Thread: Pondering......

Originally Posted by gugi

No way! Did you just call the liberal propaganda a 'great story'? When they take your guns away you've got only yourself to blame

LOL - yeah I did! And I am proud of it too lol!! Most people have no clue. At least I don't think they do. Most of my left friends don't. You might not like the slant the author takes, but it's a great insight as to how we got to where we are. The next story is even better as it explains where we will never go lol!!

Next story? The founding fathers didn't go through all that trouble to be reading their majesties' papers. Why should any real american believe an opinion paid in currency with queen's image on it

The way you've been going next thing you'll be quoting us Rupert Murdoch! He may own a media empire, but we should remember he comes from that island of convicts...

Originally Posted by gugi

Next story? The founding fathers didn't go through all that trouble to be reading their majesties' papers. Why should any real american believe an opinion paid in currency with queen's image on it

The way you've been going next thing you'll be quoting us Rupert Murdoch! He may own a media empire, but we should remember he comes from that island of convicts...

That's hilarious! .

You liked it fine when Blair advocated for war though... hmmmm LOL

Originally Posted by earcutter

Hey! Thanks for reading the story! All I have to say is that... and I am not being combative here is; if you don't feel as though the Supreme Courts rulings aren't the be all and end all of our civilization here, you will not have much of a chance to voice your opinion when you do what you think is right. Felons can't vote.

Originalism is a good thing indeed. Hence we have lobby groups - on both sides.

They are the be all end all of law. But that's far from being historically correct. As such, we're obligated to follow those laws......to some extent. Jefferson advocated that the Supreme court (the third branch of the Federal govt) was by its very nature at odds with individual freedoms. As such, he suggested the concept of nullification - simply ignoring the law. It sounds very radical until you come to realize that it happens every day. Our so called broken immigration policy is an example. So is medical marijuana. But the real issue is the dead debates and misinformation promoted in the article. If you really are not well versed, or even slightly versed in the second amendment, you'll come away with a very different idea of what it was about. And THAT is what I feel the author was trying to accomplish. He knocks originalism as if it can't be used in this instance because the arguments are, in his mind, inconsistent when the reality its just the opposite.

Originally Posted by earcutter

That's hilarious! .

You liked it fine when Blair advocated for war though... hmmmm LOL

Hell yeah, he was following orders from the U.S. of A. as it should be, not the other way around

Originally Posted by gugi

Hell yeah, he was following orders from the U.S. of A. as it should be, not the other way around

I'll be long gone by then but it would interest me to know what the 'history' books will have to say about the Bush 2 presidency in 50 years.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

He knocks originalism as if it can't be used in this instance because the arguments are, in his mind, inconsistent when the reality its just the opposite.

Uhm, if you are relying on 'common law' that's not the same thing as the second amendment of the US constitution. There is a paper trail of historical interpretation of that second amendment. You may argue that the second amendment is not aplicable to individual's right to gun ownership, or you may argue that the militia clause is not limiting, but you cannot dismiss history.
And yes, Scalia can be pretty political, but often he has really sound arguments.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I'll be long gone by then but it would interest me to know what the 'history' books will have to say about the Bush 2 presidency in 50 years.

You should talk to thebigspendur's friend Mr. L. - I am pretty sure he can arrange for you to be around

Gugi, you and I are on the same side of this arguement. I am suggesting that common law IS that paper trail. No, its not the same as the Second Amendment but it should be used to clarify it. Common law stated that we DID have the individual right to bear arms and preceded the second amendment. It was part of the historical trail you're referring to. So when the argument comes up that it was only a militia that was intended to be armed, that is what I disagree with for the historical reasons. Scalia is one of the few justices that actually will do the hard work of interpreting law through this lens. While the others have a tendency to dictate the outcome, he is content to let the chips fall where they may. I call it hard work because its not easy to dig up these documents and take the time to understand what those who wrote the Constitution really meant.

I think there is a hierarchy of sources in finding the proper original interpretation. In principle I agree that you may have to use common law, but only if there are not more immediate, clear and direct ways. For example the original debates of the second amendment when it was established are much more relevant and would supersede any interpretation based on common law.

As far as Scalia goes, he has the view that dogma is better than pragmatism. I would say it is more rigorous, but I am just not quite sure if that approach is better for the society. The end result which I think everybody agrees on is that the laws ought to reflect the *current* society, not one from 200 years ago. The disagreement is how to get there. Scalia thinks that the only legitimate path is through interpreting the laws exactly as they were intended at the time when they were written, and any changes necessary due to the evolution of the society should be made explicitly by the proper political process.
For example when the founding fathers meant that the only human beings in US with rights, inalienable or otherwise, are white males, that's how it ought to be until the law is changed to explicitly include women or non-whites.
Of course, the process of constitutional amendments is rather cumbersome and slow (by design), so other people think that there are things that should not wait on it.

In my view the dissonance comes from the societal change being gradual, while law change is abrupt. The potential barrier for changing the law is drawn at say 60%, but that is pretty arbitrary, and there are many artificial delays which make the rules simple, but the transition times can vary a lot (on a scale of generations). In other words the values of the society that we live in today may be reflected in the laws during our grandchildren's lives (or in the laws 5 years from now). This in my mind i what creates the chemical potential towards 'judicial activism'.

Also note that Scalia does not view the Supreme Court as the ultimate authority on the Constitution. He thinks the other branches of the government are free to interpret the constitution as well. He only argues that under normal circumstances the court is better equipped to do a better job.