Do we have a Constitutional Right to not have Universal Background Checks?

[Sol]

Lol...constitutionalists.

Just because it's written in plain English for the layman to understand, doesn't mean your governmental superiors interpret it the same way.

Just like the bible and the qu'ran as earlier quoted.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

You haven't demonstrated where the Court can adjudicate beyond the bounds of the Constitution.

No.

What brought that up?

The Second Amendment being ignored by the Court, such as in US v. Miller, 1939.

What ever the Court decides, until voided, we generally must live with. I don't dispute that. My call into the constitutionality of many of its decisions is supported by the many dissenting opinions which attest to the personal and agenda driven proclivities of the Justices. So you can plainly see that many times Justices will disagree with what has been handed down by the Court. I'm in good company.

I shall, therefore, follow the strict construction of the Constitution, using the definition of the words applicable at the time the Constitution was written, not as bastardized over time, and certainly not as redefined by the court in such instances as how the reach of the federal government via the Commerce Clause has been extended far beyond original intent.

And the out of context use of Madison's quote from Federalist 39 by Frank calls his integrity into question. Frank will simply ignore certain questions put to him. Frank will arrogate superiority with derogative comments(to avail, I might add). I will not be kowtowed.

Woody

 

[Sam1911]

Woody,

Are you doing anything practical to make your view become reality? If you are agreeing that "we generally must live with [those interpretations we don't agree with]" then what practical good is your claim that you personally "shall, therefore, follow the strict construction of the Constitution..."?

If you don't have the power to decide Constitutional cases and write or strike down laws which conflict with your decisions (which admittedly, none of us do) then claiming that you will "follow the strict construction" seems to be a statement made of air. How do you follow it? If you live by the laws of our country as they exist today, you follow not your own interpretation or any version of strict constructionism, but the interpretations of the sitting Justices.

Do you have some avenue beyond being a lone voice crying the the wilderness (to borrow a metaphor) for doing anything about your beliefs?

 

[dogtown tom]

ConstitutionCowboy ....I shall, therefore, follow the strict construction of the Constitution, using the definition of the words applicable at the time the Constitution was written, not as bastardized over time, and certainly not as redefined by the court in such instances as how the reach of the federal government via the Commerce Clause has been extended far beyond original intent.

In short, you ignore those parts of the Constitution that give the authority in matters of interpreting the Constitution to the Supreme Court.

I don't think you are as knowledgeable about the Constitution as you think you are.

 

[Old Fuff]

Put it this way.

I know what's right and what isn't!

And I'll get it all straightened out just as soon as I'm elected President.

Just don't hold your breath.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...We are back to square one. You haven't demonstrated where the Court can adjudicate beyond the bounds of the Constitution...

So Woody, have you stopped beating your wife?

You continue to ask the same type of nonsensical question.

...I shall, therefore, follow the strict construction of the Constitution, using the definition of the words applicable at the time the Constitution was written, not as bastardized over time, and certainly not as redefined by the court in such instances as how the reach of the federal government via the Commerce Clause has been extended far beyond original intent....

Do whatever you want. Translate the Constitution into Klingon for all anyone cares. The bottom line is that how you read and understand the Constitution has absolutely no effect on real life in the real world.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

So Woody, have you stopped beating your wife?

You continue to ask the same type of nonsensical question.

Do whatever you want. Translate the Constitution into Klingon for all anyone cares. The bottom line is that how you read and understand the Constitution has absolutely no effect on real life in the real world.

Your refusal to answer the question speaks volumes.

What, no response to being called out on your misapplication of Madison's reasoning in Federalist 39?

Do you continue to side with the Court with its errors in these matters or do you stand - at least in principle - with the Constitution and the protection of the rights of the people?

Woody

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by ConsititutionCowboy:

I shall, therefore, follow the strict construction of the Constitution, using the definition of the words applicable at the time the Constitution was written, ....

