What does an international treaty have to do with the 2A?

This is a discussion on What does an international treaty have to do with the 2A? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by obxned Attempting to violate the Constitution in accord with foreigners would be treason, and is punishable by death. I do hope everyone ...

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 83

Thread: What does an international treaty have to do with the 2A?

  1. #61
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by obxned View Post
    Attempting to violate the Constitution in accord with foreigners would be treason, and is punishable by death. I do hope everyone in Washington understands this.
    Actually, this is false. Violating the Constitution is not treason. It is a violation of one's oath and is grounds for removal from office.

    The US Code explains treason and its punishment.

    TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 115

    *2381. Treason

    Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    Further, US Code also addresses disclosing classified information:



    TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 37

    *794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government

    (a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.

    (b) Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or communicates, or attempts to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the Armed Forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval or military operations, or with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with, or intended for the fortification or defense of any place, or any other information relating to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,603

    The way things work

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Our run of agreement, Hopyard, has come to an end. mlr1m is exactly correct.

    Our nation is defined by the Constitution. It does not matter how you think things work or that the people [currently] allow the government to enact laws contrary to the Constitution. The way things work is DEFINED by the Constitution.
    "The way things work" as I used it is a euphemism for these things are constitutional because they were put in place by duly elected appropriate lawmakers, the laws were signed into law by the executive, and the courts have either upheld or failed to overturn the institutions.

    From your reasoning, either the entirety of our government is now r not constitutional (and the rebels here justified, something you don't agree with) or our government as it is, is indeed constitutional.


    SD wrote with regard to the Executive Agencies:

    "They exist at the pleasure of the Executive. They have no power other than the Power of the Executive. They are simply subordinates. They cannot make law."

    They have rule making authority which carries the force of law. Don't believe me, try taking your gun into the national forest. Furthermore,
    Congress appropriates the money. Would you have me or anyone else actually believe that this is all illegal? As has been pointed out here, all of the rule making must conform first TO THE CONSTITUTION, then to the Code of Federal Regulations. You would have us believe that the whole business is some awful perversion. It isn't. At least not in the opinion of the almost numberless Presidents, Senators, House Reps, and judges who brought our government to its present form.

    Before addressing the issue that has been raised, the Louisiana Purhase was completely against the Constitution. Jefferson, the slimeball politician that he was, acted outside the enumerated powers in Article II.
    Your opinion no doubt, but not a demonstration that anything unconstitutional was actually done. But if you are right, do you think we should give it back to France? Dispossess the inhabitants descendant from Homesteaders, and abandon the property. Do you have a remedy? Or just a foolish complaint?

    Moreover, the evil Jefferson actually dealt with one of the worst tyrants of the time to make the deal. And, no, it was not a redistribution of wealth to encourage population of the vast resources that we owned. Anyone could establish a claim unlike the redistribution of wealth of giving money from taxpayers to worthless, lazy slobs.
    Precisely. The lazy slobs could stake their claim too.
    And now Jefferson was evil to make the deal. Amazing.

    You like it when Uncle gives stuff to the corporartions and to the wealthy but you get mightily perturbed when ordinary folks get a shot. Then, it is socialism.


    You want clarification? How about the Founder of the Constitution and President of these great United States weighing in with his veto of public works legislation. Yes, I know he's dead and should be disregarded.
    We have had two hundred further years of legislation, and innumerable court rulings which have brought us to our present.

    You can continue to yell at the heavens, with futility, that all is unconstitutional; but then how is it that you can come back in other threads and claim to be such a strong believer in our government that you would join me in opposing the "rebels."

    We have constitutional government, and ranting to the contrary doesn't make the assertion correct.

    One more thing since the bees nest has been knocked on the ground.
    If our constitution was as clearly written and plain as you assert, we wouldn't have instance after instance in which the circuit courts split.

  4. #63
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    "The way things work" as I used it is a euphemism for these things are constitutional because they were put in place by duly elected appropriate lawmakers, the laws were signed into law by the executive, and the courts have either upheld or failed to overturn the institutions.
    Don't mistake Constitutionally elected representatives with the acts they perform. The two have no connection whatsoever. The process may be Constitutionalbut the laws may not be. Madison's eloquent veto is a perfect example of my point, which you did not properly consider.

