Guns or not Guns

[Lisnpuppy]

(see my response about Jefferson in said thread. Its kinda short but I am tired lol)

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Out of the 9 Supreme Court Justices on the bench, only one (J. Thomas) actively looks to intent of the Founding Fathers and lets that control his opinion on the issue. None the liberal justices really care about Founder's Intent, Scalia doesn't believe in intent external to the literal words appearing on the document, which leaves Alito and Roberts, neither of whom have shown support to Justice Thomas' interpretation of the Constitution time and time again, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn being a very recent example. How lonely it is at the top for considering founder's intent in matters of Constitutional interpretation...not even the Conservative Justices want to use it as guidance.

 

Again, if even taking everything you said as true, you have failed to justify why the intent of the Founding Fathers governs, and that Thomas Jefferson's intent governs on a level at least equal to James Madison, or Alexander Hamilton, or any of the other signing delegates at the Constitutional Convention.

 

You also incorrectly characterized how judges take intent into consideration, because they certainly don't consider the thoughts of people not directly involved (read: voting, amending, or proposing power) in the drafting process. They never have, and they never will.

For the last time, you really need to stop putting all your weight into something(s) I never said or declared or "anything": Thomas Jefferson is not the puzzle. You're hung up on this thing, man. I gave a piece of color, a stroke of a brush, to a painting, but it is NOT the painting. You must get the concept? You have attached yourself onto this Jefferson thing and have created this great castle of smoke yourself: I never put up Jefferson to be the be-all-end-all of this discussion. Period.

You're very good at arguing, man...http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/thumbsup.gif....your mechanisms are running very smoothly, however your castle is built on sand. I simply didn't put Jefferson up that way. I only used him as an example...although, like I said and supported by the Library of Congress, it is an example that carries a very substantial weight.

As for how many judges do or do not use original intent, well, that's up to them. Once again, your argument is based solely on Jefferson ("never have, never will"..."Of course", I would add). There are other Founding Fathers whom they could read up on if they wanted to, people that "had something to do with it" according to your just if perhaps to the letter criteria. If they don't, I would have to say that they are missing the big picture. Constitutional scholars, who are the apex of understanding the constitution, do exactly that. If a judge doesn't follow suit, then he or she is missing out by not following the practices of someone even more intimately associated with the matter. A physicist, for example, who only knows formula is only a number-cruncher, without the basis of theory.

I know that many martial artists, for example, with degrees and belts and sashes and even decades of experience, would be taken out by the first person who got up in their face, spit in their eyes and kneed them in the nuts because for all their degrees they haven't understood the actual principles of war.

One out of nine isn't a bad ratio at all, for those that actually "get it". I've seen groups of people that should have had at least that ratio of enlightened seekers but didn't. Sad but true. I would settle for one in nine.

If someone wants to start another thread, then by all means...however, I really have nothing to add to it as I don't know the subject well enough, and don't have presently the time to document it. Once again, the best I can do is point to the documentary that I at first illustrated. It resolves hands-down this argument as it involves our great Republic.

 

@Aurielius and Grannywils, I agree. I think that this little side-tracking is relatively relevant (?) but only so. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif

edited for spacing http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/tongue.gif

Edited October 17, 2011 by WizardOfAtlantis

[lukertin]

[/size][/color][/font] As for how many judges do or do not use original intent, well, that's up to them. Once again, your argument is based solely on Jefferson ("never have, never will"..."Of course", I would add). There are other Founding Fathers whom they could read up on if they wanted to, people that "had something to do with it" according to your just if perhaps to the letter criteria. If they don't, I would have to say that they are missing the big picture. Constitutional scholars, who are the apex of understanding the constitution, do exactly that. If a judge doesn't follow suit, then he or she is missing out by not following the practices of someone even more intimately associated with the matter. A physicist, for example, who only knows formula is only a number-cruncher, without the basis of theory.

 

[/size][/color][/font] One out of nine isn't a bad ratio at all, for those that actually "get it". I've seen groups of people that should have had at least that ratio of enlightened seekers but didn't. Sad but true. I would settle for one in nine.

I entirely disagree. The only method of constitutional interpretation that matters are that of Judges whose job it is to interpret the Constitution. The way the Federal Court system works, however, is that the lower judges rarely interpret the Constitution--they interpret the law handed down to them from the Supreme Court regarding the Constitution. That leaves the Nine Justices as the sole authority for Constitutional interpretation.

 

Constitutional scholars are hardly the 'apex' or paragon of Constitutional interpretation. Beyond the literal interpretation of the words in the Constitution, policy concerns tend to dominate judicial decisions. Furthermore, you seem to have also confused a number of interpretational maxims; for example, Scalia's literal interpretation of the Constitution is much more popular than looking to Framer's Intent. (if 1 in 9 does things one way while nobody else supports him, that is somehow good enough for you? 1 in 9 countries think an autocratic system of government is good, is that good enough for you?)