Have you read Post #94? Do you understand it at all? What it really means is that we must be able to come up with a resolution whenever what one person believes the" definition of the words applicable at the time the Constitution was written" (or the contract was signed, or the statute was signed into law, or the law was passed by the Congress and signed by the President) to mean differs from what someone else believes.

Whether or not the possibility seems realistic to you. that happens all the time, and it has for millennia,

That is why we have courts.

Capisci?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Do you continue to side with the Court with its errors in these matters or do you stand - at least in principle - with the Constitution and the protection of the rights of the people?

I side with the Constitution -- where the Founding Fathers assigned to the federal courts the authority to resolve questions about the meaning and application of the Constitution.

Your refusal to answer the question speaks volumes....

I do refuse to play your stupid games. Enjoy your alternative reality.

 

[Sam1911]

If you don't have the power to decide Constitutional cases and write or strike down laws which conflict with your decisions (which admittedly, none of us do) then claiming that you will "follow the strict construction" seems to be a statement made of air. How do you follow it?

And I quote, "Your refusal to answer the question speaks volumes."



Are we to assume this is all just so much wind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh0Iq_85aw

 

[alsaqr]

i ain't a lawyer, nor do i play one on TV or elsewhere. But i do know the US Constitution pretty well. The folks who wrote the BOR also provided for a federal court system to settle disputes over US law and the US Constitution.

It matters not what a layman thinks the Constitution says. It is the interpretation by the federal courts that matter. You can argue your favorite interpretation of the Second Amendment until the cows come home and it matters not.

i'm happy that SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all things constitutional in this country: Rather not someone sitting at a keyboard posting under an assumed name.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Posted by ConsititutionCowboy:

Have you read Post #94? Do you understand it at all? What it really means is that we must be able to come up with a resolution whenever what one person believes the" definition of the words applicable at the time the Constitution was written" (or the contract was signed, or the statute was signed into law, or the law was passed by the Congress and signed by the President) to mean differs from what someone else believes.

Whether or not the possibility seems realistic to you. that happens all the time, and it has for millennia,

That is why we have courts.

Capisci?

That's why Antonin Scalia referred to Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1773 edition, in his decision in DC v. Heller, so he could point out what those words meant when the Constitution was written. There's no better way to determine the original intent - and that intent has not been changed. Four other Justices concurred as well.

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I side with the Constitution -- where the Founding Fathers assigned to the federal courts the authority to resolve questions about the meaning and application of the Constitution.

I do refuse to play your stupid games. Enjoy your alternative reality.

Except that you have no problem with whenever the Court rules contrary to the Constitution, be it erroneous or purposeful, and I feel embarrassed for you that you find discussing matters regarding our rights and freedoms to be stupid.

Woody

 

[Frank Ettin]

Posted by ConsititutionCowboy:

Have you read Post #94? Do you understand it at all? What it really means is that we must be able to come up with a resolution whenever what one person believes the" definition of the words applicable at the time the Constitution was written" (or the contract was signed, or the statute was signed into law, or the law was passed by the Congress and signed by the President) to mean differs from what someone else believes.

Whether or not the possibility seems realistic to you. that happens all the time, and it has for millennia,

That is why we have courts.

Capisci?

That's why Antonin Scalia referred to Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1773 edition, in his decision in DC v. Heller, so he could point out what those words meant when the Constitution was written. There's no better way to determine the original intent - and that intent has not been changed. Four other Justices concurred as well.

But as I pointed out here, you seem to have difficulty using Dr. Johnson's dictionary effectively:

...On a side note, the word 'seize' had a narrower meaning back when the Constitution was written. Back then, the pertinent definition regarding law of 'to seize' was, to take forcible possession of by law...

Sorry, but you're wrong. I'll rely on the OED (mine is the compact edition, but it is complete).

The OED shows over a page (three columns) of definitions of "seize" with examples of various usages back to the 13th Century. Examples of "seize" being used to mean "To take possession of, confiscate," go back to 1290, and there are examples of it being used thus in the mid to late 18th Century.

