The United States Constitution

Oliver said:
No, my point is the Constitution. Badarik is just coincidence as being
the one presenting the Class.
Click to expand...
If Badnarik isn't the point, then stop referring to him. Instead, answer the question I originally asked. What about the Constitution led you to start this thread?

If you disagree with his claims - point them out.
Click to expand...
If the point is the Constitution and not Badnarik's claims, stop asking us about Badnarik's claims. Instead, ask us about the Constitution.

If you can provide a better Lecture - post it!
Click to expand...
How about The Supreme Court's own words on the Constitution. Here you can read every decision the Supreme Court has authored on the Constitution in the last 17 years as well as key decisions from throughout the Court's history, neatly arranged by topic. I guess if you're willing to sit through eight hours of youtube videos, you should also be willing to read a few thousand pages of Supreme Court legal decisions. Since they are written by the governmental body actually charged with interpreting the Constitution, they are a much better source for determining what the Constitution means than Michael Badnarik, a software engineer with no legal training.

If you disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, feel free to tell us why.
 
Last edited:
marksman said:
How about The Supreme Court's own words on the Constitution. Here you can read every decision the Supreme Court has authored on the Constitution in the last 17 years as well as key decisions from throughout the Court's history, neatly arranged by topic. I guess if you're willing to sit through eight hours of youtube videos, you should also be willing to read a few thousand pages of Supreme Court legal decisions. Since they are written by the governmental body actually charged with interpreting the Constitution, they are a much better source for determining what the Constitution means than Michael Badnarik, a software engineer with no legal training.

If you disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, feel free to tell us why.
Click to expand...

*engages in suitable mumbo jumbo*

*cast spell, and chants in sepulchural voice*

"I now summon ShaneK to the forum, to launch a libertarian salvo, in all caps, and with some red font, excoriating you for your inability to understand The Commerce Clause!"

*looks around*

Did it work?

Shane Shane Shane
Come back come back come back

My word, has it come to this? :confused:

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
*engages in suitable mumbo jumbo*

*cast spell, and chants in sepulchural voice*

"I now summon ShaneK to the forum, to launch a libertarian salvo, in all caps, and with some red font, excoriating you for your inability to understand The Commerce Clause!"

*looks around*

Did it work?

Shane Shane Shane
Come back come back come back

My word, has it come to this? :confused:

DR
Click to expand...

Latest word is that he defected to TOP. He hasn't been posting much though.

If you do need a fix...
 
If the Constitution simply states what it means, and does not stand to be interpreted, then there really is no discussion to be had, now, is there? Just post the text, and we'll all agree that that is what the Constitution means. End of thread.
 
Badnarik, I think, is one of those guys that has a reputation because he has a reputation--and in this case, he has a reputation for being a "Constitutional Scholar" because he has a reputation for being a "constitutional scholar".

Badnarik is a crank in various things, and in many ways, law. That does not mean that he is completely wrong on everything, or even wrong on most things. But he's not an expert to defer to and even if he was right he doesn't have a good reputation amongst people in general to make them care about what he says.

That works the other way--people see "Supreme Court Justice" making a decree and suddenly it's gospel. What was law of the land one day is something entirely different after a different configuration of judges came up with an ruling overturning precedent (probably another 5-4 decision)--and after that ruling, anything the court says is indisputable fact regardless of anything else. It's why I'm not often a fan of people citing the Supreme Court as evidence of what the constitution says--they've got the recognition as experts, but that doesn't mean they're medicine men to be unquestioned by the masses.
 
Michael Redman said:
If the Constitution simply states what it means, and does not stand to be interpreted, then there really is no discussion to be had, now, is there? Just post the text, and we'll all agree that that is what the Constitution means. End of thread.
Click to expand...

Words and connotations change over time; people tend to want to read the constitution in a modern context and not in context to when it was written.

Case in point: the second amendment. If you look at nearly everything the founding fathers said, the vast majority of them were in agreement--that the PEOPLE had the right to bear arms.

The re-interpretation of the second amendment is always rather interesting because it, too, often relies on a modern conception of a militia as opposed to the 18th century one; and then, because the militia is mentioned, it is assumed that the only reason one can bear arms is for the militia.

Even stranger is that Bill of Rights is known for being the first ten amendment addressing individual rights; yet the anti-gun lobby and intellectuals will read the second amendment as referring to a collective/group right (for militias) and not an individual right despite the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights.

If you oppose gun control, or at least want to limit what ordinance one can own, then pass a new amendment nullifying the second, don't re-interpret things to get what you want.
 
Dr. Fascism said:
That works the other way--people see "Supreme Court Justice" making a decree and suddenly it's gospel. What was law of the land one day is something entirely different after a different configuration of judges came up with an ruling overturning precedent (probably another 5-4 decision)--and after that ruling, anything the court says is indisputable fact regardless of anything else. It's why I'm not often a fan of people citing the Supreme Court as evidence of what the constitution says--they've got the recognition as experts, but that doesn't mean they're medicine men to be unquestioned by the masses.
Click to expand...


There is a difference between what the law is and what perhaps it should be. Supreme Court (and lower court) opinions are the strongest evidence as to what the law is as to its practical application. That is how the system works. Two parties disagree as to the law, and a court sets them straight. Next time that situation comes up the parties can anticipate an identical ruling. In rare occasions where it becomes clear a prior decision is in error, a court will go against that decision.