 

Your suggestion that by failing to follow constitutional scholars' opinions, judges are somehow missing the point (but which scholar? what is the qualification for being a 'constitutional scholar'?). I think you're the one missing the point. A mere cursory examination of the Commerce Clause reveals widely variable, disparate opinions on the regulatory powers granted to Congress, a sudden change by SCoTUS regarding interpretation of the Commerce Clause (even if such change assumed to be true and correct) would lead to complete and utter chaos at the State and Federal government levels, as well as in the Federal Court system, and would take decades to rectify. Constitutional scholars aren't even people intimately associated with Constitutional interpretation-- Federal Judges are. Senatorial pages are more associated with Constitutional interpretation in practice than some dusty academic who sits in his office and teaches Con Law I to first year law students.

 

By the way, one of the leading preeminent Constitutional scholars in this country, Professor Chemerinsky, doesn't support framer's intent as a controlling method of Constitutional interpretation. So where does that leave your argument?

 

Also, there is an interesting book Gunfight on the 2nd Amendment written by Constitutional scholar Adam Winkler. Here's a relevant summary of the book as it appeared in the NY Times:

 

"[G]un rights and gun control are not only compatible; they have lived together since the birth of America...despite the controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment, Americans have always had the right to keep and bear arms as a matter of state constitutional law. Today, nearly every state has such a provision in its own constitution, clearly protecting an individual right unattached to militia service.

 

The founding fathers instituted gun control laws so intrusive that no self-respecting member of today’s N.R.A. board of directors would support them. Early Americans denied the right to gun ownership even to law-abiding people if they failed a political test of loyalty to the Revolution. The founders also declared that free white men were members of the militia and, as such, were forced to appear with their guns at public ‘musters’ where government officials would inspect the weapons and register them on public rolls. When pressing public necessity demanded it, the founding fathers were also willing to impress guns from law abiding citizens, even if those citizens were left without guns to defend themselves from a criminal attack."

 

How's that for Framer's Intent? I sure am glad Justice Scalia pays Framer's Intent absolutely zero lip in his DC v. Heller opinion.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Thank the Gods you finally let go of Jefferson. Took you long enough. Not big enough to admit you didn't have a point, but okay. You just want to argue, I get it. People with your tendencies will always latch onto something else instead of manning up to begin with. Okay.

 

So, you want to belittle constitutional scholars and use them to defend your argument. Okay on that, too.

Everybody knows the SC judges are politically-motivated. What's news there? Very much proves my point. Okay number 3.

And that's the best you could come up with for not understanding or deliberately misinterpreting my one in nine example? Bravo. You've realized nothing.

 

You know, maybe it finally struck me. Can it be that you really don't understand any of the real points I'm making? At first, I thought you just wanted to be argumentative like some pain in the ass lawyer who really doesn't give a crap about anything and just wants to bicker. Now I am starting to think you really don't understand the gist of what I was getting across...so, okay! Be happy being one of the eight. Latch onto the next thing and ignore the past. I'll leave you to your fun.

 

Yellow font is reserved for Moderation Team. -myrmaad

Edited January 22, 2012 by myrmaad
Yellow font is reserved for Moderators/Staff.

[lukertin]

Your original point was that Framer's intent was important in interpreting the meaning of the 2nd amendment, no? Let's look:

 

[Jefferson] was a Founding Father, and therefore his intentions are what is behind the framing of those words (of the amendment), and original intent weighs like a meteorite upon that paper. That's part of the job of a constitutional scholar, as I understand it: defining original intent, as it gives the framework for the words. The color to the black and white, if you will.

 

This argument relies on the following premises:

1. Jefferson's intent behind the 2nd Amendment is important [because he either wrote it or had significant part in its drafting]

2. Original intent is important in interpreting the Constitution because Constitutional scholars are the pre-eminent experts on Constitutional interpretation and function as illuminaries whose recommendations government officials should seek to follow, and those scholars endorse the "Framer's intent" interpretation

It thus concludes: 3. Because Jefferson's intent behind the 2nd Amendment is important, and because Jefferson intended for a strong civilian militia, the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted as a way for the people defend themselves civilly and also in defense of the sovereign.

 

So far I've made the following points:

 

1. Jefferson's status as not present during the Constitutional Convention, nor the author of the Bill of Rights, makes his intent behind the framing of the words of the 2nd Amendment irrelevant, because he doesn't have any.

2. Original intent is irrelevant, because;

a) 1 of 9 Justices afford it heavy weight, yet those 9 are the only persons in position to interpret the Constitution

b) Constitutional scholars do not uniformly endorse original intent as the best or only method of Constitutional interpretion

c) Constitutional scholars do not function as the end-all be-all of constitutional interpretation-- the Supreme Court does.