The OED also includes examples as early as the 15th Century (and inclusive of the 18th Century) of "seize" being used to mean "To take possession (of goods) pursuant to a judicial order." According to the OED, "seize" was also used as early as the 14th Century (including examples dating from the 18th Century) to mean, "To take hold of with the hands...."

Further, the OED shows examples of "seize" being used in the 18th Century (and as early as the 15th Century) to mean, "To take prisoner, to catch."

While Dr. Johnson's dictionary was a monumental work of his day, the OED has long been recognized by scholars as the authoritative historical dictionary of the English language.

But I've no doubt that Mr. Justice Scalia is better at it than you.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Clarification:

I shall, therefore, follow the strict construction of the Constitution, using the definition of the words applicable at the time the Constitution was written, not as bastardized over time, and certainly not as redefined by the court in such instances as how the reach of the federal government via the Commerce Clause has been extended far beyond original intent.

Since this followed my statement:

What ever the Court decides, until voided, we generally must live with. I don't dispute that. My call into the constitutionality of many of its decisions is supported by the many dissenting opinions which attest to the personal and agenda driven proclivities of the Justices. So you can plainly see that many times Justices will disagree with what has been handed down by the Court. I'm in good company.

When I said I will follow the strict construction of the Constitution, I said it in regard to my arguments. I also said we must follow what the Court decides. That includes me.

Woody

 

[Frank Ettin]

Except that you have no problem with whenever the Court rules contrary to the Constitution, be it erroneous or purposeful, and I feel embarrassed for you that you find discussing matters regarding our rights and freedoms to be stupid...

Once again, while the Court might rule in a manner contrary to your understanding of the Constitution or in a manner contrary to your wishes and hopes, your understanding of the Constitution and your wishes and hopes are irrelevant to real life in the real world.

Yes, I find discussing your fantasies to be a waste of time. On the other hand, any time I spend with other educated people who have a good grasp of law and history is time I consider to be well spent. Such discussions foster a deeper understanding of the real world and help point to ways to better address those aspects of the law and politics antagonistic to our interests. Discussions with you offer no such benefits.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...My call into the constitutionality of many of its decisions is supported by the many dissenting opinions...

Fine, but --

1. There may be dissenting opinions, but the majority opinion is still the one that counts -- the one that will actually be applied in subsequent, similar cases.
   
   
2. While no decision of any court can be immune from criticism, it's simply not useful to rail against them on the bases of beliefs and hopes. That is not how decisions are made nor how worthwhile dissents are framed. If the goal is to understand the issues and lay a foundation for later attacking or mitigating what you think is a poor decision, you must still frame your criticisms based on precedent and legal principles. Discussions based on rigorous legal analysis and research can help law a foundation for future amelioration of a what you think is a poor decision. Discussions based on the mating habits of unicorns won't.
   
   
3. While you might think that dissenting opinions:

   ...attest to the personal and agenda driven proclivities of the Justices...

   reflected in majority opinions, just as often a dissent reflects the personal biases and agendas of the dissenter. I certainly am inclined to see the dissents in Heller to reflect the dissenters' agenda driven proclivities (just as no doubt many on the other side thus see the majority opinion).

To be a truly productive discussions of legal issues need to be based on reality rather than beliefs and wishes.

 

[Old Fuff]

Keep going... I just made fresh popcorn.

 

[blarby]

I wish that Frank had a service.... Like prepaid legal, but pre-paid constitutional bluster remover.

So, at any given point in the day, during a belligerent conversation, I could just put in my Acct number, and have Frank blast people on speakerphone.

He's just so much better at it than I am.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I wish that Frank had a service.... Like prepaid legal, but pre-paid constitutional bluster remover.

So, at any given point in the day, during a belligerent conversation, I could just put in my Acct number, and have Frank blast people on speakerphone....