    From your reasoning, either the entirety of our government is now r not constitutional (and the rebels here justified, something you don't agree with) or our government as it is, is indeed constitutional.
    The government is, indeed, Constitutional. No question. The laws are the laws. However, it is a responsibility of the People to understand the Constitution and reverse the ill actions of a government that does not adhere to Consitutional principles. It is not the responsibility of government as, obviously, many of them do not like the Constitution but rather it is the responsibility of the People.

    They have rule making authority which carries the force of law. Don't believe me, try taking your gun into the national forest. Furthermore,
    Congress appropriates the money. Would you have me or anyone else actually believe that this is all illegal?
    No, the President's cabinet has no power to make law nor are their pronouncements equivalent to law. Yes, Congress has the power to appropriate money. So?

    As has been pointed out here, all of the rule making must conform first TO THE CONSTITUTION, then to the Code of Federal Regulations. You would have us believe that the whole business is some awful perversion. It isn't. At least not in the opinion of the almost numberless Presidents, Senators, House Reps, and judges who brought our government to its present form.
    Our government is not something that changes its function over time. Our representatives do not bring government to its present form. That is nonsense. Our government is defined by the Constitution and is fixed.

    Rules are not law. Just as a no guns sign in some of the states does not have the force of law.

    Your opinion no doubt, but not a demonstration that anything unconstitutional was actually done. But if you are right, do you think we should give it back to France? Dispossess the inhabitants descendant from Homesteaders, and abandon the property. Do you have a remedy? Or just a foolish complaint?
    I proffered no complaint. It was simply an observation that Jefferson acted outside the enumerated powers. He was the first President to do so. Jefferson was not interested in the Constitution, which is one reason why some who have studied history hold him in contempt.

    Precisely. The lazy slobs could stake their claim too.
    And now Jefferson was evil to make the deal. Amazing.
    Jefferson was not evil because he made aggreements with evil dictators and tyrants. It is simply evidence that he did not have our best interests as his central political ideaology.

    You like it when Uncle gives stuff to the corporartions and to the wealthy but you get mightily perturbed when ordinary folks get a shot. Then, it is socialism.
    Nonsense. The Federal government should give nothing to the states, corporations, wealthy, or the poor. Ordinary folks should learn personal responsibility rather than expecting the government to make up for their shortcomings. It is socialism when America adheres to the tenet, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'. And that is EXACTLY the direction we are headed.

    And those with ability are quite angry with a government that caters to freeloaders.

    We have had two hundred further years of legislation, and innumerable court rulings which have brought us to our present.
    And it has NOTHING to do with the Constitution nor the intent of the Founders.

    You can continue to yell at the heavens, with futility, that all is unconstitutional; but then how is it that you can come back in other threads and claim to be such a strong believer in our government that you would join me in opposing the "rebels."
    If our government acts and passes laws contrary to the Constitution it is the responsibility of the People to remove them from office. You can stomp your feet and think that all laws passed by the Constitutional process are therefore Constitutioal, but you are clearly wrong.

    We have constitutional government, and ranting to the contrary doesn't make the assertion correct.
    I have never asserted that our government was not Consitutional.

    One more thing since the bees nest has been knocked on the ground.
    If our constitution was as clearly written and plain as you assert, we wouldn't have instance after instance in which the circuit courts split.
    The Courts have no power to determine if laws are unconstitutional. The Constitution was written by the Founders for the People. It is EXTREMELY clear. If you have a questions about any part, I will be happy to help you out!

  5. #64
    Member Array natticarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    cincinnati
    Posts
    138
    There are some flaws with several of the arguments on here.

    1.) Assuming the government is acting in a constitutional fashion just because it has been doing it for years is not proof. That is like trusting the wolves to watch the sheep. People in power, in general only seek more power not less. Especially with the trends of career politicians. I think if term limits were imposed on senators and representatives you would quickly see many of the federal powers shrink.