 

3. Your argument is wrong because every single one of your premises is false

 

Congratulations on ignoring every single point I've made refuting your entire argument and resorting to painting me some sort of bickering pain in the ass lawyer who latches onto random points that don't matter.

 

Nice ad hominem, by the way.

Edited October 17, 2011 by lukertin

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Your original point was that Framer's intent was important in interpreting the meaning of the 2nd amendment, no? Let's look:

 

[Jefferson] was a Founding Father, and therefore his intentions are what is behind the framing of those words (of the amendment), and original intent weighs like a meteorite upon that paper. That's part of the job of a constitutional scholar, as I understand it: defining original intent, as it gives the framework for the words. The color to the black and white, if you will.

 

This argument relies on the following premises:

1. Jefferson's intent behind the 2nd Amendment is important [because he either wrote it or had significant part in its drafting]

2. Original intent is important in interpreting the Constitution because Constitutional scholars are the pre-eminent experts on Constitutional interpretation and function as illuminaries whose recommendations government officials should seek to follow

 

So far I've made the following points:

 

1. Jefferson's status as not present during the Constitutional Convention, nor the author of the Bill of Rights, makes his intent behind the framing of the words of the 2nd Amendment irrelevant, because he doesn't have any.

2. Original intent is irrelevant, because;

a) 1 of 9 Justices afford it heavy weight, yet those 9 are the only persons in position to interpret the Constitution

b) Constitutional scholars do not uniformly endorse original intent as the paragon method of Constitutional interpreting

c) Constitutional scholars do not function as the end-all be-all of constitutional interpretation-- the Supreme Court does.

 

3. Conclusion: your argument is wrong because your premises are false

 

Congratulations on ignoring every single point I've made refuting your entire argument and resorting to painting me some sort of bickering pain in the ass lawyer who latches onto random points that don't matter.

 

Nice ad hominem, by the way.

http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/wallbash.gifUgh, okay, one last time.

1. According to the Library of Congress, Jefferson actually did have a lot to say about how everything was laid out. I never said he wrote it. You're full of it, implying that. I said his intentions were behind it. You don't like it, fine. Take it up with the Library of Congress... not my opinion, not my problem. According to the Library of Congress, it's only your opinion that his thoughts don't matter...and that he's not a Founding Father. Once again, to summarize, you vs Library of Congress.

2.What are you, communist? Since 8 jump off a cliff, would you, too? (see, two can play at the stupid analogy game without getting the point). Therefore, your number 2 point (like number 1) relegated to equal but opposite meaninglessness thanks to mindless word-blathering.

3. conclusion: see above 1 and 2.

I'm not ignoring your points, but at times it seems you are ignoring mine. To you, they are irrelevant, therefore you ignore them like the whole Jefferson thing (or you blatantly and maliciously misrepresent what I said, see points number 1), and you still think you know more than the Library of Congress. Maybe you do...but I doubt it.

 

 

[Aurielius]

http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/ac177/Aurielius/d3b94771415b0c3ff75b61d9cfda1a26.jpg

 

Remember these? The object of this thread? There is a dedicated Jefferson thread.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Aurielius

[lukertin]

1. According to the Library of Congress, Jefferson actually did have a lot to say about how everything was laid out. I never said he wrote it. You're full of it, implying that. I said his intentions were behind it. You don't like it, fine. Take it up with the Library of Congress... not my opinion, not my problem. According to the Library of Congress, it's only your opinion that his thoughts don't matter...and that he's not a Founding Father. Once again, to summarize, you vs Library of Congress.

So? I've been to that site where the LoC states he was instrumental in how things were laid out. Conspicuously missing is any evidence in support of their statement (I go into that over in the other thread). Interestingly, you'll willing to take what the LoC says at face value while suggesting I'm a communist who is willing to jump off a cliff if eight Justices on the Supreme Court do likewise. :hurr:

 

I'm interested in hearing how the phrase "[Jefferson] was a Founding Father, and therefore his intentions are what is behind the framing of those words." does not imply that Jefferson wrote the words or was instrumental in their drafting. Please give me any plausible alternative interpretation, and I will shut up. If you can't, don't call me a liar and own up to your previously written posts. (Next thing I know you'll claim that saying "blatant and malicious misrepresentation" is not synonymous with 'lying' by any stretch of the imagination)

 

I'm not ignoring your points, but at times it seems you are ignoring mine. To you, they are irrelevant, therefore you ignore them like the whole Jefferson thing (or you blatantly and maliciously misrepresent what I said, see points number 1), and you still think you know more than the Library of Congress. Maybe you do...but I doubt it.

Even if I think that I know more than the LoC, how is that worse than you thinking you're more able or competent at interpreting the Constitution than 8 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices?