An interesting business model, but I doubt you'd like my fees. I'm so happily retired I've set my consulting fee high enough to discourage any paying work.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by ConstitutionCowboy:

That's why Antonin Scalia referred to Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1773 edition, in his decision in DC v. Heller, so he could point out what those words meant when the Constitution was written. There's no better way to determine the original intent - and that intent has not been changed. Four other Justices concurred as well.

1. The issue had to be decided in court.
2. There were other dictionaries extant.
3. Four Justices did not agree.
4. Numerous legal scholars presented contradictory interpretations of the same Amendment for centuries.

And once again, that is why we have courts.

 

[TimSr]

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution. That is all. They do not Constitutionally have the power to change it, to over rule it, to "fix" it, to write legislation, to re-write legislation, or to make decisions based on anything other than what the Constitution actually says, and not what they think it ought to say.

All other powers being practiced have been assumed in practice without Constitutional authority. Yes, they rule, but it is offensive to suggest the power is granted to them by the Constitution.

Justices in the past have abused those powers and acted outside of their authority to the point of incrementally, over many years, making the Supreme Court a political legislative body that cannot be removed by the people.

Does anyone seriously believe that the majority of today's Supreme Court actually makes decisions based on what the Constitution says, and not what they want it to say? Take Ginsberg as the most obvious example, either the dumbest woman in the world, or regards the Constitution as a monumental mistake that requires her to fix. If she can't find it in there, she cites laws in foreign countries. Look at Roberts, actually re-writing poor legislation passed by congress and signed by the president in order to make it "Constitutional" to the Court.

The Constitution was written with procedures in place to change it. While the Court has the power to interpret it as it is currently written, "their power to make the decisions" on how it is interpretted was granted to them based on the expectation that honorable men would tweak their decisions to comply with the Constitution, and not tweak the Constitution to defend the decisions they personally would like to make.

Personally, I do not hold in high esteem those who make a practice of twisting the simple words and principles written for us "commoners" and "lay people" with wordcraft, to justify their agenda, and it looks a little arrogant when they try to convince us ignorant peons that they have been granted Constitutional authority to alter its original meaning by virtue of their superior intellect and having passed a bar exam. I believe our current president is regarded by many as a "Constitutional scholar" as he exercises powers that he claims he has been granted to decline portions of it that he views as "optional suggestions".

It's human nature for those in power to continuously and incrementally assume more and more power. Our founders warned us of this repeatedly. The argument that those in power get to exercise their choice of rules, does not change the rules, and simply shows a willingness to violate them.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution. That is all. They do not Constitutionally have the power to change it, to over rule it, to "fix" it, to write legislation, to re-write legislation, or to make decisions based on anything other than what the Constitution actually says, and not what they think it ought to say.

All other powers being practiced have been assumed in practice without Constitutional authority. Yes, they rule, but it is offensive to suggest the power is granted to them by the Constitution.

Justices in the past have abused those powers and acted outside of their authority to the point of incrementally, over many years, making the Supreme Court a political legislative body that cannot be removed by the people.

Does anyone seriously believe that the majority of today's Supreme Court actually makes decisions based on what the Constitution says, and not what they want it to say? Take Ginsberg as the most obvious example, either the dumbest woman in the world, or regards the Constitution as a monumental mistake that requires her to fix. If she can't find it in there, she cites laws in foreign countries. Look at Roberts, actually re-writing poor legislation passed by congress and signed by the president in order to make it "Constitutional" to the Court.

The Constitution was written with procedures in place to change it. While the Court has the power to interpret it as it is currently written, "their power to make the decisions" on how it is interpretted was granted to them based on the expectation that honorable men would tweak their decisions to comply with the Constitution, and not tweak the Constitution to defend the decisions they personally would like to make.

Personally, I do not hold in high esteem those who make a practice of twisting the simple words and principles written for us "commoners" and "lay people" with wordcraft, to justify their agenda, and it looks a little arrogant when they try to convince us ignorant peons that they have been granted Constitutional authority to alter its original meaning by virtue of their superior intellect and having passed a bar exam. I believe our current president is regarded by many as a "Constitutional scholar" as he exercises powers that he claims he has been granted to decline portions of it that he views as "optional suggestions".