    2.) The Bureaucracies are not outside the letter of the constitution but I would say they are clearly outside the intent. The legislature passes laws that create these bureaus but pretty much give them blanket authority over certain sectors. This is actually the legislature willfully giving up their power. Under some circumstances this makes sense, state department, defense secretary etc. When you start creating more and more of these those you are gradually shifting the balance of power to the executive.

    3.) The constitution was actually pretty clearly written at the time. The reasons for splits are

    a.) changes in the vernacular over the course of 200+ years

    b.) People's biases. In recent years it has become more acceptable for judges to have agendas. This used to be considered dishonorable behavior for a judge. (though it is clear it affected decisions in the past... Plessy v Ferguson comes to mind) If you want a good example of how a seemly clear statement can be twisted to mean anything refer to the last argument you had with your significant other.

  6. #65
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,603

    Falacious reasoning my friend SD

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post

    "The government is, indeed, Constitutional. No question. "

    "it is a responsibility of the People to understand the Constitution and reverse the ill actions of a government that does not adhere to Consitutional principles.
    You are attempting to split some hairs here. You are saying that a constitutionally valid government can pass unconstitutional laws.

    This is true, they can pass unconstitutional laws till the cows come home, and faster than The Supremes can overturn them.

    But, does this really happen in such a significant way that we have
    unconstitutional governance as so many here complain?

    Remember, Congress is quite capable of determining whether or not a law it is considering is constitutional or not. Proposed laws must pass through various committees which include review for constitutionality. There may be a few laws now and again that sneak by where there are honest differences of opinion on what is called for, or some where there are dishonest differences of opinion on what is called for, but those get litigated.

    It is a presumption that when a law is passed it is constitutional. If for no other reason, staff have worked on making sure of such a determination.

    No, the President's cabinet has no power to make law nor are their pronouncements equivalent to law.
    It depends on what "law" means. The executive branch has rule making authority given to it by Congress so that the minutia can be dealt with more effectively than if Congress struggled with the issue. Break the rule and you will be fined and may even be charged. Sounds like law to me.

    Our government is not something that changes its function over time. Our representatives do not bring government to its present form. That is nonsense. Our government is defined by the Constitution and is fixed.
    Some may wish that it were fixed, but it clearly is not. Just consider how 14th jurisprudence has changed through the last 100 years, and hopefully will change so that 2A applies to the states. Nothing is fixed except the basic architecture of 3 branches and individual states.
    Beyond that, it seems just about everything is open to interpretation by the forces on one side or another of various issues. From innumerable decisions, a new understanding of an old document emerges.

    Rules are not law. Just as a no guns sign in some of the states does not have the force of law.
    Rules are law when you can be fined, imprisoned, deported.
    I think frankly that Agency rule making is somewhat out of control, but it is perfectly legal, and absolutely constitutional.

    Your general reasoning is mistaken. We have constitutional government mostly passing fully constitutional laws, and rarely are acts of Congress overturned by the judiciary on constitutional grounds, as compared to technical and more narrow rulings.


    I proffered no complaint.
    Duh!

    It was simply an observation that Jefferson acted outside the enumerated powers. He was the first President to do so. Jefferson was not interested in the Constitution, which is one reason why some who have studied history hold him in contempt.
    He has withstood the scrutiny of historians and is generally revered.

    Jefferson was not evil because he made aggreements with evil dictators and tyrants. It is simply evidence that he did not have our best interests as his central political ideaology.
    Uh, you are the one who attached the descriptor, "evil" to his name.
    No weasling out.

    Nonsense. The Federal government should give nothing to the states,
    LOL. Maybe O agrees with you. He told Arnold Uncle wouldn't bail him out.

    [quotes] corporations, wealthy, or the poor. [/quote]

    Fine, when they stop giving out corporate welfare I'll be willing to talk about what they shouldn't give to the poor.

    Ordinary folks should learn personal responsibility rather than expecting the government to make up for their shortcomings.
    So let me see now. Uncle botches the levee construction around NO,
    but it should be personal responsibility to swim.

    It is socialism when America adheres to the tenet, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'.
    You are confusing socialism with communism. But never mind.
    The constitution is not a document designed to support capitalism or any other ism. It is a blueprint for governance, and a blue print for
    providing for the general welfare of the state and its people. The how, is up to the elected office holders.

