Curious Supreme Court Ruling

[The Central Scrutinizer]

As per the lack of Second Amendment mention in this case, consider that 1) The weight of prior precident weighs against the personal right to bear arms outside of a militia context, no matter what the NRA claims,

Funny; I thought Article VI Section 2 says that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and therefore supercedes lesser laws, judicial precedents, etc.

It does. That is why the Second Amendment doesn't apply. No one is trying to disarm the National Guard.

Sorry to have to correct you yet again.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I've been quite harsh with Shanek precisely because I don't think he is a moron..I think he is intelligent enough to know better.

I'm not so sure. I think some one who purposefully fails to comprehend what they read is not an intelligent person.

But it would be correct to say that I am ready to think his posts are based on his own highly irregular interpretations, often leading to illogical conclusions.

Exactly.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Funny, then, that I have been able to quote the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, various founding fathers, and Joseph Story's commentaries, supporting my arguments, and you have been able to present...nothing at all.

Except that we are discussing the constitution. Everything else is irrelevant. When we start a thread discussing the Federalist Papers, we'll get back to you.

 

[crimresearch]

Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [/B]

Now I wonder exactly which State the US Supreme Court is located in?

Maybe one of you can tell us?

Class?

Anybody?

No, not you Shanek...put your hand down, we've heard quite enough from you today...

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Now I wonder exactly which State the US Supreme Court is located in?

Maybe one of you can tell us?

Class?

Anybody?

No, not you Shanek...put your hand down, we've heard quite enough from you today...

Ummmmm.....Libertobia?


(That's just a guess)

 

[Suddenly]

The only place I can find that makes any sense consistent with the Constitution is that of a clear and present danger to the person or property of others.

Which works...

Even if the conviction happened totally outside of US jurisdiction?

They are still given due process as to the law making it illegal to possess a firearm. The details of an underlying conviction go more to the classification side of things. Perhaps a person who was convicted in some kangaroo court somewhere could have a equal protection style due process argument, or just and old school "substantive" due process objection on the basis that the classification in his case is nonsensical...

Shouldn't the states also be held to equal protection, as per the 14th Amendment?

Sure. I was just looking to the federal government as that seems to be the issue. The 14th does not apply to the federal government, so any equal protection style argument must be based in somewhere else...

The commerce clause has been stretched so much anyway it could get a job as a contortionist.

But you're right: the relevant question is, indeed, where in Article I Section 8 is the government given the power to do this?

 

[Suddenly]

Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Now I wonder exactly which State the US Supreme Court is located in?

Maybe one of you can tell us?

Class?

Anybody?

No, not you Shanek...put your hand down, we've heard quite enough from you today...



[/B]

Ever contemplate the meaning of the sentence before the one you highlighted?

It is the supreme law of the land. That seems to indicate that the Supreme Court needs to follow it.

Sure, the text cites this proposition for the purpose of settling a question of federalism, but that doesn't mean that the principle suddenly vanishes when considering the duties of the supreme court...

 

[crimresearch]

You know...if I was talking about the text *before* the one I highlighted, there is a really good chance that I might have highlighted *it*....

If it were at all relevant to the point being made, instead of merely being part of a complete quote of the entire clause...

Merely settling a question of federalism? Vanishing distinctions between state and federal courts?


Yeah, that is exactly why the Constitution names a Supreme Court, and specifically limits the binding effect of Article XI Clause 2, to State courts...because after all, it isn't like the word Supreme means anything in the context of a Supreme court, right?

 

[Suddenly]

You know...if I was talking about the text *before* the one I highlighted, there is a really good chance that I might have highlighted *it*....

Perhaps that is why I suggested you look at that, seeing that was what shanek was referring to, that the constitution and the laws passed under it are the supreme law of the land. Why you have attached onto a different part of the text is curious, unless of course for the "view everything in the light most favorable to the propostition that shanek is a moron" standard...

If it were at all relevant to the point being made, instead of merely being part of a complete quote of the entire clause...

What point was that? Shanek never claimed the Supreme Court is a state court, just that the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

So, care to clarify what the heck you were trying to say?

Merely settling a question of federalism? Vanishing distinctions between state and federal courts?

No vanishing distinctions. That is where the distinctions were drawn. When the Constitution was framed one central issue was the issue of the relative strength of the states and federal government. This clause made it clear that where the federal government had the power to make law, that its law would trump state law. The sentence foillowing your highlighted bit makes this somewhat obvious.

Why you would think I was referring to a "vanishing" distinction when I am discussing the original text is curious.