It's human nature for those in power to continuously and incrementally assume more and more power. Our founders warned us of this repeatedly. The argument that those in power get to exercise their choice of rules, does not change the rules, and simply shows a willingness to violate them.

Here here!

Well said. I would only change one thing in your dissertation, and that would be to replace "interpret" with "read and obey." I believe one of the main jobs of the Court is to make sure everyone else reads, obeys and abides the Constitution as well, and to pass judgment upon those who don't.

I have my Nomex on today. Flame away!

Woody

 

[dogtown tom]

Originally Posted by TimSr View Post
The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution. That is all. They do not Constitutionally have the power to change it, to over rule it, to "fix" it, to write legislation, to re-write legislation, or to make decisions based on anything other than what the Constitution actually says, and not what they think it ought to say.

Sorry, but your argument is illogical. No one claims that the USSC has the power to change the Constitution........so where did you get that idea?
The USSC DOES have the power to decide if legislation is constitutional. If you disagree then provide a citation that proves otherwise.

All other powers being practiced have been assumed in practice without Constitutional authority. Yes, they rule, but it is offensive to suggest the power is granted to them by the Constitution.

Haven't actually read that ol' Constitution have ya?

Justices in the past have abused those powers and acted outside of their authority to the point of incrementally, over many years, making the Supreme Court a political legislative body that cannot be removed by the people.

Meh.
Funny how people view the evil Supreme Court........we love them when they ruled on Heller and Thompson Center, yet accuse them of abusing their power when we disagree with their decisions.

Does anyone seriously believe that the majority of today's Supreme Court actually makes decisions based on what the Constitution says, and not what they want it to say? Take Ginsberg as the most obvious example, either the dumbest woman in the world, or regards the Constitution as a monumental mistake that requires her to fix. If she can't find it in there, she cites laws in foreign countries. Look at Roberts, actually re-writing poor legislation passed by congress and signed by the president in order to make it "Constitutional" to the Court.

Welcome to Planet Earth, home of humans.

The Constitution was written with procedures in place to change it. While the Court has the power to interpret it as it is currently written, "their power to make the decisions" on how it is interpretted was granted to them based on the expectation that honorable men would tweak their decisions to comply with the Constitution, and not tweak the Constitution to defend the decisions they personally would like to make.

This is nonsensical. Do you even know how the USSC writes decisions? What do you mean by "tweak the Constitution"? Derp...this post is full of it.:banghead:

ConstitutionCowboy

Here here!

Well said. I would only change one thing in your dissertation, and that would be to replace "interpret" with "read and obey." I believe one of the main jobs of the Court is to make sure everyone else reads, obeys and abides the Constitution as well, and to pass judgment upon those who don't.

The only thing you should change is your username..........because your knowledge of the Constitution is severely lacking. You do both the Constitution and cowboys a disservice.

Your ignorance of the powers our Constitution grants to the Supreme Court is laughable.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Does anyone seriously believe that the majority of today's Supreme Court actually makes decisions based on what the Constitution says, and not what they want it to say? Take Ginsberg as the most obvious example, either the dumbest woman in the world, or regards the Constitution as a monumental mistake that requires her to fix. If she can't find it in there, she cites laws in foreign countries. Look at Roberts, actually re-writing poor legislation passed by congress and signed by the president in order to make it "Constitutional" to the Court.

Welcome to Planet Earth, home of humans.

So, you do agree that some justices on the Court don't follow the Constitution. Imagine that! I've been right all along! ('Course I knew that already.)

Seems like my 'fantasy world' isn't so fanciful after all - unless, of course, you can show me where in the Constitution the Court has been granted power to use foreign law, or legislate from the bench, etc. Ah, but since there is no such thing, you'll just ignore me.

I'll keep my user name as it is. Someone needs to ride herd for the Constitution.

Woody