    And that is EXACTLY the direction we are headed.
    And that is a position held from both ignorance and deceit. It is estranged from reality.

    And those with ability are quite angry with a government that caters to freeloaders.
    Nah, you just don't want to pay your taxes and that sounds good.



    And it has NOTHING to do with the Constitution nor the intent of the Founders.



    If our government acts and passes laws contrary to the Constitution it is the responsibility of the People to remove them from office. You can stomp your feet and think that all laws passed by the Constitutional process are therefore Constitutioal, but you are clearly wrong.



    I have never asserted that our government was not Consitutional.



    The Courts have no power to determine if laws are unconstitutional. The Constitution was written by the Founders for the People. It is EXTREMELY clear. If you have a questions about any part, I will be happy to help you out![/QUOTE]

  7. #66
    VIP Member Array Rob72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    3,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    2) The comment is so wrong that it is ludicrous. First, our constitution is silent on the matter of economic system. So even if it were remotely true that the present administration wanted to introduce a socialistic system, that would not prohibited. Second, the assertion is mere exaggeration and propaganda. We have a mixed economy. We have had a mixed economy almost from the very start. Otherwise, we would have had private armies, and private jailers, and no public schools, and no aid to small business, and no giveaways to railroads, and no land giveaways to homesteaders.

    3) The bill of rights applies. Period. To whatever extent politics can intrude, the enforcement mechanism is clearly within the responsibiliy of the courts. If they abrogate their responsibility, which the courts do sometimes do, you can't hold that failing against the other two branches.
    #2- Please name a past or present socialist government that maintained what we define within our Constitution as civil rights, particularly the 9th and 14th Amnds.

    We have in fact had private enterprises filling most all areas you mention, this was absolutely true prior to 1900. Yes, currently we do have a mixed economy, but the GDP is based on private industry, not Gvt. owned enterprises. Establishment of a command economy (economy directed by the Gvt) is occurring(ie., GM, AGI, tobacco regs, can and trade bill).

    Hop, if you like Obama, that is your right. It is my right to disagree. Equally, I have no love for the Bushes, and Mcweenie was/is a waste of flesh. We all need to be aware: there is no "supermajority" on either side. Belief in a "mandate" when one does not exist, and basing action on the same, causes rebellion.

    #3- False. Enforcement is the responsibility of the Legislative and to a lesser extent the Executive. It is in fact, the role of the Judicial to determine whether legislation or EOs fall within Constitutional parameters, no more, no less.

  8. #67
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,603

    Response to Rob.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob72 View Post
    #2- Please name a past or present socialist government that maintained what we define within our Constitution as civil rights, particularly the 9th and 14th Amnds.
    Well no other country has either the 9th or the 14th, so in a way this question is a loaded one. In any case, what I am concerned with is the willingness of folks to label anything they don't agree with as "communism" or "socialism." We have made a lot of progress through government owned and operated projects such as TVA, the interstate highway system, and the space program. We have government owned and operated universities providing very fine education. Simply because something has government involvement does not automatically (as son many seem to feel) make it either doomed to failure or an unacceptable form of socialism. Our cities own and operate mass transit, as an example.

    Too many mistakenly use these economic terms, socialism and capitalism, as an excuse to spout hatred. Again, our constitution is utterly silent on how we are to manage our economic affairs. That leaves us free to choose whatever is pragmatic and sensible in a particular set of circumstance. Moreover, the insistence on "free market" solutions sometimes gets us more trouble than it is worth. We (in Texas) are going through a very contentious experience over road building; with a governor who wants to seize land using eminent domain and turn it over to private developers for the construction of toll roads. I call that corporate welfare. He and his supporters think the building of roads by government is "socialism." And he seems oblivious to the fact that he is using the power of government to support private enterprise at the expense of the taxpayer and road user.