As to what the law should be, knock yourself out. It would be a good idea to have some sort of evidence beyond personal incredulity, or in Badnarik's case a square peg of a principle you want to pound into the round hole of reality...
 
Dr. Fascism said:
Words and connotations change over time; people tend to want to read the constitution in a modern context and not in context to when it was written.

Case in point: the second amendment. If you look at nearly everything the founding fathers said, the vast majority of them were in agreement--that the PEOPLE had the right to bear arms.

The re-interpretation of the second amendment is always rather interesting because it, too, often relies on a modern conception of a militia as opposed to the 18th century one; and then, because the militia is mentioned, it is assumed that the only reason one can bear arms is for the militia.

Even stranger is that Bill of Rights is known for being the first ten amendment addressing individual rights; yet the anti-gun lobby and intellectuals will read the second amendment as referring to a collective/group right (for militias) and not an individual right despite the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights.

If you oppose gun control, or at least want to limit what ordinance one can own, then pass a new amendment nullifying the second, don't re-interpret things to get what you want.
Click to expand...


Given the first time the Supreme Court heard such a case they ruled consistent with the idea that the bearing arms must be within a militia context, why is that conclusion seen as the one re-interpreting the text?

The collective/individual gun right debate is a good example of words as terms of art, and as such not carrying their dictionary meanings.

The "collective" second amendment stance does include an individual's right to bear arms, just that the right not to be infringed is the right to take part in a well-regulated state militia.

The "individual" stance rejects the militia context.

The appeal to all of these being "individual" rights is merely substituting dictionary meaning for a term of art. A common rhetorical device.
 
Suddenly said:
Given the first time the Supreme Court heard such a case they ruled consistent with the idea that the bearing arms must be within a militia context, why is that conclusion seen as the one re-interpreting the text?
Click to expand...
Is that the case where the other side missed the SC hearing though, so the ruling was by default? (Sorry, don't have any time to look it up right now)

At any rate, I'm sure you're aware of the recent Federal appeals court decision on DC's gun law and that the SC is currently deciding whether or not to accept DC's appeal of that ruling.
 
WildCat said:
Is that the case where the other side missed the SC hearing though, so the ruling was by default? (Sorry, don't have any time to look it up right now)
Click to expand...
That is the case, but the "by default" claims are off base for a whole bunch of reasons. The named defendant, Miller, died before the hearing but he wasn't the only defendant.

There just is no such thing as default in this context. The whole thing is quite a bit of misdirection. I went through this with Xouper here...
At any rate, I'm sure you're aware of the recent Federal appeals court decision on DC's gun law and that the SC is currently deciding whether or not to accept DC's appeal of that ruling.
Click to expand...

I am now. Same thing as Emerson in 1999. The core of this one seems to be that the DC Court believes the Miller decision was silent as to collective v. individual right. Which makes sense seeing those terms weren't in common use when Miller was decided...

I don't know. Beyond personal political preference and just as a matter of jurisprudence I find this new opinion and Emerson to be renegade opinions that completely fail to follow precident. Which wouldn't be bad if they just came out and said so, however they try to at least look like they are following the caselaw, and this makes the opinions seem somewhat clownish.

However, in the event the SC does hear it, they can restructure the whole debate however they want. I doubt they will want to hear it though, and it is possible they hear it and reverse it on the sole ground that the District of Columbia is not a state as understood in the constitution... right out the side door.
 
Oliver said:
It doesn't matter to me ... Why? - because the American System
is based on the US-Constitution. If you disagree with the Lecturer,
point out the things you disagree with - that's what a "Skeptics-
Forum" is about.... Isn't it?
Click to expand...

"No".
 
Dr. Fascism said:
Even stranger is that Bill of Rights is known for being the first ten amendment addressing individual rights; yet the anti-gun lobby and intellectuals will read the second amendment as referring to a collective/group right (for militias) and not an individual right despite the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
Freedom of the press is an individual right?
 
Yes. If you have a printing press (or its contemporary equvilant) you can get the enws out. You don't have to be some big corporate conglomerate. It also applies to individual reporters.

Thats part of the issue with blogs, as to whether or not bloggers qualify as real journalists.
 
It is not an exclusively individual right, however. The Bill of Rights does not deal exclusively with individual rights. Establishment of religion is another example. Assembly, as well.

The point is, I don't buy the argument that the Second Amendment must mean an individual right, because the Bill of Rights only deals with individual rights.
 
Michael Redman said:
It is not an exclusively individual right, however. The Bill of Rights does not deal exclusively with individual rights. Establishment of religion is another example. Assembly, as well.

The point is, I don't buy the argument that the Second Amendment must mean an individual right, because the Bill of Rights only deals with individual rights.
Click to expand...


It is also circular. Since the second amendment doesn't deal with an individual right, the Bill of Rights does not exclusively deal with individual rights. Same sort of reasoning.

It being an individual right doesn't change that the right is conditioned upon the bearing of arms being within certain conditions, that being as part of a well regulated militia.

Anyway, it just isn't true:

Amendment XIII says in part: "no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." This is not an individual right. This protects the findings of a jury.

Even if we were to say this protects the individual's right to serve on a jury by protecting the power of the jury, we must allow that the right to have a finding of fact not be re-examined only exists when that person is a member of a jury. Just like the right to bear arms only exists when it relates to the well regulated militia.

Amendment X says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Sounds like this protects the interest of the several states to me...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom