitution allows (not "clearly allow", just allows) for the general populace to own unregistered arms.
It can easily be argued that only members of an organized "militia" (let's say National Guard) have the right to personal arms. I know reasonable people who make this argument. I reject the argument because when you consider the reason they wanted the populace to have access to arms it was to be able to resist an overbearing government. Of course if the only people allowed to bear arms were those in government sponsored militias, then what's the point?
>and the "mud" is the different points of view with regards
>to what kind of arms, i.e, cannon, mortars, new technology.
And beyond the "mud" which I believe exits in my previous point there exists a quagmire in this one.
>If that is your opinion, I quite agree. IMHO gun ban
>proponents try to negate the phrase which allows
>"the right of the people" claiming that only applies
>to militia.
Yes, and since reasonable people can and do interpret it to only militia, I'm confused as to why you state that it is "clear".
>Also IMHO, "the right", and "what kind" are two
>separate issues which often get rolled into one,
And here also I agree with you as well.
JB