    We have in fact had private enterprises filling most all areas you mention, this was absolutely true prior to 1900.
    And things were changed because it often didn't work well. We need to use free markets when free markets can get the job done, and government when free markets have proven they can not get the job done. That is the essence of both a practical economy, doing what works, and a fully constitutional approach. E.g., in some places private corps. own the electric utilities. In other places municipalities have had to go into the electric generation business. We'd have no electricity where I live if at the time the plants were constructed everyone objected because it is "evil socialism" for the government to own anything productive for the purpose of making its service or product generally available. Again, neither the US Constitution or the State constitution forbids our municipality from owning and operating electric generation and distribution capacity.

    Yes, currently we do have a mixed economy, but the GDP is based on private industry,
    See above. Are you sure the GDP is based on private enterprise? Would there be a GDP if not for government provision of electric generation, airport facilities, water and sewer service, roads, higher education. Private enterprise thrives on an infrastructure of government enterprise. It needs government--guys like you Rob-- to keep order.

    Even in the now hotly debated issue of health care, government gives
    tax breaks to hospitals, R&D tax credits to industry, and medical education at a fraction of the true cost to nurses and doctors at state
    owned and operated institutions. In short, the GDP is as dependent
    on government activity as it is on private effort. Even innovation, something we think of as coming from the private sector often gets its start from government activities; NASA being the best example.


    not Gvt. owned enterprises. Establishment of a command economy (economy directed by the Gvt) is occurring(ie., GM, AGI, tobacco regs, can and trade bill).
    No one is talking about a "command economy." Don't confuse totalitarianism with economic arrangements. They are different things.

    Hop, if you like Obama, that is your right. It is my right to disagree. Equally, I have no love for the Bushes, and Mcweenie was/is a waste of flesh. We all need to be aware: there is no "supermajority" on either side.
    There need not be a super majority for policies and law to change.
    There just needs to be a sufficient majority, especially in the Senate.

    Belief in a "mandate" when one does not exist, and basing action on the same, causes rebellion.
    The seditious talk which has appeared here recently is due to a relentless insistence by propagandists that we do not have constitutional government. That anything that is passed which we as individuals don't like is somehow due to a conspiracy or to corruption, or reflective of a fictitious majority which has been somehow suppressed. This is fantasy land thinking, as would be any thoughts that such seditious and treasonous rebellion might actually succeed.

    #3- False. Enforcement is the responsibility of the Legislative and to a lesser extent the Executive. It is in fact, the role of the Judicial to determine whether legislation or EOs fall within Constitutional parameters, no more, no less.
    On this last one I'm confused as to why you think we disagree. Enforcement of our laws lies with the Executive first, the Legislature second if the executive fails to perform his duties, and with the judiciary. I never said anything different.

  9. #68
    Ex Member Array PNUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    913
    Hopyard wins by TKO in post # 67 .

  10. #69
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,603

    Thank you PNUT... but

    Quote Originally Posted by PNUT View Post
    Hopyard wins by TKO in post # 67 .
    Thank you, but I am not interested in winning or losing. I am only interested in conveying the absolutely true concept that you can be a loyal supporter of gun owners rights and carry rights, without endorsing other positions which are far to the right of center.

    Contrast my viewpoint with the ultra conservative views expressed by some here which actually, if upheld, would defeat a broadening of carry rights by giving states an additional green light to act as IL, CA, NY.

    To me, that is the key important DC related issue. 2A must be upheld and extended as a check upon the states, otherwise the game is over.

  11. #70
    Senior Member Array ElMonoDelMar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    635
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I am only interested in conveying the absolutely true concept that you can be a loyal supporter of gun owners rights and carry rights, without endorsing other positions which are far to the right of center.
    Lots of truth here.

  12. #71
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    You are attempting to split some hairs here. You are saying that a constitutionally valid government can pass unconstitutional laws.
    That is not splitting hairs at all. The distinction is obvious. It is why you would be up in arms if the Federal government confiscated everyon'e savings accounts and distributed them to illegal aliens. Or not.

    This is true, they can pass unconstitutional laws till the cows come home, and faster than The Supremes can overturn them.
    The Court has no power to overturn anything. That is not their role.

