Chicago to Continue Pissing on Residents' Rights

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

.

Quote

Next you'll tell me SCOTUS decisions aren't arbitrary (we know they often are).

Make up your mind - weren't YOU the one that was just saying that the SC decisions are the 'living Constitution'?

There is no contradiction.

Exactly, conservatives are really locked onto thsi, "balck or white" mentality. I feel bad for anyone who can't think dynamically.

So, if the Supremes overturn Roe at some point in the future, you'll stand and applaud the decision - after all, it's the 'living Constitution' that counts!!

Didn't you get carmenc's post? I don't have to applaud it to understand it. I won't applaud if Roe is overturned, but I also won't change my position that the original writings are subordinate to the living const and both Roe and whaever supercedes Roe will be proof of it.

Mike, clear your head and read: WHATEVER THE FF MEANT IS IRRELEVENT TO WHAT THE 9 FOLKS SAY IS THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY MEANT. Is that clear enough? Nothing in there refers to cheerleading any individual issue over another, any rendering over another, just that the original draft is a real cool museum piece and that's it.

• Quote

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So you're saying SCOTUS decisoins aren't binding then?

Quote

Nope, didn't say that

Good, then I'll count you as, "I agree" that SCOTUS decisions are far more relevant than the original writings.

Quote

- I seem to recall Obama telling Congress to "forcefully respond" to a SC decision recently, though (Citizens United) - guess he's not quite the Constitutional scholar y'all thought he was.

I don't care whethewr your recollection is accurate or not. Thsi conversation is about SCOTUS decisions vs the original draft; do try to stay up and on track.

Quote

Next you'll tell me SCOTUS decisions aren't arbitrary (we know they often are).

Quote

Make up your mind - weren't YOU the one that was just saying that the SC decisions are the 'living Constitution'?

Yes, they are teh binding version of theoriginal draft, but to say they aren't decided from the to-down is ridiculous. The justices decide how they want a case to go and use whatever they can to suppot that; the Heller decision is a good example of that.

Heller is the pefect example of how it it supposed to work.
Based on the framers orginial intent. And that is what was used by the majority so show the minority are activists

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I won't applaud if Roe is overturned, but I also won't change my position that the original writings are subordinate to the living const and both Roe and whaever supercedes Roe will be proof of it.

Good thing it's just your opinion, then.

Quote

Mike, clear your head and read: WHATEVER THE FF MEANT IS IRRELEVENT TO WHAT THE 9 FOLKS SAY IS THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY MEANT. Is that clear enough?

You think the Supremes could arbitrarily write out any of the current amendments?

Bullshit.

Quote

just that the original draft is a real cool museum piece and that's it.

The FUCK it is - but I don't expect you to be able to understand.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Chicago approves new handgun restrictions

Here's another one that is problematic:

"prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time."

Okay, so let's say that a husband and wife are asleep at night, and are awakened by the sound of a bad guy breaking into the house. The husband grabs their one operating gun, from amongst others which are disassembled and locked up according to new Chicago law. The bad guy then manages to defeat the armed husband. What happens now? Well, because they are not allowed to have more than one operating gun in the house, the wife now has no gun of her own with which to defend herself from the bad guy. There is no second line of defense. There is no coming to the aid of her husband. Nothing. Thank you Mayor Daley.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

This one is a really nice touch:

"Requires prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers."

Why no, that's not restricting the ability of citizens to exercise their constitutional rights...

It appears that inner city disadvantaged are less likely to have the means to comply. Why doesn't Daley think that the poor deserve their constitutional rights?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I haven't read it, but I doubt I would based upon what I know of it.

Wait... Do you believe in a "living Constitution" or not?

Do you believe the SC or not?

It seems you take the position that works best for you when you want it, and switch when it works better for you.

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

I haven't read it, but I doubt I would based upon what I know of it.

Wait... Do you believe in a "living Constitution" or not?

Do you believe the SC or not?

It seems you take the position that works best for you when you want it, and switch when it works better for you.

Lucky is quite right. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, which means it changes dynamically. The Supreme Court makes arbitrary decisions much of the time, based only on politics, which is why there is so much pissing and moaning in the Senate over appointments.

[DaVinci 0]

Not quite... he sides one way then the other when it suits him.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Lucky is quite right. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, which means it changes dynamically. The Supreme Court makes arbitrary decisions much of the time, based only on politics, which is why there is so much pissing and moaning in the Senate over appointments.

And here I thought it was based on their interpretation of the laws.

Tell ya what - why don't you find us a recent decision that was based on politics like you and Lucky claim - I want to see how they wrote THAT decision.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

Lucky is quite right. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, which means it changes dynamically. The Supreme Court makes arbitrary decisions much of the time, based only on politics, which is why there is so much pissing and moaning in the Senate over appointments.