Yeah, that is exactly why the Constitution names a Supreme Court, and specifically limits the binding effect of Article XI Clause 2, to State courts...because after all, it isn't like the word Supreme means anything in the context of a Supreme court, right?

Are you seriously contending that the Supreme Court is not bound to follow the Constitution or the laws arising under it?

Otherwise you are getting worked up over a curious detail. The reason that language is there is that the framers wanted to make clear that states may not favor their own law over a legitimate federal law.

However, that does not all of a sudden mean these laws are not supreme when dealing with a different kind of court.

 

[shanek]

Ever contemplate the meaning of the sentence before the one you highlighted?

It is the supreme law of the land. That seems to indicate that the Supreme Court needs to follow it.

Sure, the text cites this proposition for the purpose of settling a question of federalism, but that doesn't mean that the principle suddenly vanishes when considering the duties of the supreme court...

Or even the fact that Article III Section 2 Clause 1 clearly states, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases...arising under this Constitution". But one need not point out all of this to see crimresearch's obvious bigotry; simply the fact that he didn't want me to reply is enough to show that. That, plus the fact that he thinks using that stupid dog graphic is somehow a substitute for rational argument...

 

[crimresearch]

Rational Shanek?

Rational like All banks MUST belong to the federal reserve?
Rational like It is easy to kill someone with a punch to the nose?
Rational like Black's law dictionary IS the legal code?
Rational like Sherrifs ARE police?
Rational like showing a modern machine made patch from a city which was founded in the 1700s, and claiming that it is proof that the city's *police department* was around back then?

Rational like Article VI Clause 2 prevents the US Supreme Court from making any interpretations of the COnsitution?


Your kind of rational?

No thanks Shanek, I'll let you suffer from that unique brand of rationality...I'll stick to the kind that uses the *accepted*definitions and references and facts, instead of making up unworkable ones.

Are you running low on Shinola?

 

[crimresearch]

Perhaps that is why I suggested you look at that, seeing that was what shanek was referring to, that the constitution and the laws passed under it are the supreme law of the land. Why you have attached onto a different part of the text is curious, unless of course for the "view everything in the light most favorable to the propostition that shanek is a moron" standard...[/B] What point was that? Shanek never claimed the Supreme Court is a state court, just that the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

So, care to clarify what the heck you were trying to say? [/B] No vanishing distinctions. That is where the distinctions were drawn. When the Constitution was framed one central issue was the issue of the relative strength of the states and federal government. This clause made it clear that where the federal government had the power to make law, that its law would trump state law. The sentence foillowing your highlighted bit makes this somewhat obvious.

Why you would think I was referring to a "vanishing" distinction when I am discussing the original text is curious.



Are you seriously contending that the Supreme Court is not bound to follow the Constitution or the laws arising under it?

Otherwise you are getting worked up over a curious detail. The reason that language is there is that the framers wanted to make clear that states may not favor their own law over a legitimate federal law.

However, that does not all of a sudden mean these laws are not supreme when dealing with a different kind of court. [/B]

Just so there won't be *any* miscommunication, I'll sit right here all aquiver until you get back with the links to where I actually *said* any of those things....

You know. actual links to real, entire quotes, not your amazing mind reading ability to paraphrase what I must have meant.






Ta-ta, hurry back with those links.











No peeking now, I'm still waiting...










Chirp








Chirp









Yaaawn....

 

[Suddenly]

Just so there won't be *any* miscommunication, I'll sit right here all aquiver until you get back with the links to where I actually *said* any of those things....

You know. actual links to real, entire quotes, not your amazing mind reading ability to paraphrase what I must have meant.






Ta-ta, hurry back with those links.











No peeking now, I'm still waiting...










Chirp








Chirp









Yaaawn....

I'm not impressed by the tactic of intentional vagueness for the purpose of being able to claim that one is misinterpreted when the inanity of one's apparent claims is exposed...

Very cute.

In this case this tactic is particularly misused, given I never restated your position, and twice asked for clarification:

"So, care to clarify what the heck you were trying to say."

"Are you seriously contending that the Supreme Court is not bound to follow the Constitution or the laws arising under it?"

Plus I fail to see where I have done anything else but note the lack of clairty and then speculate on what I thought the most reasonable meaning of the text.

So if you want to explain the motivation behind your attack instead of leaving it unsaid and then crying that you are misinterpreted when others notice the obvious implications, please do.

Or you can continue with the childish use of doggie pictures and trite formatting tricks... either way...

 

[Suddenly]

Rational Shanek?