    But, does this really happen in such a significant way that we have
    unconstitutional governance as so many here complain?
    People complain here about the wrong government abuses. That is probably because it is a gun forum so they make up stuff about gun confiscation and the like, none of which has ever occurred. (With the exception of the old, expired, AWB.) The real abuses concern government takeover of business, and the fiat currency we are forced to use.

    Remember, Congress is quite capable of determining whether or not a law it is considering is constitutional or not. Proposed laws must pass through various committees which include review for constitutionality.
    That is true. And when they fail, such as with the bailout and stimulus legislation, as clearly no power to spend money like that is granted to the Federal government, it is the responsibility of the People to understand the problem. Unforunately, people with your mindset think it is fine to ignore the limited powers enshrined in our Constitution. It is NOT a living document.

    There may be a few laws now and again that sneak by where there are honest differences of opinion on what is called for, or some where there are dishonest differences of opinion on what is called for, but those get litigated.
    A complete abuse of the Judicial Branch. That is not their role. The Court cannot make law nor can they negate law (which is EXACTLY the same thing.)

    It is a presumption that when a law is passed it is constitutional. If for no other reason, staff have worked on making sure of such a determination.
    Yes, that is the presumption. However, the People make the final determination as to whether a law is Constitutional.

    It depends on what "law" means. The executive branch has rule making authority given to it by Congress so that the minutia can be dealt with more effectively than if Congress struggled with the issue. Break the rule and you will be fined and may even be charged. Sounds like law to me.
    But that is an inaccurate assessment. No rule can get you fined or convicted in a fair trial. Anyone can be charged. That does not imply guilt (though most people who are arrested are guilty.)

    Some may wish that it were fixed, but it clearly is not. Just consider how 14th jurisprudence has changed through the last 100 years, and hopefully will change so that 2A applies to the states. Nothing is fixed except the basic architecture of 3 branches and individual states.
    The Amendments are part of the Constititution, which is fixed, The Fourteenth has been horribly misinterpreted and its purpose was clearly to provide citizenship to the newly freed slaves. It has NOTHING to do with the Bill of Rights as virtually every justive since its ratfication agrees. See Cruikshank. See Adamson. Read Justice Frankfurter. Read Charles Fairman.

    Beyond that, it seems just about everything is open to interpretation by the forces on one side or another of various issues. From innumerable decisions, a new understanding of an old document emerges.
    There is no new understanding. The ONLY issue is the intent of the FOunders at the Consitution's inception. It does not change based on political winds, no matter how much libertarians and liberals wish it to be so.

    Rules are law when you can be fined, imprisoned, deported.
    Examples, please?

    Your general reasoning is mistaken. We have constitutional government mostly passing fully constitutional laws, and rarely are acts of Congress overturned by the judiciary on constitutional grounds, as compared to technical and more narrow rulings.
    The Judicial Branch has no power to overturn anything. Can you show me where in the Constitution that power is provided?

    Unconstitutional laws are changed at the legislative level, sometimes based on the OPINION of the Judicial Branch, sometimes not.

    He has withstood the scrutiny of historians and is generally revered.
    Most people are unfamiliar with Jefferson and are ignorant of history. Thus, my signature...

    Uh, you are the one who attached the descriptor, "evil" to his name.
    No weasling out.
    No, I wrote that the Louisiana Purchase did not make him evil. He was a character assassin, a hypocrite, hated the Constitution and some other character flaws that I will not mention in the forum. That is what made him evil.


    Fine, when they stop giving out corporate welfare I'll be willing to talk about what they shouldn't give to the poor.
    The government should give nothing to the poor. Can you show me where in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to take my money and give it toa lazy bum?

    So let me see now. Uncle botches the levee construction around NO,
    The Federal government has no power to construct levees in New Orleans. Did you even read Madiso's veto of a public works bill?

    You are confusing socialism with communism. But never mind.
    To each according to their beeds, from each according to their ability. Call it what you want but it is an horrific idea and completely fails. That is exactly the road we are heading, unconstitutionally, i might add.

    The constitution is not a document designed to support capitalism or any other ism. It is a blueprint for governance, and a blue print for
    providing for the general welfare of the state and its people.
    Please read Madison;s veto Do you think he understood the Constitution and the role of the Federal government?