And here I thought it was based on their interpretation of the laws.

Tell ya what - why don't you find us a recent decision that was based on politics like you and Lucky claim - I want to see how they wrote THAT decision.

The decision to nominate Roberts was based on politics. The decision to nominate Alito was based on politics. The decision to nominate Sotomayor was based on politics. The decision to nominate Kagan was based on politics.

If politics wasn't involved there wouldn't be any partisan voting on the nominations.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The decision to nominate Roberts was based on politics. The decision to nominate Alito was based on politics. The decision to nominate Sotomayor was based on politics. The decision to nominate Kagan was based on politics.

If politics wasn't involved there wouldn't be any partisan voting on the nominations.

In the current state of partisan divide, one party could nominate Jesus or Aristotle and the other would still insist on a dog and pony show followed by no votes. The process is no less political than the nomination itself.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Lucky is quite right. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, which means it changes dynamically. The Supreme Court makes arbitrary decisions much of the time, based only on politics, which is why there is so much pissing and moaning in the Senate over appointments.

And here I thought it was based on their interpretation of the laws.

Tell ya what - why don't you find us a recent decision that was based on politics like you and Lucky claim - I want to see how they wrote THAT decision.

The decision to nominate Roberts was based on politics. The decision to nominate Alito was based on politics. The decision to nominate Sotomayor was based on politics. The decision to nominate Kagan was based on politics.

If politics wasn't involved there wouldn't be any partisan voting on the nominations.

Re-read the bolded, above, then try again.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ajmclean 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

it's fun to watch you jump back and forth about state's rights. I guess state's rights are cool when it comes to abortion, they suck when it comes to gun prohibition. You guys need to understand major issues like state's rights are simply convenient cop-outs to strawman the real issue being discussed.

Quote

First, you must understand the Constitution, and which issues belong to the government, and which are the purview of the states. You don't seem to recognize the difference. The 2nd Amendment overrides a state's desire to ban guns.

I see, I don't understand the supremacy clause and you aren't willing to state it (because you don't understand it).

Quote

Abortion is an issue not covered by the constitution, and is an issue reserved to the states.

Really? And here I thought the SCOTUS decided that is 1973 and is recognized as stare decisis.

Abortion IS federally protected as per Roe v Wade, let's not be fundamental. Is it directly constitutional? No, but under the 14th Amendment it is.

See, you're a typical conservative and if you like the way an issue has gone, it's thumbs up constitutional. If you disagree then it's an abomination to the Constitution. Sorry, both guns and abortion are constitutional, guns more directly.

And you make my point about state's rights; connies want them to be supreme to the gov and libs want them subordinate to the fed. This is tired and age-old, but we know when small factions get too much power how shit goes and I'm just not an anarchist.

SCOTUS erroneously decided that there was a Constitutional right to privacy (there isn't) and ergo, abortion was a Constitutional right. Stare decisis isn't etched in granite because activist judges (LIBERALS) create laws from the bench vice interpret law.

Mack The Knife
"IT IS SAID THAT THE WARRIOR'S IS THE TWOFOLD WAY OF PEN AND SWORD, AND HE SHOULD HAVE A TASTE FOR BOTH WAYS." MIYAMOTO MUSASHI, A BOOK OF FIVE RINGS.

• Quote

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

it's fun to watch you jump back and forth about state's rights. I guess state's rights are cool when it comes to abortion, they suck when it comes to gun prohibition. You guys need to understand major issues like state's rights are simply convenient cop-outs to strawman the real issue being discussed.

Quote

First, you must understand the Constitution, and which issues belong to the government, and which are the purview of the states. You don't seem to recognize the difference. The 2nd Amendment overrides a state's desire to ban guns.

I see, I don't understand the supremacy clause and you aren't willing to state it (because you don't understand it).

Quote

Abortion is an issue not covered by the constitution, and is an issue reserved to the states.

Really? And here I thought the SCOTUS decided that is 1973 and is recognized as stare decisis.

Abortion IS federally protected as per Roe v Wade, let's not be fundamental. Is it directly constitutional? No, but under the 14th Amendment it is.

See, you're a typical conservative and if you like the way an issue has gone, it's thumbs up constitutional. If you disagree then it's an abomination to the Constitution. Sorry, both guns and abortion are constitutional, guns more directly.

And you make my point about state's rights; connies want them to be supreme to the gov and libs want them subordinate to the fed. This is tired and age-old, but we know when small factions get too much power how shit goes and I'm just not an anarchist.

SCOTUS erroneously decided that there was a Constitutional right to privacy (there isn't)

If SCOTUS says there is, then there is.

• Quote

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So you're saying SCOTUS decisoins aren't binding then?

Quote

Nope, didn't say that

Good, then I'll count you as, "I agree" that SCOTUS decisions are far more relevant than the original writings.