Rational like All banks MUST belong to the federal reserve?
Rational like It is easy to kill someone with a punch to the nose?
Rational like Black's law dictionary IS the legal code?
Rational like Sherrifs ARE police?
Rational like showing a modern machine made patch from a city which was founded in the 1700s, and claiming that it is proof that the city's *police department* was around back then?

Rational like thinking that Miranda involves the sixth amendment right to counsel?

Rational like Article VI Clause 2 prevents the US Supreme Court from making any interpretations of the COnsitution?

Like someone once said:

Just so there won't be *any* miscommunication, I'll sit right here all aquiver until you get back with the links to where [shanek] actually *said* [that]....

You know. actual links to real, entire quotes, not your amazing mind reading ability to paraphrase what [shanek] must have meant.

Your kind of rational?

No thanks Shanek, I'll let you suffer from that unique brand of rationality...I'll stick to the kind that uses the *accepted*definitions and references and facts, instead of making up unworkable ones.

Are you running low on Shinola?

I thought it was the type of rational that holds other people to a standard you are unwilling to live up to yourself, the being a jerk about others putting words into your mouth as in this thread, while at the same time in your very words:

But it would be correct to say that I am ready to think his posts are based on his own highly irregular interpretations, often leading to illogical conclusions.

 

[shanek]

Rational Shanek?

Rational like All banks MUST belong to the federal reserve?

All US banks, yes. I quoted you the law.

Rational like It is easy to kill someone with a punch to the nose?

I admitted I was wrong with that one. Did you ever admit you were wrong when you claimed the only way to join the Libertarian Party was by swearing an oath?

Rational like Black's law dictionary IS the legal code?

I never said it was and you know it.

Rational like Sherrifs ARE police?

Again, you lie. I said sheriffs and police were both officers acting under the executive branch.

Rational like showing a modern machine made patch from a city which was founded in the 1700s, and claiming that it is proof that the city's *police department* was around back then?

Another blatant lie.

Rational like Article VI Clause 2 prevents the US Supreme Court from making any interpretations of the COnsitution?

Yet another blatant lie.

ALL you have are lies. You cannot rebut what I say, so you lie about what I said.

Your kind of rational?

Well, if lying is your kind of rational, I want no part of it.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Curious Supreme Court Ruling

That's what I wondered as I read the OP. Perhaps the law should be amended to include foreign-court convictions only if they're deemed relevent by a US court?

The problem with that would be that now people would be unsure as to whether they are in fact "felons".

LegalPenguin

If viewed as a classification, I'm not sure "convicted of a felony (more or less... a felony has come to be generally defined as a crime punishable by more than a year) in a foreign country" carries much weight as a suspect classification...

Haven't there been people granted asylum for essentially this very classification?

Keeping felons from owning guns is quite reasonable as a regulation,

Why?

Just the general idea that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. A right to possess weaponry seems to present rather vivid examples of this concept, in that I'm unwilling to conceed that, for example, the clinically insane have a right to own anti-tank guns, and so forth. After we agree that there are some limits to this right then the argument is where the line is drawn, not whether the line gets to be drawn.

Which would support the idea that it should be raised as an issue.

Well, these people would be given due process (outside of ex post facto problems in some cases).

What about the due process of their original convictions?

So I don't see due process as an issue, except that the federal due process right is generally held to include an equal protection component, but as I stated above I have a feeling that "people guilty of a felony" is hardly a suspect classification on par with race or gender...

The issue is not whether it is on par with race or gender, but whether it is suspect at all. A further argument could be made that, considering that black males are disproportionately convicted of felonies, that race and gender are implicated. And since, until recently, homosexual acts were felonies in many states, that brings up the issue of whether sexual orientation is a suspect class. It also makes me wonder whether, were someone to be convicted under a law later found to be unconstitutional, such a conviction would count.

Which ["clear and present danger"]works...

Possession of a firearm by any felon constitutes a "clear and present danger"?

The details of an underlying conviction go more to the classification side of things.

So if the government were to skip the trial entirely, and simply set up a "classification" department, then pass a law saying that people given a certain "classification" by said department are prohibited from possessing a firearm, would that present any constitutional problems?

Sure. I was just looking to the federal government as that seems to be the issue. The 14th does not apply to the federal government, so any equal protection style argument must be based in somewhere else...

Besides the oddity of arguing that the federal government is not required to give equal protection, there's still the fact that the Amendment says "No State shall make or enforce..." Doesn't this suggest that were the federal government to pass a law which fails to give equal protection, the states would be prohibited from enforcing it?