  13. #72
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    To me, that is the key important DC related issue. 2A must be upheld and extended as a check upon the states, otherwise the game is over.
    You have it COMPLETELY backwards. The states are a check on the Federal government NOT the other way around.

  14. #73
    Member Array natticarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    cincinnati
    Posts
    138
    Hopyard,
    Lets start off with your assertion that the TVA was needed. The joke of the matter is it was most definitely not. If you do a little research you might found a man named Wendell Wilkie and a nice little company called Commonwealth & Southern Corporation. They were in fact bringing power to the Tennessee valley before the TVA existed. Why did the TVA get the credit you ask? The answer is fairly simple. A government entity does not have to make a profit to stay afloat. The TVA came through and squashed Commonwealth & Southern because they were subsidized by the tax payer and could afford to charge lower rates. However not surprisingly their projects were hugely inefficient, over schedule and well over budget. Once Common Wealth turned over their plants to the TVA all the sudden the TVA raised rates to above what the private corporation ever charged.

    This is just one example of the many ways government creates inefficiencies in the market. The assertion that some areas would have never gotten power is patently false. If you want some more history on electric companies you can look up Ingersoll as well. His record is slightly more tainted because he engaged in tax evasion but to his credit it was taxes retroactively raised (meaning he already paid for the tax rate in that year and then they decided the tax rate should have been higher so they raised them).

    If you want to priase the governments ability to manage an economy take a look at those cases and Roosevelt's wonderful blue eagle program. I think if you examine the case of the Schechter brothers you will understand the deviousness of government interaction in the market.

    I do not deny the government has a role, but it should be in a purely regulatory fashion. It is fundamentally unfair for a government to participate in a market when they are the ones in charge of regulating it. This is like the referee playing in a game.

    As for the wonderful example of public education.Take a look at the k-12 systems results for the amount they spend per student (on the order of 12-18K per year) and tell me how great the government is at education.

  15. #74
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,603

    re:natticarry

    Quote Originally Posted by natticarry View Post
    Hopyard,
    Lets start off with your assertion that the TVA was needed. The joke of the matter is it was most definitely not. If you do a little research you might found a man named Wendell Wilkie and a nice little company called Commonwealth & Southern Corporation. They were in fact bringing power to the Tennessee valley before the TVA existed. Why did the TVA get the credit you ask? The answer is fairly simple. A government entity does not have to make a profit to stay afloat. The TVA came through and squashed Commonwealth & Southern because they were subsidized by the tax payer and could afford to charge lower rates. However not surprisingly their projects were hugely inefficient, over schedule and well over budget. Once Common Wealth turned over their plants to the TVA all the sudden the TVA raised rates to above what the private corporation ever charged.
    Without debating the TVA thing, mostly because I haven't studied it carefully, I know that there are many areas of the country where the power generation is owned by the local governments. This has been true when I lived in Iowa, and it is true where I live now in Texas. It was not true in NY where Con Ed generated the power and had some of the highest priced electricity in the country.

    The point is that there are things the private sector can not do, and when that is the case there is nothing wrong with government doing what needs doing. I don't care whether that is building universities, or water reservoirs. The same concept applies. There is a real role for government when the private sector fails--which it does with very considerable frequency and with great disaster for many; think Enron, WorldCom, GM, AIG, BOA, and the 90% of small businesses which don't make it through their first year.

    This is just one example of the many ways government creates inefficiencies in the market.
    I'm pretty tired of hearing about market efficiencies when there is clearly no such thing; especially when the market is the stock and bond market; certain commodity markets (oil); and the labor market itself.

    The assertion that some areas would have never gotten power is patently false. If you want some more history on electric companies you can look up Ingersoll as well. His record is slightly more tainted because he engaged in tax evasion but to his credit it was taxes retroactively raised (meaning he already paid for the tax rate in that year and then they decided the tax rate should have been higher so they raised them).
    I'm uninterested in the story of Ingersol, though I own some IR stock. Facts are indisputable. There are many communities which would not have power, or hospitals, or universities, in a few cases broadband, were it not for the actions of the local governmental authorities. LA wouln't have water were it not for the Hoover Dam. Want to play some more and tell me again there is no role for government in providing essential components of our economy?

