Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Originally Posted by Feng_Li

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seem to be many instances of the state and federal governments assuming powers not granted to them. They are not granted the power, so far as I know, to ban the consumption of substances, for example. That's why banning alcohol required a constitutional amendment. No such similar amendment exists to allow the government to ban cocaine, but this has not stopped them.

There are, but they're eventually declared unconstitutional. For example, segregation was found to be unconstitutional.

Also, there are certain powers that come with general powers that are granted. For example, the power to regulate the public welfare includes things like regulating drugs. The powers not granted to the federal government were retained by the people. That means the states. There was a time when that was taken a lot more literally than it is today. So, in the 1920s it tok a constitutional amendment to introduce peohibition.

After WWII, the courts began to interpret the reach of the federal government more broadly. Inter-state commerce and federal grants becae an excuse for reaching into the states to regulate things that were thought to be under state control. The restrictions of the Bill of Rights were held to apply against the states through the 14th amendment. So, the federal government was able to reach into states to control things like discrimination in schools and prayer in schools, and even activities by private organizations that received federal funds or used federal services.

So, you're right, the federal powers go well beyond specific grants in the Constutution, but that's where they come from. Every time the feds exercise power, it has to come from some grant. When you sue in federal court you have to show how the court was granted jurisdiction over the subject, not so in state court.

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

After WWII, the courts began to interpret the reach of the federal government more broadly. Inter-state commerce and federal grants becae an excuse for reaching into the states to regulate things that were thought to be under state control.
...
So, you're right, the federal powers go well beyond specific grants in the Constutution, but that's where they come from. Every time the feds exercise power, it has to come from some grant.

I'm not terribly happy about the ever-expanding interpretation of those grants, but that's a different debate.

On a somewhat related topic: What is your opinion of McCain/Feingold? I've seen a lot of convincing arguments saying it's unconstitutional, but I am not a lawyer.

Originally Posted by Feng_Li

I've seen a lot of convincing arguments saying it's unconstitutional, but I am not a lawyer.

These are 1st amendment arguments, premised on the idea that special interest money is a form of speech.

If money is speech in America, and speech is free in America, then money is free in America. It's our constitutional right!

I could come around to this way of thinking.

Were you packin' when you posted this one?:

The mass media likes to take quotes out of context also.

Originally Posted by Sec162

The mass media likes to take quotes out of context also.

I believe the context here is guns, not mass media, but anyways I was kinda playin'. Hope I didn't give offense. The line about thoughts of peace and calm struck me as funny given the nature of the thread.

Josh, I've broken bread with a lot of Arabs and I disagree with you about as much as it's possible to disagree with a person. But I've also read a lot of your posts over time and gotten a kick out of them, and I know you're a good guy. Politics is only one dimension of things, esp. on a razor forum. If my irony went amiss, my apologies.

Originally Posted by dylandog

I believe the context here is guns, not mass media, but anyways I was kinda playin'. Hope I didn't give offense. The line about thoughts of peace and calm struck me as funny given the nature of the thread.

Josh, I've broken bread with a lot of Arabs and I disagree with you about as much as it's possible to disagree with a person. But I've also read a lot of your posts over time and gotten a kick out of them, and I know you're a good guy. Politics is only one dimension of things, esp. on a razor forum. If my irony went amiss, my apologies.

Well we can civily agree to disagree, I dont have a problem with that.

Originally Posted by dylandog

These are 1st amendment arguments, premised on the idea that special interest money is a form of speech.

If money is speech in America, and speech is free in America, then money is free in America. It's our constitutional right!

I could come around to this way of thinking.

I know, but I think it's really a stretch. Free speech is not unlimited- there's the screaming fire in a theater example and libel. Similarly, it shouldn't serve as a shield for blatant corruption.

It really amazes me that some members who contributed to this thread are on the one hand full of theri own civil rights while on the other hand they say things like: eradicate the rats etc. when writing about Arabs etc. Don't Arabs have civil rights, rights of a fair trial etc.? 99% of Arabs are just as peace loving as you and me, they want to raise their families in peace and have a quiet life.

Is this the ultimate test of civility?

Originally Posted by Kees

Don't Arabs have civil rights, rights of a fair trial etc.?

That would depend upon the country in which they live...

Originally Posted by Feng_Li

That would depend upon the country in which they live...

Clearly, under our constitution, being Arab doesn't exclude you from constitutional rights.

The Consitution doesn't apply just to citizens or just in our country. The reasonable conclusion is that it applies wherever we are in control, whereever we assert our law. This is consistent with the Declaration of Independence, which says that all men are endowed with inalienable rights. That's a statement of our creed that is incorporated in the Constitution.