Quote

- I seem to recall Obama telling Congress to "forcefully respond" to a SC decision recently, though (Citizens United) - guess he's not quite the Constitutional scholar y'all thought he was.

I don't care whethewr your recollection is accurate or not. Thsi conversation is about SCOTUS decisions vs the original draft; do try to stay up and on track.

Quote

Next you'll tell me SCOTUS decisions aren't arbitrary (we know they often are).

Quote

Make up your mind - weren't YOU the one that was just saying that the SC decisions are the 'living Constitution'?

Yes, they are teh binding version of theoriginal draft, but to say they aren't decided from the to-down is ridiculous. The justices decide how they want a case to go and use whatever they can to suppot that; the Heller decision is a good example of that.

Quote

Heller is the pefect example of how it it supposed to work.

Right, because you like the outcome. Had the SCOTUS decided far off what Heller gace us, then it would have been completely wrong; ends justify the means.

Quote

Based on the framers orginial intent. And that is what was used by the majority so show the minority are activists

If we're gonna be silly then the majority were the activists and if/when it's overturned, the then majority will be the prevailing activists.

As fore what they meant, you can't even remotely understand what they meant, just like or dislike 9 justices making that call.

BTW, how is the term, "well regulated" whether hyphenated or not, there is some dispute, how does that mean, " well maintained?" It's a stretch to say the least. But that allows the logic that we don't have to check in our guns for regulation.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I won't applaud if Roe is overturned, but I also won't change my position that the original writings are subordinate to the living const and both Roe and whaever supercedes Roe will be proof of it.

Good thing it's just your opinion, then.

Quote

Mike, clear your head and read: WHATEVER THE FF MEANT IS IRRELEVENT TO WHAT THE 9 FOLKS SAY IS THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY MEANT. Is that clear enough?

Quote

You think the Supremes could arbitrarily write out any of the current amendments?

Bullshit.

I don't think the original draft was arbitrary, it was very well designed, designed to keep blacks enslaved and women as chattle.

Quote

just that the original draft is a real cool museum piece and that's it.

Quote

The FUCK it is - but I don't expect you to be able to understand.

I only studied it and other aspects of justice/law for years, you? Basically tossed it around the internet, latch onto what you like, call the rest a product of activism.

• Quote

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

This one is a really nice touch:

"Requires prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers."

Why no, that's not restricting the ability of citizens to exercise their constitutional rights...

It appears that inner city disadvantaged are less likely to have the means to comply. Why doesn't Daley think that the poor deserve their constitutional rights?

Wht not, you don't. Errr, unless it's related to an issue that you find important.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I haven't read it, but I doubt I would based upon what I know of it.

Wait... Do you believe in a "living Constitution" or not?

Do you believe the SC or not?

It seems you take the position that works best for you when you want it, and switch when it works better for you.

Illustrate what you mean via example. I won't wait up.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I haven't read it, but I doubt I would based upon what I know of it.

Wait... Do you believe in a "living Constitution" or not?

Do you believe the SC or not?

It seems you take the position that works best for you when you want it, and switch when it works better for you.

Lucky is quite right. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, which means it changes dynamically. The Supreme Court makes arbitrary decisions much of the time, based only on politics, which is why there is so much pissing and moaning in the Senate over appointments.

Bingo. You're wasting your time trying to get some of the geniuses here get that. You and I know how SCOTUS decisions work, there is a certification process, Writ of Certiorari, once certified the court takes its sides based upon political leanings, if the decision is close eash side starts to court the moderates and once a mojority and dissent is established, the justices have their clerks write these up and the justices edit them.

Young kids with stars in their eyes still think these old folks sit around and ask each other, "What would the FF have done?"

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Not quite... he sides one way then the other when it suits him.

Show it or shut it. Try to keep your argument in context. What am I saying, this is just another unsubstantiated hit-n-run.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Lucky is quite right. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, which means it changes dynamically. The Supreme Court makes arbitrary decisions much of the time, based only on politics, which is why there is so much pissing and moaning in the Senate over appointments.

And here I thought it was based on their interpretation of the laws.

Tell ya what - why don't you find us a recent decision that was based on politics like you and Lucky claim - I want to see how they wrote THAT decision.

They're all based upon politics. As Carmen said, these appointments are highly controversial due to everyone knowing these justices will decide based upon their political perspective. There are a few flip-flopers, like Earl Warrne, appointed by Eisenhower as Chief Justice, supposed to be highly conservative but flipped as one of the most liberal ever. But I'm sure you know that with all your other SCOTUS knowledge

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

The decision to nominate Roberts was based on politics. The decision to nominate Alito was based on politics. The decision to nominate Sotomayor was based on politics. The decision to nominate Kagan was based on politics.

If politics wasn't involved there wouldn't be any partisan voting on the nominations.