    If you want to priase the governments ability to manage an economy take a look at those cases and Roosevelt's wonderful blue eagle program. I think if you examine the case of the Schechter brothers you will understand the deviousness of government interaction in the market.
    It is fashionable right now for those rt of center to engage in revisionist history of the Roosevelt administration. Tell me again how great things were under Hoover?

    I do not deny the government has a role, but it should be in a purely regulatory fashion.
    This is actually rather settled. Government has already had a large role in a variety of major endeavors; maybe we could return to one in which its sole role is regulatory, but I doubt it. Remember all the yelling and screaming from the business community demanding deregulation of the airlines? Deregulation of banks? Deregulation of
    the telecoms? Did that work out pretty well? I once owned Eastern Airlines stock. well, maybe you aren't old enough to have watched them go belly up right after they got what they wanted, deregulation.

    It is fundamentally unfair for a government to participate in a market when they are the ones in charge of regulating it. This is like the referee playing in a game.
    This I will agree with. And it may be a serious problem with a government option health plan if such is to coexist with private plans.
    The conflict is obvious.

    As for the wonderful example of public education.Take a look at the k-12 systems results for the amount they spend per student (on the order of 12-18K per year) and tell me how great the government is at education.
    Mostly I was talking about government supported Universities. But even in the K- 12 schools, most of our problems have less to do with who is running them than with who is going to them and what we expect from them. The mean IQ is 100. One third (the bunch with a
    roughly 90 or lower IQ) are not capable of learning much and we waste our resources attempting to force them through to a HS degree, let alone have any expectation that they attend college. If we had realistic expectation of our kids, and didn't try to turn hopelessly brainless into scholar, many of the problems would disappear. But that discussion is for another time.

  16. #75
    Member Array natticarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    cincinnati
    Posts
    138
    "Mostly I was talking about government supported Universities. But even in the K- 12 schools, most of our problems have less to do with who is running them than with who is going to them and what we expect from them. The mean IQ is 100. One third (the bunch with a
    roughly 90 or lower IQ) are not capable of learning much and we waste our resources attempting to force them through to a HS degree, let alone have any expectation that they attend college. If we had realistic expectation of our kids, and didn't try to turn hopelessly brainless into scholar, many of the problems would disappear. But that discussion is for another time."

    I find this particularly offensive. I do not dispute that there are people of varying intelligence but I do dispute that it is impossible for anyone without a mental disability to pass HS. As for universities, if you look at a majority of the schools that are prestigious and noteable they are largely supported by donations and tuition and government involvement is minimal.

    You claim these things (as a fact no less) would have never existed in these places but I do not believe that to be true where there is a true need and people are willing to pay there will always be a solution it just depends on if people want something bad enough. Hoover, hilarious attempt at actual revisionist history. Hoover was just as meddling as Roosevelt if you actually looked at the history and is partially to blame for the continued depression. If you actually considered the time period Roosevelt was in power and when the economy turned around you would realize he was president for 7 years before things turned around.

    deregulation caused Enron and and the mortgage's crisis? Also laughable the regulations requiring lending to sub prime candidates were the actual root of the problem.

    These are quick and easy facts (not speculation like there would never be power in an area if it wasn't done 80 years ago.) to find even bodies like the CBO admit the regulation requiring the loans are at the root of the housing problems.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Another Youtube Video On the Doomsday Treaty
    By tkruf in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 30th, 2010, 05:24 PM
  2. gun ban due to UN treaty
    By Tom G in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2010, 03:08 AM
  3. U.N. Gun Ban Treaty
    By ECHOONE in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: January 24th, 2010, 06:04 PM
  4. International Treaty to Ban Handguns?
    By tallgrass in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 18th, 2010, 10:52 PM
  5. CIFTA treaty :the Obama backdoor gun control
    By Horsetrader in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2009, 01:21 PM

Search tags for this page

can 2nd amendment be redacted due to treaty

,

does the international treaty carry the most power?

Click on a term to search for related topics.