The Democrats & the Constitution
- Thread starter Marshal Jim Duncan
- Start date
For got dam good reason.
How did he even get that horse into Dean Wormer's office?
No fly designation right now has no due process to challenge the designation after the fact. The problem with after the fact challenge before a magistrate is that such action is a prior restraint in advance of a fundamental right and therefore is insufficient due process. When it comes to fundamental rights (1,2,4,5, 6) sufficient due process to infringe should include review before a magistrate based upon a standard higher than reasonable suspicion. Sometimes it even requires warning the individual of their rights, giving them and opportunity to invoke or exercise them (Miranda/6th A right to counsel).
No fly list is constitutionally questionable to me as it is administered right now, but I imagine it would possibly pass muster because it doesn't completely bar the exercise of the right to travel. It infringes upon it sure, but I anticipate the court would do a balancing test. More importantly IMO no fly is largely useless, has way too many "false positives" and is largely nothing more than "security theatre" designed to make us feel safer without actually being safer.
Keep in mind that I am not a "any gun regulation violates the 2nd Amendment" kind of guy. Even Scalia said in Heller that the 2nd Amendment isn't a right to carry any weapon, anywhere, for any purpose.
Hope that answers your question sufficiently.
I don't know if I said all that. Heck, I'm not even sure I understand all that. It sounds pretty smart though so I'll go with, yes....exactly.
Basically prior restraint of a fundamental right is improper unless the proposed government restraint undergoes some kind of judicial review upon a heightened standard beyond mere suspicion. It doesn't necessarily have to give the citizen notice and opportunity to rebut at that time (wiretap, search warrant, arrest warrant, etc.) as long as their is opportunity to challenge after the fact. The key difference between wiretaps, search warrants, etc. is judicial review before the infringement on the right.
There was a version of no fly/no buy that gave a "delay" notice through NICS and gave the FBI a limited number of days to go get judicial review and a no buy order from a judicial magistrate. I believe such a system would pass constitutional muster, but would likely be problematic in administering such a system from a logistical and financial perspective,
1. The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Heller v DC.
Scalia was such a whore. So the provision states a purpose (State security via a military force). Cool. Then, ignore that stated purpose with mental gymnastics to get the result they want. Only Scalia and that ship of fools would think like that.
Serious question. Why do you bother arguing intent when you are happy to just change the document to benefit the state?
Okay Syster lets just for arguments sake say that you get your wish and the second amendment is repealed or the Supreme Court determines that it doesn't give citizens the right to own a gun or greatly restricts the guns someone can own.
Now what? What are you and your government buddies going to do to keep people from having the illegal guns?
The world is awash in guns, the United States is awash in guns. Are we going to have troops go door to door and confiscate guns? Are you going to have harsh prison terms for people who fail to turn in their guns and get caught? Are you going to expand the prison system 5 or 10 fold to hold all the people who won't turn in their guns?
Answer these questions with legitimate answers and not foolish talking points and I'll give you some respect but until then you're regurgitating nothing but liberal gibberish.
Oh really? Maybe with your big brain you can figure out who wrote this and when. Hints: Not Scalia. Not the NRA. Not me.
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."
Maybe you know who these statements regarding "militia" came from and when. Hints: Not Scalia, not the NRA, not me.
"[A] well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people...."
"Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people."
"[a] militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves..."
"Who are these militia? are [sic] they not ourselves."
I wonder who wrote this and when...
"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
Maybe the preamble to the Bill of Rights might clarify to you that it gave no authority to the federal government. Have you ever bothered to read it?
PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
He has a statist/globalist world view. He'll just ignore anything that doesn't fit that fascist vision.
Somebody is taking a beating, just an outright bludgeoning.
I'll not name names, but it rhymes with Pisskatine.
I'll not name names, but it rhymes with Pisskatine.
I'm merely pointing out what the law is. I fully understand you think you're smarter than the five justices that decided Heller....and anyone that disagrees with you.
I don't think it takes tons of mental gymnastics to understand that a prefatory clause doesn't limit or define the right contained within the executory clause....but that's just me.
I argue intent because it's important to the readers of this board. I could care less - the intent of the drafters was to change, and they were all nimble-minded enough to expect change and subjective interpretation with different culture, technology, etc.
A prior restraint without opportunity to be heard in a judicial/administrative review process typically would be probable cause/clear and compelling to me. A non-prior restraint with opportunity to be heard in a judicial/administrative review process would be preponderance of the evidence.
Re: Scalia and his "ship of fools"....there is actually a lot of language in Heller that could be used to justify many gun control provisions and even possibily ban outright commercial sale of many types of guns. IMO, it wasn't the complete and utter win for the NRA that it has been viewed as by most.
They were nimble minded enough to know that it would be hard to keep this a republic of free citizens because of statists like you, and that's why the Bill of Rights in particular is not subject to easy change, if any at all.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant any right. Instead it assumes it already exists, and proscribes the government from infringing upon it.
Yes, the historical record is quite clear in regards to the drafters being flexible and subjective when it came to individual rights. So flexible and subjective they made their flexibility and subjectivity quite clear by putting those rights in a document that requires an obscene majority to change. Those nutty drafters with their expectations of change and subjective interpretation sure set everything up for ease of change.
Yep. You've sure got those old dudes figgered out Cupcake.
This thread was stuck on 666 views. I felt obligated to do something about that. Have a good day.
Once again @syskatine has run from a thread where he got beat down. I'd figure a thirty gun owning lawyer wouldn't be such a pussy, but he is a liberal...
Ha! Find one of hysterical laughter and that might fit. I'm not the one who has had several epic meltdowns on this board. I wonder who has?
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
Keep going.... please, tell me more.
If you are going to fantasize about me, at least get it right.
Gross. This is spank bank material for you? Ewwww. That's beyond homo.I prefer you without the tights.
Similar threads