In the current state of partisan divide, one party could nominate Jesus or Aristotle and the other would still insist on a dog and pony show followed by no votes. The process is no less political than the nomination itself.

What he's saying is that after appointment/confirmation, a justice is seated and then the politics resume; it's not some flowery meeting of old folks bouncing the thoughts of the FF around, it's just an extension of partisan bickering.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Lucky is quite right. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, which means it changes dynamically. The Supreme Court makes arbitrary decisions much of the time, based only on politics, which is why there is so much pissing and moaning in the Senate over appointments.

And here I thought it was based on their interpretation of the laws.

Tell ya what - why don't you find us a recent decision that was based on politics like you and Lucky claim - I want to see how they wrote THAT decision.

The decision to nominate Roberts was based on politics. The decision to nominate Alito was based on politics. The decision to nominate Sotomayor was based on politics. The decision to nominate Kagan was based on politics.

If politics wasn't involved there wouldn't be any partisan voting on the nominations.

Re-read the bolded, above, then try again.

Because to do as he asserted would burst your idealic bubble and ruin your naivety. Mike, SCOTUS justices are extensions of politicians. Sometimes they do flip-flop, but so do politicians like Jeffords and several others. Generally they stay true to their appointers and act with the ideals they were nomimated as.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

it's fun to watch you jump back and forth about state's rights. I guess state's rights are cool when it comes to abortion, they suck when it comes to gun prohibition. You guys need to understand major issues like state's rights are simply convenient cop-outs to strawman the real issue being discussed.

Quote

First, you must understand the Constitution, and which issues belong to the government, and which are the purview of the states. You don't seem to recognize the difference. The 2nd Amendment overrides a state's desire to ban guns.

I see, I don't understand the supremacy clause and you aren't willing to state it (because you don't understand it).

Quote

Abortion is an issue not covered by the constitution, and is an issue reserved to the states.

Really? And here I thought the SCOTUS decided that is 1973 and is recognized as stare decisis.

Abortion IS federally protected as per Roe v Wade, let's not be fundamental. Is it directly constitutional? No, but under the 14th Amendment it is.

See, you're a typical conservative and if you like the way an issue has gone, it's thumbs up constitutional. If you disagree then it's an abomination to the Constitution. Sorry, both guns and abortion are constitutional, guns more directly.

And you make my point about state's rights; connies want them to be supreme to the gov and libs want them subordinate to the fed. This is tired and age-old, but we know when small factions get too much power how shit goes and I'm just not an anarchist.

Quote

SCOTUS erroneously decided that there was a Constitutional right to privacy (there isn't)

Right, the word isn't used but it was interpreted out that there was one inferred. See, we keep citing examples of what me and carmen are saying. Activists, in your world, are bringing things like privacy, hence abortion into the US Const, then trying to claim that, "well-regulated" doesn't mean, "well-oiled."

On my side it's the opposite, I think the current and recent (30 years) justices have been activist as the composition has been 7-2 Repub-appointed for quit a while.

If we step back then either all justices or none are activist. Let's say Roberts grew a heart and a conscience and decided to be liberal, to you he would have gone from being a 'fair-n-balanced' interpreter of the US Const to one a sleezy activist. I realize you're pandering to your likes/dislikes, as we all do, just not everyone is so bold as to pretend they have an idea of what the FF meant, esp on smaller issues.

Objectively I think if we stayed in the late 1700's, abortion would be punishable by death and since we had no standing army, the FF's meant for us to have a militai controlled by the government, based upon the times and construction of our society. As for prvate gun ownership, I don't think they really addressed it, they were more concerned for the defense of the country.

Quote

... abortion was a Constitutional right.

It is because contemporarily it is considered a right, fuck the FF.

Quote

Stare decisis isn't etched in granite because activist judges (LIBERALS) create laws from the bench vice interpret law.

I see, decisions that you like are not activist, how rself-riteous. I think most gun decisions are activist, if I dare to use the term, altho I don't think the word, "activist" is meaningful in constructive conversation, it just shows dismay at the outcome.

Evidence of that is that Ginsburg is considered activist, but if I found a decision she made that is considered pallatable by teh right, then all of the sudden she wasn't being activist. So 'activist' just denotes dismay.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

BTW, how is the term, "well regulated" whether hyphenated or not, there is some dispute, how does that mean, " well maintained?" It's a stretch to say the least. But that allows the logic that we don't have to check in our guns for regulation.

It's hardly difficult to understand definitions at the time, nor the reason behind it. The Americans fought with armies and with militia, and the difference in quality of training was readily apparent.

Quote

[from one of the 10 consecutive posts lucky made]

I only studied it and other aspects of justice/law for years, you?

LOL - that never gets old! Such a prodigy really should be part of Bill Gates' billionaire club.