Except that we are discussing the constitution. Everything else is irrelevant. When we start a thread discussing the Federalist Papers, we'll get back to you.

Firstly, the Federalis papers are relevant to the Constitution. Secondly, it is not merely the Constitution that is an issue, but the law itself.

It does. That is why the Second Amendment doesn't apply. No one is trying to disarm the National Guard.

But this does make we wonder, were a state National Guard to knowlingly hire a felon, whether the National Guard would have standing to challenge the law.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Rational Shanek?

Rational like All banks MUST belong to the federal reserve?
Rational like It is easy to kill someone with a punch to the nose?
Rational like Black's law dictionary IS the legal code?
Rational like Sherrifs ARE police?
Rational like showing a modern machine made patch from a city which was founded in the 1700s, and claiming that it is proof that the city's *police department* was around back then?

Rational like Article VI Clause 2 prevents the US Supreme Court from making any interpretations of the COnsitution?


Your kind of rational?

No thanks Shanek, I'll let you suffer from that unique brand of rationality...I'll stick to the kind that uses the *accepted*definitions and references and facts, instead of making up unworkable ones.

Are you running low on Shinola?

You forgot the claim that vaccines cause broken ribs.

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Curious Supreme Court Ruling

Possession of a firearm by any felon constitutes a "clear and present danger"?

No, but it seems a reasonable classification for Congress to make to the extent that the Courts shouldn't be voiding the law.

So if the government were to skip the trial entirely, and simply set up a "classification" department, then pass a law saying that people given a certain "classification" by said department are prohibited from possessing a firearm, would that present any constitutional problems?

Of course. However, this isn't that case as this is hardly an arbitrary classification. If Congress were to withold that right from people with blue eyes, this would be a arbitrary classification in that there is no rational reason behind it.

However, a law making it illegal for those under the age of 8 from possessing a firearm is not arbitrary, as there is a rationale for such a law, that younger people may be less responsible. This does not mean that every 8 year old is not responsible... (ignoring federalism issues)

As a general rule, the more suspect a class, and the more basic a right being regulated, there must be a better reason for the regulation, and that regulation must be more carefully crafted to meet that reason.

For example, if a classification is racial, there must be a really, really, really good reason and the regulation had better hit it right on the head without being overbroad. For gender, the reason can mearly be really good, and it must be a pretty close fit.

Once we get past this sort of thing down to people convicted of a felony, the reason need be simply rational, and must not be to overbroad. In this case, those who have in the past shown a willingness to ignore the law are seen as more likely to be unsafe. This regulation casts a broad net. However, as this is hardly equal to a racial or gender classification, Congress should be given broad discretion to act.

Besides the oddity of arguing that the federal government is not required to give equal protection,

That is not what I have argued, I have merely noted that there is no explicit equal protection right applicable to the Federal Government, but the same protections are generally held to exist under the Fifth amendment "Due process" clause.

there's still the fact that the Amendment says "No State shall make or enforce..." Doesn't this suggest that were the federal government to pass a law which fails to give equal protection, the states would be prohibited from enforcing it?

Sure, but so what? The federal government not only as a practical matter is restricted by equal protection, and they do tend to have their own enforcement mechanism.

But this does make we wonder, were a state National Guard to knowlingly hire a felon, whether the National Guard would have standing to challenge the law.

No, the individual would have standing, seeing he is the one being arrested and charged. If he is accepted as part of a militia under state law, the federal government is simply powerless to interfere with his bearing arms within the militia context as per the Second Amendment.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

All US banks, yes. I quoted you the law.

That was not your original claim. You are a liar and a pseudo-skeptic and you know it.

Note to lurkers and others: Shanek made the claim that all banks were forced to join the Federal Reserve. He was embarassed when other posters who know what they are talking about exposed him. Apparently has is hoping that everyone has forgotten about this. But they haven't. Time to take the wind out of this blowhard's sails. Yet again...

 

[crimresearch]

Trouble is, in the time it takes to revisit all of Shanek's fantastic notions, Claus has started doing the same thing somewhere else...
And by the time you remind him of dead airplane passengers and traumatized 5 year olds, and watch him prance through all the steps of the Woo dance from denial to sophistry to running away, there is another one starting up in religion..and then 2 in Science, and and then the whole busload emboldened by their example, all in defense of notions that are farther and farther out of touch with reality.

And all claiming that skeptics are abusing them with facts, instead of playing by their made up definitions.

Wear them out, and the golden oldies show up to fill in the gap.

I'm afraid that wooism and its tapdancing may in fact turn out to be the truly inexhaustible perpetual motion machine.