 

You're not ignoring my points? I just laid out the bare skeleton of my entire reasoning and you have utterly failed to address a single point beyond making a conclusory statement that amounts to "I'm right, you're wrong", and using ad hominem / raising utterly irrelevant hypotheticals.

 

And you call my post 'mindless word blathering'? Get real and take a look in the mirror.

 

Remember these? The object of this thread? There is a dedicated Jefferson thread.

I attempted to bring the thread back on point. That's all I have to say on that.

Edited October 18, 2011 by lukertin

[myrmaad]

Believe it or not, my time is incredibly valuable if only by virtue of the fact I'm taking time out of my busy life to voluntarily clean up after 2 and a half million partiers.

 

This is last call on this thread: one more round, so you'd better make it good, before you go home and sleep it off.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Remember these? The object of this thread? There is a dedicated Jefferson thread.

There is? I'm off! (in just a second...)

 

The next has my input inserted in it, and parts highlighted by me. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/thumbsup.gif

1. According to the Library of Congress, Jefferson actually did have a lot to say about how everything was laid out. I never said he wrote it. You're full of it, implying that. I said his intentions were behind it. You don't like it, fine. Take it up with the Library of Congress... not my opinion, not my problem. According to the Library of Congress, it's only your opinion that his thoughts don't matter...and that he's not a Founding Father. Once again, to summarize, you vs Library of Congress.

So? I've been to that site where the LoC states he was instrumental in how things were laid out. Conspicuously missing is any evidence in support of their statement (I go into that over in the other thread). Interestingly, you'll willing to take what the LoC says at face value while suggesting I'm a communist who is willing to jump off a cliff if eight Justices on the Supreme Court do likewise. :hurr:

If you don't like ridiculous punches, then be mature and don't throw them to begin with: your quote " 1 in 9 countries think an autocratic system of government is good, is that good enough for you?" which proves you didn't want to understand my point about personal individuation and enlightenment, you just wanted to argue and throw punches. I tried to illuminate you with another punch...but you didn't get my applied example, so here I am (explaining in boring words).

I'm interested in hearing how the phrase "[Jefferson] was a Founding Father, and therefore his intentions are what is behind the framing of those words." does not imply that Jefferson wrote the words or was instrumental in their drafting. Please give me any plausible alternative interpretation, and I will shut up. If you can't, don't call me a liar and own up to your previously written posts. (Next thing I know you'll claim that saying "blatant and malicious misrepresentation" is not synonymous with 'lying' by any stretch of the imagination)

According to the Library of Congress, through his letters and correspondences, Jefferson was able to get his ideas and opinions across to those in the states at the time of the writing and was instrumental in its creation. Please look up the details yourself, I really don't know the subject well enough. I am only citing a government website. I shouldn't think it too hard, really. You seem really gung-ho about these things. As for your blatant misrepresentation, that was when you said that I said that he wrote the thing, which of course he didn't. You exaggerated/misrepresented what I said to bring greater weight to your point.

 

I'm not ignoring your points, but at times it seems you are ignoring mine. To you, they are irrelevant, therefore you ignore them like the whole Jefferson thing (or you blatantly and maliciously misrepresent what I said, see points number 1), and you still think you know more than the Library of Congress. Maybe you do...but I doubt it.

Even if I think that I know more than the LoC, how is that worse than you thinking you're more able or competent at interpreting the Constitution than 8 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices?

I don't think I know more than they do about the letter of the law. However, since a form of, lets call it, practical Ontology is what I do in my life, I often know differently...let's put it that way. Perception and Being are relevant to all Paths.

 

You're not ignoring my points? I just laid out the bare skeleton of my entire reasoning and you have utterly failed to address a single point beyond making a conclusory statement that amounts to "I'm right, you're wrong", and using ad hominem / raising utterly irrelevant hypotheticals.

Actually, I did address point for point your concerns, my friend (and I even used little numbers to help you understand what remark went where). And here I am, simply repeating myself, and this will be the last time.

And you call my post 'mindless word blathering'? Get real and take a look in the mirror.

I didn't call your post mindless word blathering...http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/no.gif You seem incapable of reading a remark in context. I called the ability to obfuscate a point with a seemingly clever little witticism mindless word-blathering. As for the mirror, see the ontology remark. The mirror is what I do. When you look at it long enough, you start to see other people there, too. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/laugh.gif

 

 

Believe it or not, my time is incredibly valuable if only by virtue of the fact I'm taking time out of my busy life to voluntarily clean up after 2 and a half million partiers.

 

This is last call on this thread: one more round, so you'd better make it good, before you go home and sleep it off.

Yes, ma'am!

How much of the gun issue, do you guys believe, is fear of the unknown vs fear of the known? Would education ever really help those against guns? Knowledge brings fear, too, to put it one way. It's funny how it can be cyclical.